mtsen,

bad claims experience in what sense? i have never had any bad experiences before. only once the insurance mistook the hospital invoice for a new bill and asked me to submit further info. dunno why damansara send invoice to them that looked like second bill. most things were paid in full only one time some deduction was made which i asked them about and then they reversed the deduction. i think claims is about beeing sure of your rights also - or you use the agent to do lah. i think claims will be same for GI and life. both wont be happy to pay but will do as per cover - latest if you push axa so far has always been very very attentive - even emails get answered professionally withing an hour or two during business hours.

numbertwo,

i guess 20/80 still applies. not entirely sure though. amendmend clause is almost always present but only applies to the portfolio. also amendmend is better than alteration

mtsen,

only reason why such a thing would occur is due to different covers. allianz is known for expensive policies in europe but also for beeing a very good paymaster.

the part about the comission is however very very true. dont want to imply anything but if i would be an agent i would tend to recommend what is most profitable for me and not just was is best for you.

mtsen,

i just dont have that much of high hopes in agents that depend upon a GI and a life insurance to pay. in that situation i would optimize and not purely based upon the client. of course you would have to be subtle there. but i dont want to drift into ethics here. just saying it's in (most ppls) human nature to put oneself before others.

anyway you mentioned ING offers better bang for buck spend. i compared the 100k plans from AXA and ING purely based on annual limit. at age 30 for a male avg. cost per 1k insured annual limit is 4,2400 for axa and 7,5500 ING. if you look at from birth to age 70 to compare the avg. cost per 1k insured is 7,6551 axa vs. 9,4166 ing. (edit: posted cost per RM cover by accident)


if you base your decision on the dialysis/cancer cover you might want to get the cheapest comprehensive plan and top it up with a generous "top-up" plan. havent calculated this but it could very well be cheaper if you choose plans carefully.


This post has been edited by PJusa: Aug 5 2009, 11:48 PM

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.

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.

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.

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

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

i dont think they are simpler. its the structure per se that is complicated. i find life even more complicated because of its nature. i rather stick with plain insurances that cover what they are for and thats that

but yes CI is simple cause not many offers and they all are almost the same.

mtsen,

can you share the policy wording for ING with me? i am really interested in it for personal reasons too. i am running behind quite a bit with my comparison but i will continue doing it so i have an overview once and for all. i am basically stuck with trying to get PRU running and well i dont really want to skip it. the plan might actually be interesting to some esp. when taken up very early.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Aug 14 2009, 03:35 PM

numbertwo,

first the clauses. i like number 4) "if it decides to discontinue transacting hospitalization and surgical business" - means as long as ING offers H&S plans the portfolio withdrawal does not apply.

5) is not that bad "this policy" refers to the policy jacket not the individual terms. and it does pop up in pretty much every policy - it has to since this also allows the company to improve the cover. for example AXA adjusted rates and improved coverage with room categories and additional cover. but you always double check with underwriting.

i am bothering with PRUhealth because while this plan is linked to life it does offer some benefits to interested parties who intend to cover their kid from early on. while there are various disadvantages i like to have all the plans so it's a proper evaluation but yes, for now i shall skip the premium comparison - it's a pain to compare like that. have entered the benefits though.

Justin1000,

i have no idea where you get this clause from. i have checked the policies i have at hand (TM, AXA) and neither have a clause like that in the policy wording. in fact H1N1 is a derivative of the flue. it's covered by default (no need to make an announcement for it either) with the medical policy just as a case of the real flue would be covered if it requires hospitalisation. and i have seen other policies (MSIG, Pacific etc. ) which also had no such clause. mind you i am speaking for general insurance and not life insurance here. but i doubt the situation is different with life.

c.o.o.l,

a transfer would be a different situation i guess. if you are quaranteened they will surely not agree to a transfer. but i am guessing only there. anyone can confirm?

numbertwo,

many thanks for the pointer. found it also - well hidden behind AIDS - but i got a clarification: the exlcusion applies to quarantine only if not mistaken i.e. to individuals who are not currently ill—but who are known to have been exposed to the illness. if you get ill, the exclusion does not apply. will double check with underwriting on this.

mtsen,
while you do have a point i dont see why investment should be linked with insurance. it just doesnt feel right - i use my savings and put them in unit trusts and other things. at the end of the day i dont think the performance will be much different on a 30 yrs horizon. the disadvantages have been highlighted (rider, higher premium, higher overhead etc.). its the most convenient way to get cover - like set it and forget it but its most likely not the cost efficient or most flexible choice.

prudential,

could you elaborate where you get this information from? on what grounds would this be possible? i have a contract and the insurer has little room to refuse a claim that is covered - H1N1 is flue like any other. if i get hospitalised for it my insurance will have to pay the bill. wether 1 person died from it or 200,000. the deathtoll should be entirely unrelated anyway.

mtsen,

i am not sure about the investment part. i gives a potentially false sense of security. i prefer to know what i really have to pay and go along with it. furthermore if PRU is publishing the average premium due subject to investment results, its lowering the perceived premiums to some degree by incorperating expected profits. it effectivel clouds the actual costs of the insurance. i am also not sure how the problem of medical inflation is handled here. the way i see it is that this policy is not transparent. c.o.o.l might be of great help in sheding some light to the actual costs though.
i however dont like it when costs are placed in a way that is mostly uncomparable to the general public. it keeps people from beeing able to compare apple to apple.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Aug 18 2009, 03:29 PM

hi,

due to the fact that there seems to be a lot of doubt regarding H1N1 i would like to let you guys know that i called AXA, Allianz and Tokio Marine earlier. They all related this clarification which I will post here for your information:

1) The quarantine clause does not mean the insurance will not pay if you get H1N1 and need to be hospitalised. It means you will not be covered by your insurance IF you are quarantined for the costs of the quarantine if your are not infected.

2) If you are hospitalised due to H1N1 you are covered as to the limitations of the respective policy. There is no question about this.

3) If you are not hospitalised but get H1N1 you are not covered UNLESS you have outpatient benefits. Outpatient benefits would also cover H1N1. The medical plans in malaysia usually cover only H&S costs.

4) No insurer can or will start to exclude H1N1 cover from any policies in force as per above due to "too many cases". There is no such thing as a restrospective exclusion. Also all three insurers assured me they will not start to put exclusions into new policy blankets. Of course this is no written guarantee but I would have been surprised if they would have said anything else to be honest.

I hope this puts you guys at ease a bit.

IF any insurer decides to give their insured better cover and also cover the costs of H1N1 unrelated to H&S then even better. Otherwise there is no need to make any bulletin as the one from Mr. Yem - its understood and part of exisiting contracts. there never was any doubt about the cover to begin with.

for impartial analysis at a price you can try any of the following brokers - they cover all insurers and wont recommend any specific plan just because they cover it. money spent on a broker is money well spend in malaysis IF they know what they are doing - i never tried one so i cant vouch for them. but i would choose them over an agent any time:

i found those two that do personal insurance so far:

1) http://www.protac.com.my/

2) http://www.anika.com.my/

might be of help to anyone thinking about cover and looking for a professional advise. free advise can always get here though

i agree with mtsen - if you cant even read a report or dont want to bother to read then then you simply cant be helped.

IF a broker would indeed be impartial they would be in violation of their code of conduct now? (you can read it here: http://www.mitba.org.my/consumers.php)

i think what you refer to is the fact that a broker can send millions of premiums to the insurer - and they can thus use their negotiating power and get better deals on some products with some insurers.

if you have information that indicates otherwise please do let us know. so far the info you provided was merely a statement without any foundation. i'd be interested to see if you can substantiate it

i dont agree - in general you always (see posts before) fare better with a general insurance IF it is guaranteed renewable. selling someone who is looking for medical cover a life insurance is bad advice if you ask me. those are entirely different products and you pay for stuff you dont want without having any substantial benefits from the product. the agent though is getting a higher comission %-wise and the premium is usually much higher.

your package seems priced OK even though i dont know your age epalbee3. you should however consider a higher life/annual limit for medical cover since a serious illness might cost more than your cover can provide. also a lifetime limit means you will eat this up over time and at one point stand without coverage. better to take a cover without lifetime limit if you can afford it. you can look around what offers are around or let me know your budget and i let know what insurers offer a pack that fits your pocket (no charge, no agent)

epalbee3,

ok - one thing first: dont confuse CI and health insurance.

CI pays a lump sum amount in case of diagnostic and survival of one of the 36 "dread deseases". there is no additional benefit to this insurance and premium will go through the roof once you get older. you should use a CI (if you really want to) only while you are young and the risk is low. that way CI can serve as a means of providing a financial cushion should you be unable to work further or in case you die provide relief to your family.

H&S (hospitalisation and surgical insurance) on the other hand pays your bills up the limit. the scope is pretty much that - hospital and surgery + some after care. this is what you need to focus on. if your H&S stops at 70 and you life longer who is paying the bills. i personally would want 80 or 100 for my H&S. CI can stop at 55 imho and cover can even decrease with age to provide adequate cover throughout time with low cost.

problem is: medical insurance will be damn expensive at 70++ so few insurance companies offer them. for example AXA, GE, AIA have plans that cover until 80 or 100. what you need to look at is the average costs until the end of the cover from your current age onwards. if you can afford the resulting average premium today, chances are you will be able to keep the policy in force despite inflation driving the premiums even higher in the future.

and yes: buy as much medical cover as you can afford .

my personal choice is H&S and PA over H&S and CI because PA covers more cases at a fixed price and high H&S covers the dread deseases too. CI is fine between 20 and 50 though but not entirely essential if you ask me.

that beeing said, i'd look into ways of increasing your annual H&S cover if you have the budget to spare. for example a so called top-up insurance with a high deductable is a very cost efficient solution to cover spikes. premium will be only a couple of 100 RM even for a 150k p.a. / 750 k lifetime extra cover.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Nov 17 2009, 01:22 PM

epalbee3,

from AXA you can use smartcare optimum (no life time limit, cover until 80). depending on the cover you choose you will end up with an average premium of around 50-300 RM per month for 35-80.

B.Health Net offers no lifetime limit, but only until 70

same for OAC Easi-Health

others offer waiver of lifetime limit for a fee.

GE MEDICARE 100 and Manucare100 both offer until 100 but the premium runs into 10s of thousands when you hit 80+ and this makes it totally unaffordable. i remember manulife is charging like 30 or 40 k for age 90 p.a.

if you ask me why the premium is so high? it's because this is the average damage plus a fee for the insurance that they expect you to cost them. so you should also expect that you yourself will have to pay this amount. if desaster strikes it will be higher though since the insurance only charges the average cost. so for a secure average damage you get protection from higher costs. still a fair deal to me unless you know you will cost less than average.

btw: you have a point with axa's limit per disability. but if you look at the shedule, there are no such specific limits as they cover full subject to custom and reasonable charges. i believe this clause applies to the additional benefits (kidney dialysis and cancer treatment) only. maybe someone from axa can confirm?