Vitorbarbosa,

[QUOTE]PM me before you make your financial commitment. I'm delighted to help and make sure you will not making mistake![QUOTE]

just wonder, are you doing this on goodwill or fees are chargeable per consultation session?

Tks.

i am also willing to provide advice on plan to be taken.anyone(ie:numbertwo) who want to understand GE medical plan. please pm me

hi guys,

first of sorry for the confusion. ING is indeed cheaper than Allianz if you look at a premium per 1k cover be it lifetime or just at a specific age (30). i have looked at the cummulative premium due for cover 1-70 and then calculated the average cost per 1k cover. why can i do this without knowing future medical inflation? first of i have todays premiums for various plans. so in todays terms i can give an absolute number to compare. this is good but but not perfect. but there is also another important thing to consider: i can assume that medical inflation will apply to all plans. so UNLESS the risk structure varies significantly between insurers (which it should if you look at such a large age band) then it can be assumed with a decent probability that the medical inflation will be by and large the same across insurers and as such premiums will rise in tandem. so the cheapest plan will likely remain the cheapest plan. mind you this will only apply to a 1k cover comparison and will be more true for high-end plans than low-end plans because the buffer (annual limit/lifetime limit) is larger and it attracts a better range of insured parties than a low-end plan. the uncertainty for low-end plans will be significantly higher. you can also see this if you look at the cost for low end plans. long term cover hovers around 15-20 RM per 1k cover whereas for the high end plans its about 5 RM. its simply more likely to have a higher percentage of claims in comparison to the limit (i.e. a 5k claim on 50k limit is 10% with 500k limit its just 1%).
anyway - it's a good rule of thumb to do a comparison. you could if you want to feed the entire historical premiums into an econometric forecast and start predicting the inflation rate for each plan and then derive a projected forcast. i dont know for sure but i think it would not be that much different for a look at a 70yrs cover.

i very much agree with the argument made regarding the switch. switches are only possible until you get really sick. then you will be stuck with whatever plan you hold at that point in time or face heavy loadings. but this also means that while you are in good health you should do a regular survey to ensure you have the best possible cover given your requirements and market offers.

and i am very much convinced that there is a personal best plan for everyone around given personal priorities / requirements and the plans in the market. it might not be the dream plan but it can be the best the market has to offer you. slight difference in perspective from what Vitorbarbosa is aiming at - yes i did understand what you mean

what i was pointing out with the top up idea is this:

you can get a wide cover for the major issues and add a plan with a high deductable that covers a specific subfield that you really want to have. this of course leads to a multitude of permutation options and as such would require a programm to find the cheapest cover.

for example you can combine axa 100k plan (7,65 per k for a male 1-70 avg) with a top up plan that comes with a deductable of 10 or 20k. the first part would be covered by axa in case of dialysis - 20k limit - the extra cost could be as little as 2,45 per k extra.

so your costs end up at 10,10 per k cover.

if you want a higher annual/lifetime limit i.e. you take the 500k plan from axa and top it up with 2,45 (tokio marine) you end up at a cost of 6,69 per k - albeit you get a very high cover - 500k + 150k booster (750k lifetime limit). and the premium you have to pay is of course higher than for a 100k plan. i hope i did make a bit of sense here

to do a number comparison: axa 100k + tokia marine medic partner 150k plan gives an average premium of 1134 RM for males (1-70). ING is 941,66. so its 200 bucks extra that give you: no lifetime limit, 750 lifetime 150k limit booster from TM and 50k p.a. dialysis, 150k cancer. to me this does make sense esp. since i am not stuck with the 300k limit from ING - which also applies to dialysis and cancer btw.

sorry for the long post. i hope it was not too confusing/complicated. not that easy to formulate the underlying considerations in a straight-forward manner all the time.

PJusa, I do that on goodwill. No Charge. Did it with mtsen. But he gave me a lunch treat. That's very nice of him.

I don't mean I can teach but I will share what I know/learnt from my financial mathematics, investment and of course my actuarial mathematics classes with you all.

Sadly, I'm only available around KL, so further away from here is not possible.

my plan is when I am strike by irrecovarable illness, I don't need any new insurance anymore. I have a to do list for such incident and by then, most personal finance stuff will become less important to me. When its time to die, just die. The last thing I want is to hold on just for the sake of holding on. this way, I live my daily life with full conscious what the consequences may be.

What I have on TM is they have 84k limit on Kidney dialysis and cancer, 80k limit on surgeon fee, 25k on anesthetist etc. which TM plan has unlimited cancer treatment ?

---

Added on August 12, 2009, 1:47 am


I think I get the concept but I am not sure if it works for my case. If I have both AXA and TM, I would still have kidney dialysis limit at 60k+84k=114k
if I go for ING, my limit is the annual limit which is 150k.

am I right to say your above plan is only valid if one thinks lifetime limit is more important than no limit on dialysis ?

---

Added on August 12, 2009, 2:14 amneed help again ... when I told one of the agents that I favor ING's no limit on kidney outpatient, then he said the limit is actually for the good of insured ... see below message ...

Zurich is care for the policy holders protection . The limitation is not to limit their coverage but to make sure they can use the given benefit for a long term . By giving them the annual limit , the client will make sure they use only the allocated limit annually rather then use up the entire limit within 2 to 3 years .

what do you think ?

This post has been edited by mtsen: Aug 12 2009, 02:14 AM

mtsen,

quickly - i am aware of your worst case plan. i am not really convinced it will work out but that is up to you entirely. i guess this is a very personal decision so i wont be meddling with it.

the TM plan in question is Medic Plus, the limit you quoted is from Medic Plus which is a full fledged basic H&S plan.

the limit for dialysis is 50k in this plan. which might not do the trick. i would like to know why you are so keen on such a high dialysis treatment limit. i am also quite worried about this and i think - correct me if i am wrong - that 50k from TM plus 60k life from axa (which included the takehome drugs and all) should be enough.

my axa's plan has a lifetime limit of 60k + TM annual 50k (if i need to stretch it ofer 750k this can last me 15 years) so total overall maximum lifetime is 810k for dialysis if i dont touch the TM plan for any other claims. if i want to look at the max cover i can get over 15 years this means 54k p.a.

this translates into around 345 RM per session if we assume i need to go three times a week which is the ideal solution.

if i am very disciplined and i skip all the "bad" food i could get away with 2x4 hrs per week which means RM 520 per treatment. if my previous research was done properly (i only called national kidney foundation to get average numbers a couple of years ago) this will cover the costs involved. i used to work as a dialysis nurse for almost 8 years when i was younger and the treatment frequency was 2 or 3 times weekly in private centers.

i read your info about ING (why the reply has zurich (=MCIS zurich?) i dont know). it's true but wether its care i doubt. it's simply economical. with every year that passes chances are you might get a transplant or die. the last option of course is more attractive to the insurer. however with the standard of dialysis it is very much possible to live a perferctly regular life (minus the weekly sessions) and even work during the rest of the week. you can last 10, 15, 20 years on the machines - and if done well it can be even less risky than a transplant which means plenty of supression drugs to keep the body rejecting the transplant and all. we had a patient (late 30s) who had two (2) kidney transplants during a course of 4 years. both were rejected though and he went back to the machines.

so: IF i need dialysis for really long - i am screwed either way. to me the AXA + TM option worked out to cover the longest period (15 yrs) given the price i pay and given that i really want good cover for other stuff also. if you look purely at dialysis, i am not aware of any plan or plan combination that i can squeeze a higher cover out than 810k overall. you can of course simply buy a third cover. dunno if TM allows you to buy 2 but berjaya also has a top up plan.

perhaps my thinking is more shallow in relative to yours, I am not looking for HIGH dialysis payout, I was just considering a plan that is simpler and has less restriction. I don't know how this plan will be utilized but I just want to face less resistance when I need to use it. Commonly industry put a limit on cancer and kidney outpatient, I assume its due to high claim in the past. It makes me think majority of the people claim their policy out due to kidneys/cancer outpatient ? And if I join the majority one day , the last thing I would want is to face a limitation when I need the money ...

the last part is I told a Zurich guy that I like ING and he responded me that way ...

I think I am starting to get the idea of mix and match that you suggested, I would probably pick MSIG Golden Premier annual limit 2mil and no lifetime limit and AXA SmartCare Optimum PLAN 1 ... that way, you have the BEST value for money plan up to age 64 and then AXA's one continue with no lifetime limit until age 80

---

Added on August 12, 2009, 2:59 pmbtw, is the search over for most others now ? Am I the one procrastinate the most as usual ?

PJusa, I just realize Great Eastern is not in your spreadsheet ?



This post has been edited by mtsen: Aug 12 2009, 02:59 PM

mtsen,

GE is in my mailbox. my daughter is sick and i dont have the time to fit it in. i am not sure if i have time these days as regular work is piling up while i need to spend a lot of time with her. she sitting on my lap now

quick info: MSIG plan is bad. its non guaranteed renewal and the overall annual limit of 2M is most misleading. the plan has an actual 250k only sublimit on hospitalisation. the rest of the 2m comprises of organ transplant 250, 500k evacuation and 1 m overseas something which i forgot. and i spoke with them. once you claim they will most likely exclude past conditions. so the plan is rather worthless. also the age limit is very low. but yes i think you got my drift.

INGs plan will probably be slightly easier but the ease will come at a price that you just dont that much actual cover. full refund is not always the best as it comes with the annual limit attached.

i think the reason why most plans come with a sublimit on dialysis and cancer is because technically its not a hospitalisation but a short visit (4 hours in total for dialysis is the norm). those are generally not covered by H&S plans so you might want to consider it an added benefit instead. the bulk of a cancer treatment cost for example is or can also be made to fall under hospitalisation (check yourself in). the main costs of a kidney failure however are with the treatment if its longterm. you might want to confirm this via a call to an insurer. they can give you estimates. i got quoted about 100k for cancer average costs, with less than half of the costs beeing outpatient. dunno if its true but that is the ballpark figure i got from two insurers (pacific and allianz if i remember correctly). since the numbers were pretty much identical from both insurers i took it as a given average.

I think there r many critical illness plan offerred by insurance company.

Some have monetary return after certain period and some dun have. Means that watever money u paid is "hangus" unless u hit the jackpot. Meaning u got critical illness.

Those without any monetary return will be much cheaper if compare with those with monetary return.

PJusa,

take cares ... H1N1 2nd phase is coming and so is common flu vastly over run us now ... which btw, I heard that since H1N1 is declared stage 6 by WTO, its NOT covered by our normal insurance plan ... ie. non critical and not claimable under H&S ....

ekestima

"Means that watever money u paid is "hangus" unless u hit the jackpot. Meaning u got critical illness."

that is a critical illness policy and not a medical plan

"Those without any monetary return will be much cheaper if compare with those with monetary return."

those are the only ones worth considering as those are actually insurance plans.

---

Added on August 12, 2009, 3:44 pmmtsen,

no worries. if you get hospitalised for H1N1 you can claim it. no problem. any medically necessary hospitalisation is covered.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Aug 12 2009, 03:44 PM

medical plan's jackpot is hospitalization

or more like consolation prize ...

This post has been edited by mtsen: Aug 12 2009, 04:07 PM

H1N1 is cover under medical card

Most insurers have an exclusion clause on Communicable Disease that require quarantine by law. So if H1N1 is not a communicable disease require quarantine by law, hence it should be covered.

However there are also companies that does not exclude communicable disease that require quarantine by law, e.g AIA etc.
You would notice that there are companies that exclude HIV or AIDS and there are companies that cover HIV and AIDS as long as it is not pre existing or there is no non disclosure at point of application,

As such price/premium is important, the benefits and coverage is equally important.

Even if you strike by H1N1 now, you might not get to stay in private hospital. When you go to private hospital after you having symptoms of H1N1, some private hospital will still refer you to goverment hospital.

You may want to check your fact. For H1N1, quite a few private hospitals have been designated to treat H1N1

Yes I know this.

The fact is what Im saying is based on what a patient that went to government hospital for H1N1 diagnosis said. He went to private hospital to do checking, but the hospital refer him to government hospital with the reason short of medicine.

at the end, the most important part is to find a doctor who is willing to review your insurance plan before writing the medical report ... or is that not ethical ?

I remembered reading somewhere on a detail assessment on why H1N1 is not covered and admitted by the insurer, I will dig that one out and see there are any new info we haven't covered here ...

---

Added on August 14, 2009, 10:26 amAbout above 'alteration' from ING, my ING friend commented that it is a common clause across all insurers. He also highlight another clause that says,

" ... insurer also remains the right to withdraw the whole plan (where everyone will be affected) ... generally after approval from ... blah blah blah ... "

so insurer typically do not change your plan specifically, but when too many people claim too much in the whole plan, they may stop the whole thing entirely ... legally.

can some experts other than ING also confirm these are the 2 common clauses in medical coverages ?

Thanks !

This post has been edited by mtsen: Aug 14 2009, 10:26 AM

mtsen,

every policy is subject to portfolio withdrawal. but if claims are getting to high the insurance will generally not withdraw the plan but just adjust premiums. that is what the premium adjustment is for. portfolio withdrawal is bad for the image and not that easily done.

the alterations is generally applicable only to the blaket policy (i.e. the policy that everyone is subjected to). this doesnt mean you are subject to individual exclusions - i havent seen the policy wording for ING yet. if you post it here or send it to me i take a look for you as to how save the plan is for you. just takes a few minutes to find the important clauses.

---

Added on August 14, 2009, 11:35 ammtsen,

every policy is subject to portfolio withdrawal. but if claims are getting to high the insurance will generally not withdraw the plan but just adjust premiums. that is what the premium adjustment is for. portfolio withdrawal is bad for the image and not that easily done.

the alterations is generally applicable only to the blaket policy (i.e. the policy that everyone is subjected to). this doesnt mean you are subject to individual exclusions - i havent seen the policy wording for ING yet. if you post it here or send it to me i take a look for you as to how save the plan is for you. just takes a few minutes to find the important clauses.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Aug 14 2009, 11:35 AM

understood, plan withdrawal was referring to those guarantee renewal with fix premium plans ...

so I guess its safe to say its a common industry practice and not something specific exclusion from ING !?

*sigh* life, tpd, critical illness and pa are so much simpler ...