hi,

may i suggest you seperate the insurances? if you want medical cover, buy medical cover only. this will be a lot cheaper. for a very high cover, i believe AXA offers the highest limit (500k annually, no life-time limit). your kid will most likely be limited in choice by the plan you already have.

if you save yourself instead of getting the eduplan (buy bonds/investment fonds) then you save the policy overhead and the fat agent comission. why throw money out of the window? just buying the insurance will again minimize comission to the agent and thus maximise your money

investment-link insurances are a waste of money in my opinion. they sell uncessary insurances and waste by means of comissions. also you should always find an agent to split comission with or go direct. the savings are huge.

ChinHong86,

what is the annual limit? if the annual limit is low (i.e. below 300k) the coverage wont suffice for any serious illness. so it would be required to top-this up with a life-time limit / deductible policy to be prepared for serious illness.

chew_ronnie,

i believe it very much matters what policy you take. for a small kid its easy to get accepted so it makes sense to choose a policy with guarenteed renewal to cover for future sickness which would otherwise impose a loading or outright refusal to insure (see the dad's case of diabetic and hypertension). i would not consider any plan that does not offer some sort of guaranteed renewal.

i would like to hear why you think that an investment linked policy leads to lower premiums? if you look at the overall costs of the insurance they will be significantly higher and providing a lower coverage than a stand-alone policy. if you want to invest money, invest it seperately - this provides much greater flexibility and higher profits imho.

btw: i am not an agent so i wont push for any particular plan i just did a research through all available medical plans not too long ago to cover my own family.

gary_cts: to give you some sort of direction. please provide a budget you are willing to spend on the various types of insurance. no use suggesting a plan that cost you 1000++ if your budget is only 200++ p.a. for medical insurance.

---

Added on July 14, 2009, 11:25 amon an unrelated matter: I am looking for an agent for Tokio Marine to split comission for renewal of Medic Plus Family plan. No work for you just a quick renewal. Plan is used as top-up for AXA so you most likely will never have any work besides the renewal. If anyone is willing to split comission please message me and i let you place the policy in your account. current premium aroun 700 RM only cause we are young. we intend to keep the plan for long term though so the comission will pile up - it's free money

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 14 2009, 11:25 AM

hi chew_ronnie,

i appreciate your reply. i agree with you outpatient cancer/dialysis is critically important. for this very reason we have two plans (AXA 500k annual limit per head + Tokio Marine (10k deductable) to provide an extra 750k lifetime coverage on outpatient cancer/dialysis.

if you look at the mere rider cost the cost to cover 1 RM might be cheaper. but i am not sure if this is really the case. first of all it might be very hard to caugh up the funds required to cover 500k of medical fees. i am not sure what i would have to buy - maybe you can provide an example for this so we can compare a similar coverage. a lower coverage doesnt help that much with a really severe sickness afterall. this is the main problem with linked policies - the annual limit is often just not enough. it's actually cheaper to combine two policies - at least that is how it looks to me.

but the investment-linked rider medical policy does have major disadvantages to me: it's binding a lot of capital. to keep my medical cover i must maintain the insurance. i.e. once i have decided i am locked-in. the same would apply to some degree to a plain-vanilla medical insurance but it only locks me in with respect to health-care. i can add additional plans if i see fit and my investments are independant from the medical cover. this seems like a very important thing to me.

with respect to your premium buffer: i can also save the money i dont spend with the expensive rider attached life policy (bonds/fonds/whatever) and if i cant come up with the premium use those savings. again: total flexibility. this is what we do - we have a monthly budget for healthcare - the savings are placed in conservative investments to reduce the higher premiums in the future.
in that way the investment-link policy provides little benefit if any.

the only issue that still remains is that stand-alone policies usually only cover until 80 at the moment. hopefully this will change very soon as it's most needed when we are even older. but for now what can we do? the Great Eastern Policy that covers until 100 years of age has such a meager limit that it makes no sense to take it up early - you just eat up your allowance and the premiums are so high that you have a greater benefit if you save the policy premiums in government bonds

looking forward to discuss this further with you!

mtsen, why would you say no med insurance required until 6 years? of course i can fully claim any costs under a stand alone medical plan within the limits of the policy. please enlighten me what plan you cant fully claim under? certainly not any of the ones i am using for my daughter - i did read the TOS to the dot and it's my business to do contracts

chew_ronnie,

i agree there is one-fits-all solution. i guess this also very much depends on your healthcare budget. if you cant afford the old-age premium it's no use taking a high coverage plan. sadly malaysia does not provide a uniform coverage as in europe where the insurers compete by price and additional benefits (rehab, private room etc).

i can understand your remarks and i can accept them. but i feel that seperating insurances and not bundling them allows you for better flexibility. say i buy a med+crit.ill.+ILP with death and TPD - if i need to change any one of those components i am first of bound by the offers of one company only (cant get the best deals anymore) and i am more often than not stuck with what i have. cancelling such combi products is often accompanied by a big loss. that is why i like to split the insurances and the investments and this is also why i dont combine med.insurance with death and TPD. it's just easier - i can assess the policies annually and switch where it seems necessary. also you can easily plan for old age - i wont need death and TPD coverage to the same degree i need it now in 30 years. i might only need TPD after all

with respect to your advice for guranteed renewable plan: this is essential! i absolutely agree - never ever take a policy whose renewal is up to the company. you will regret it if major claims happen. also make sure there will never be personal loading after you have been accepted. anything less is not worth the paper the wording is printed on.

and i appreciate your comments on the med.ins. for kids - i totally agree. dont confuse death and crit.ill. with a medical insurance - those are different things alltogether and they do cover different risks.

personally i dont have critical illness cover since we deem the med. costs will be covered by the insurance. of course the lump sum might be used to cover for the fact that you cant work and as such makes sense if you are employed. if you have assets to dispose (i.e. a business or the like) it might be viable to continue the business with an extra employee so you can get payments from this or you might be able to sell it and get a lump sum payment this way.

but it reminds me that i still need to get crit. ill. cover for my daughter - despite the lien rule

numbertwo,

i am not sure i know all that much. i just did some research and formed an opinion. i hope i right (or close to it) but i will most likely only find out if i really need the medical insurance. hopefully i wont have to find out though.

i didnt say CI is mandatory. actually i believe it has nothing to do with the issue of medical insurance at all. the medical insurance should be chosen such that i will also pay for the required medical costs that arise from any critical illness (not just the 36 you can buy extra insurance for). this of course does not hold for AIDS since no insurance company in malaysia covers this through a medical card. but that is alltogether a different issue.

why is CI usefull? if you do have one of those 36 CIs - say a severe stroke - you might find yourself in a position that you can no longer work. if you are employed and you were looking at another 30 years of hard labour then you are in trouble. this is where a cleverly chosen CI insurance can help you by paying a lumpsum that closes the gap between your working life and retirement. as such the coverage should be enough for an instant retirement. to allow for this, it has to very very high at young age and then gradually go down to zero coverage at age 65 or whatever age you want to retire. this way you can effectively cover (most) of the risk of getting so sick that you will not be able to work. death and tpd usually only cover accidents and not sickness so CI has a use there.

i hope i did make sense - this is at least why i think CI makes sense. for my daughter i would probably want a cover of rm 2,000,000 - how high ould the premium be for that chew_ronnie? she is currently 17 months. i will compare this internationally - there are insurance companies that cover the risk of not beeing able to work anymore (and nothing else) even if you are not residing in their country (look for german, uk and irish insurances targeted at expats) and the cover is cheap. i believe for my kid and rm 1,000,000 my quote was a mere 60 EUR annual premium.

feel free to discuss this further

numbertwo,

i am aware of the limitations to the local policies. which is why i dont have a CI insurance from a malaysian insurance and neither does my wife. we do have a special insurance from a german company called "Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung". this one covers you in case you are unable to return to work for whatever reason. very usefull.

i will most likely be getting this for my daughter too.

the idea behind the high coverage for a young kid is the exact same as for a young family. i would like her to be able to take of herself and not being in the position that i have to take of her.

for your information: for a monthly payment of EUR 1400 (RM 7000) until age of 65, the premium is around 650 EUR (RM 3250) for a 33 yr old male p.a. - as long as the degree of beeing unable to work is at or above 50% full payment will be made to you. this is very usefull - for lower monthly payments, the premium would be a lot lower. you pay roughly 50 EUR p.a. for every 100 EUR of monthly payment required.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 15 2009, 06:04 PM

chew_ronnie,

certain CI in europe are indeed very very cheap. i guess this also has to do with a different risk assesment. as you can see the premium for a all-round protection in case you are unable to work costs 10x the premium. this is largely due to the fact that also cases such as accidents and any and all deseases are covered. the only thing that matters is you cant work and all that is needed is a doctor to certify it (unless your claim is fishy - but that will always stir an investigation anywhere).

the allianz offer is very costly for just a CI insurance. nothing attached to the policy?

premium alone would total up to 236k roughly until 65 - or is the premium degrading over time? if you invest this much you end up at 750k or even more dont you?

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 15 2009, 06:12 PM

chew_ronnie,

i know i know... the policy premium is quoted you is only CI (but i think it covers a wider range of sickness my list has 75 listings) and no death, TPD and its not ILP. this most likely explains the entire difference in premium.

death alone for RM 1M would probably be another 60-100 EUR annually, TPD is the costly part i presume but this is not available with the insurance we use. they have this "unable to work policy" instead which is not a lump sum but pretty similar in premium to what you quoted just now so the secret is reveiled. splitting the insurances can get specific covers you want at very low prices

and yes, we'll go ahead and take the policy from the german insurer. they are surprisingly unworried about the fact that they insure a malaysian citizen. they say they cover worldwide no matter what. just reserve the right to check with a german doc if they doubt the diagnosis which seems reasonable.

hi gary,

for your annual budget you can get your son a very good plan. i personally have chosen the axa smartcare plan with 500 k annual limit (costs around 700 RM for my 17 mth old daughter annually) and topped it up with tokio marine medic partner (10k deductable) to adjust the low cover for outpatient dialysis and cancer treatment from axa (they only pay lifetime 60k each, so 10k deductable for either kidney is more than enough and allows for 6 cancers before you have to pay a sen). tokio marine covers 150k max annually and 750k lifetime which is anough as an extra safety net if you ask me. premium is like 160 bucks or so.

so the combination will set you up nicely.

critical illness wont be needed from medical cost point of view then. if you want to protect death and TPD you might want to include him in your family plan if possible (for us this wasnt possible, we use MCIS 1M cover which does not take kids under 21).

the 3k savings is a good thing we forgot to buy it last year but will surely do it this december. instant savings you can even use the taxes saved to buy/pay for some of the insurances. so it's win-win!

if you go for foreign insurance policies you need to approach them. many will refuse some wont. usually some insurance companies in UK / Ireland / Germany (we have or had from all three countries) have offers made for expats but those are often open to others too. for example allianz worldwidecare in ireland offers a really sweet medical insurance with optional outpatient cover. take a look at their website - the premiums are too high for me even for the asian plans. healthcare is not that costly here and they seems to cater more for hong kong ppl but its an option. we used to be with them for around 3 years and they paid all bills promptly on time and even the delivery of my wife was paid for entirely. nice!

hi numbertwo,

yes tokio marine has a guaranteed renewal after one claims free year ("Renewal guaranteed after 12 months of 'claims-free' period."). since it's only meant as a top up plan this should not be an issue.

i also looked into medi-major but found the premium way to high to serve as a top-up cover. this would probably be more suitable for someone who uses it as a standalone policy and then pays the initial costs him/herself.

for us the tokio marine sounded good for the outpatient cancer / dialysis benefits. so you can first claim from the basic insurance and then from tokio marine anything exceeding 10k, thus keeping some buffer on the basic insurance. the high life-time limit (if you only look at those two benefits) should be more than sufficient even if you are truely unlucky.

the only drawback is that the policy can only be renewed until 70. i truely hope Tokio Marine and Axa and all the others will soon offer their policies with a higher renewal age. there definitely is a lot of movements in the last two years and 100 seems to be become the new 80 so there is hope for the young(er) ones among us

gary,

tokio marine medic plus: http://www.tokiomarine.com.my/products/medical_plus.htm

AXA: http://www.axa.com.my/index.asp?pageid=pro...&prodid2=health (i use SmartCare Optimum)

Allianzworldwidecare (get a quote, select worldwide cover without US/Canada): http://www.allianzworldwidecare.com/index/...nce-cover-quote

i also used to contact AXA UK and others. the easiest is to look for medical insurance for expats in google - the are many brokers that offer to compare available plans. you dont really have to be an expat to get cover from them. most will insure you just like that. let them do the searching for you but be prepared for very hefty premiums. allianzworldwidecare can easily reach a premium of 10,000 RM and higher p.a. for age braket of 30-35 already.

the german insurances will probably be only of help if you speak german. if you want to have some anyway let me know. i would suggest you stick with english speaking insurances otherwise.

hi numbertwo,

i think you misunderstood them - or did i? if you buy the policy and dont make any claims in the first 12 months you have a guaranteed renewal for the future. i will double check on this. tokio marine is brand new for me. if you are right and there is only a renewal guaranteed if the previous year no claims then this insurance is worthless too despite the nice coverage for outpatient cancer.

edit: i checked the policy wording and i think they communicated this wrongly to you. see this quote:

"15. Period of cover and renewal

[..]
Upon completion of 12 months of continous insurance under this Policy without any intimation of claims or Hospitalization whatsoever, only then this policy will be renewable at the option of insured subject to the terms, conditions and termination at each of the anniversary of the policy date. [..]

Such changes [add: to the premiums] shall be applicable to all insureds irrespective of their claim experience according to the company's risk assessment"

the way i read it is that after you go through 12 months (the first ones) without any claims they cant refuse to insure you. and you wont ever be subject to individual loading after this period. in others words its good for you if you survice the first year. i double checked this with one of my companies lawyers and he agrees to this interpretation. this doesnt make it saver but i think this will be the way. if you want double check with TM's underwriting. i would be willing to dispute any loading after the first year in a court of law - i think i would win

cheers!

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 16 2009, 11:37 AM

hi guys,

let me adress a few things raised here:

1. the tokio marine plan is guaranteed renewable after an initial period of 12 months without any claims. guaranteed renewable and renewable at the option of the policy holder are identical in this case.

the key phrase here is : "this policy will be renewable at the option of insured" i.e. wether renewal or not is solely up to the insured (i.e. if you decide to pay the current premium all is good). also no loading after the first year. it's legally binding - once they take you and you pass 12 months of continous cover you are in the game.

this is of course a catch and explains partially why the premium is low.

2. why is the premium so much lower than other policies?

because you have to pay 10,000 RM for each and every desease first. it's only meant as a top-up plan for people who actually already have a different plan as a basis. unlike for example the allianz plan with a deductable, with tokio marine room and board is not excluded.

3. renewal guarantee

any plan - no matter from which insurance company - has a clause that allows the insurance company to withdraw the plan entirely. you will not be able to escape this.
normally if you choose a reputable insurance company this will not happen. should is still happen, you will most often find that you will be offered a take-over into a plan close to your original plan though.

4. sihat malaysia

as chew_ronnie said: they dont guarantee renewal. in other words: their medical cover is worthless as your friend experienced. since they can refuse cover at renewal, their premium can be a lot lower than a guaranteed renewal plan. you basically pay a (high) loading for this feature that is build into the plans premiums by default.

5. i dont believe the statements made that life insurance companies are less likely to remove a plan from the portfolio is true. i believe that the risk assesment of the companies is equally good and will result in equal probability of withdrawal. if you look at the portfolio risk, probably general insurance portfolio is even less risky. ppl who buy med.insurance alone are probably the most health conscious ppl in the pool and thus pose the smallest risk. this is only a guess and i can very well be wrong there. of course it's true - the larger the group of insured (and the lower their individual risk) the better the insurance can cover for claims cases. thus its always desireable to be in a large group when it comes to insurances.

edit: one more thing to life insurance with med. cover: this is not really designed to be a medical cover to begin with. it's merely a rider. this should tell you a lot already. get the cover (i.e. medical cover) from a company that seriously covers this risk. i.e. by medical cover from a medical insurance and by life insurance (if you want to) from a life insurance company. those are entirely different things and i dont believe they should be combined to begin with. if you ever need to terminate the life plan (say cause you cant afford the premium) your med cover is gone too. if you have just life and just med... you can easily cancel life and dont have to worry about med. why risk such things in the first place?

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 16 2009, 03:32 PM

thanks for the reply. i seriously doubt any loading or exclusion is legally possible under this contract - despite what their underwriter says. the wording is actually very precise. no individual loading after the 12 months period. of course they might try it but i would assume they would loose if i contest it in court. i double checked with my lawyer and they agreed - if they try contest it. they have no legal foundation to impose a loading upon any individual who is insured under this policy after the initial 12 months period has lapsed. i find the information however very relevant. it's bad if tokio marine does not honour their contracts. i will double check on this particular issue tomorrow with whoever is in charge of the operation. if they do this - it's an outrage and i will file a complaint with bank negara. not that i am affected but it's unethical.

Justin1000,

it's totally clear that the premium is not guaranteed. that is the case for general insurance as well as a medical rider. how else could it be? there is no difference with this respect between life and general insurance at all. if i take up a guaranteed renewal contract from a general insurane the situation is the same as with a life insurance. premium might go (it surely will) but they have to take me. if you choose your policy properly your insurer will not have the right to increase an individual premium. this defies the purpose of the insurance. neither AXA nor TM can increase the individual premium after accepting a risk. this why they are interesting after all. many general insurance companies do reserve this particular right so you have to choose carefully but its not across board like that. with life insurance i believe only the life portion of the insurance is subject to regulatory approval for premium increases. the riders can to the best of my knowledge be increased merely on internal risk assessment.

for a guaranteed renewal (which is no longer offered in contracts) companies offer a renewal at the option of the insured. this does make a difference becauese it does not allow the insurer to refuse renewal as long as the product exists. and even if the portfolio would be withdrawn existing policies can lapse out first.

so i am a bit at a loss as to what point you are trying to make. with respect to your points there is no difference between life and general insurance with respect to change of premium and strategy to make you cancel. only with life you also loose the rest of your protection if they increase the rider premium for healthcare to a level you cant afford. so again you are better off just loosing one policy than a package or worse even beeing forced to let go of the investment part in a unfavourable economic environment.

the only points that matter imho are:

- large base
- good claims handling
- affordable premiums (to allow for large base)
- concentrating on a product at a time and not a set of products

numbertwo,

you are absolutely correct

---

Added on July 17, 2009, 12:04 pmnumbertwo,

i had a word with bank negara regarding what the underwriter told you. they were very nice (and free as it seems). they told me that based upon the policy wording it is impossible for TM to impose any kind of individual loading. this is further confirmed by this statement:

"15. [..]
On each such anniversary, this Policy is renewable at the premium rates in effect at that time as notified by the company.
"

the problem they and i now see is that they reserve the right to alterations of the policy. TM reserves the right to ammendments only. which in fact means that the whole portfolio can be changed. the question is: since it only covers ammendments, the renewal most likely cant be changed but the list of exlusions might be ammended. so your underwriter might be right about this. the grounds for this are however very shaky. i will let my lawyer skim through the contract again as mine is due for renewal soon and i dont want to make any mistakes there. my lawyer seems to be of the (current) opinion that ammendments to the contract should only be legal if made to the portfolio contract but its a lot to read so there might be a loophole hidden for TM.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 17 2009, 12:04 PM

numbertwo,

yes i am afraid so. at least TM only reserves the right to ammend the policy. big difference there. still it's bad for the customer. as a consumer who is looking for a healthcare policy you need to be 110% sure you can rely upon the insurance company even if you cost them a bomb as an individual. otherwise you dont an insurance right?

i will get in touch with tokio marine and will try to get an official statement from them. this will probably be very hard but it's worth a shot. also if we can obtain a guarantee of some sort that the right to ammend will not be exercised to impose exclusions that are not portfolio based things would be clear for everyone who uses their insurance.

lesson: tripple read policy wordings bit by bit. it's not enough to read it once (sigh).

i know that AXA is commiting to this. they will not impose any kind of loading nor individual loading and they guarantee the renewal after they accepted your proposal. that is a good plan - it does come at a price though - if you are 80 your premium for 500k annual limit exceeds 10,000 if i am not mistaken. but at least they are honest with the insured about costs and terms. simple annual limit, no life-time limit on top of this only the one implied by the annual limit. i like that very much

if i get anything out of tokio marine i will report back. i am still convinced that their plan _can_ be the ideal top up when u need just a little extra buffer and a good outpatient dialysis / cancer cover.

---

Added on July 17, 2009, 1:54 pmi am very surprised. i just spoke the TM HQ: they checked for me and ammendments are only on a portfolio basis. they suggested i write in and will get an official reply on the matter. i will do this as this will leave no further room for interpretation. this is very good news for me and i do hope they will confirm their reply in writing and not change their reply in the meantime

should they commit in writing to only ammend on a portfolio basis, their insurance should be ideal as a top-up and meet the strictest and most demanding consumer

i have to say i am really glad we are having this discussion and are getting into the details. i creates awareness among all of us and we all learn a lot dont we? i always thought i was safe by the no loading part but seriously overlooked the trap of ammendment until now.

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 17 2009, 01:54 PM

numbertwo,

i will post their reply here. i was also draw between pacific and TM - in the end i didnt deem pacific's plan worth it. our basic cover is relatively high so we only need minimal additional coverage mainly TM's outpatient benefits. this is why i am reluctant to spend a lot there (esp. when you get old).

i am surprised your financial planner suggested TM for PA. is the dollar to dollar ratio for cover vs. premium that good? dont forget the PA comission is 25% so if you go directly to a different insurance you will be able to reduce the premium substantially. i tried many times to get a walk-in rebate from TM (=pay me the agent comission) and they always refused. same with MSIG. other companies do pay you the agent comission...

This post has been edited by PJusa: Jul 17 2009, 06:17 PM

Justin1000,

as you just said - its the same thing. the rider is not guaranteed premium wise. non of the life insurance plans i have seen (AIA and some others) have a fixed premium for the medical rider. this would not make sense anyway unless the premium is set waaaay to high to begin with. they dont want to make a loss on the rider after all. all the life plan proposals i have seen (have an AIA in front of me) highlight the very fact that the medical rider's premium is not guaranteed and will increase with age.

if this would not be true, life+medical rider would be the secret recipe to low healthcare premiums. just buy for the newborn and be safe. it's just not like that at all.