An independent financial adviser shared this view with me. Most insurance plans now have a high terminal bonus that is not guaranteed.
He finds it difficult to recommend this plan, as the policyholder can not be sure if he will get a fair return on the policy. The percentage of terminal bonus vary from one policy to another. The policyholder may wonder why some other policies are given a higher terminal bonus than his policy.
He has decided that he will not sell any life insurance policy. He prefers to sell unit trust, as it is more transparent and fair to the policyholder, and more flexible.
I agree with his views. It is best for the consumer to avoid all life insurance policies with high terminal bonus, unless the cash and maturity payouts are required to follow the "asset share" method, as adopted in Malaysia.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Avoid private Shield plan
Dear Mr. Tan,
I am currently under a private Shield program with Plus Rider (the premium has gone up quite a lot as compare to last year) with one exclusion condition. I am also cover under my company's hospitalisation scheme. Do you think I should downgrade to Assist Rider with a lower premium but have to co-pay of up to $2,000 - or should I move back completely to Medishield.
REPLY
It is better to move back completely to Medishield. there is no need to pay a lot of premium for a private Shield plan, when you are covered by your employer.
If you are healthy when you retire, you can upgrade to a private Shield plan at that time. If you are not healthy, you can stay on Medishield. For older people, Medishield is quite satisfactory. Private Shield is very costly.
I am currently under a private Shield program with Plus Rider (the premium has gone up quite a lot as compare to last year) with one exclusion condition. I am also cover under my company's hospitalisation scheme. Do you think I should downgrade to Assist Rider with a lower premium but have to co-pay of up to $2,000 - or should I move back completely to Medishield.
REPLY
It is better to move back completely to Medishield. there is no need to pay a lot of premium for a private Shield plan, when you are covered by your employer.
If you are healthy when you retire, you can upgrade to a private Shield plan at that time. If you are not healthy, you can stay on Medishield. For older people, Medishield is quite satisfactory. Private Shield is very costly.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Negligence and insurance
Hi Mr. Tan
Kindly advise me on the following :-
(a) Under S'pore Insurance laws, is payment made out of Medisave of a plaintiff (pedestrain) claimable against the Insurer of a defendent motorist?
(b) What if payment is paid out of any Medishield / Healthshield policy of the patient first, is it claimable against the Insurer of a defendent motorist?
(c) In the above cases, which Insurer is the first party to bear the claim? Insurer of the defendent motorist or Medishield insurer of the pedestrain?
(d) If the a company has a welfare scheme and paid a sum to assist an employee (pedestrain) due to the accident due to financial hardship, and that sum is used to pay part of hospital costs first, can that employee still claim against the insurer of the motorist ? Any implication if the welfare assistance is paid direct to the hospital instead of direct payment to that employee?
Hope you can clarify.
CH
REPLY
This is a legal issue. I am not familiar with this matter. In my view, and I am not a legal expert, the position will be as follows:
> You are entitled to claim for your loss, due to the negligence of the other party
> You are certainly allowed to claim for payment made from Medisave (which is your own savings)
> You can also claim for expenses that are paid by your insurance policy (e.g. Medishield) or by the company's welfare scheme
> The liability for the payment by the negligent party applies to the total expenses (regardless of the status of insurance)
> I do not know if the insurer (of Medishield) or employer will ask you to repay back the expenses that have been successfully claimed from the negligent party - but it is a separate matter.
Kindly advise me on the following :-
(a) Under S'pore Insurance laws, is payment made out of Medisave of a plaintiff (pedestrain) claimable against the Insurer of a defendent motorist?
(b) What if payment is paid out of any Medishield / Healthshield policy of the patient first, is it claimable against the Insurer of a defendent motorist?
(c) In the above cases, which Insurer is the first party to bear the claim? Insurer of the defendent motorist or Medishield insurer of the pedestrain?
(d) If the a company has a welfare scheme and paid a sum to assist an employee (pedestrain) due to the accident due to financial hardship, and that sum is used to pay part of hospital costs first, can that employee still claim against the insurer of the motorist ? Any implication if the welfare assistance is paid direct to the hospital instead of direct payment to that employee?
Hope you can clarify.
CH
REPLY
This is a legal issue. I am not familiar with this matter. In my view, and I am not a legal expert, the position will be as follows:
> You are entitled to claim for your loss, due to the negligence of the other party
> You are certainly allowed to claim for payment made from Medisave (which is your own savings)
> You can also claim for expenses that are paid by your insurance policy (e.g. Medishield) or by the company's welfare scheme
> The liability for the payment by the negligent party applies to the total expenses (regardless of the status of insurance)
> I do not know if the insurer (of Medishield) or employer will ask you to repay back the expenses that have been successfully claimed from the negligent party - but it is a separate matter.
Who's really looking after your money?
There is an excellent article by John Bittlestone in Today paper, 7 July. It shows a list of improvements that should be made by the finance industry. Although the suggestions are made to the banking sector, they apply to the insurance sector as well.
The topics are:
> Drop the jargon
> Cut the "products" by 95 percent
> If a bank wants to act as a broker
> Treat us as customers
> Be transparent
> Make your charges realistic
> Re-examine your "relationship manager" practice
> Reduce your paper chase
> Look at your bonus system
> You are already over-regulated
Here is the soft copy of the article:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/263596.asp
The topics are:
> Drop the jargon
> Cut the "products" by 95 percent
> If a bank wants to act as a broker
> Treat us as customers
> Be transparent
> Make your charges realistic
> Re-examine your "relationship manager" practice
> Reduce your paper chase
> Look at your bonus system
> You are already over-regulated
Here is the soft copy of the article:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/263596.asp
Politician and accountant
It is easy for a beggar to tell the difference between a politician and an accountant. If he asks a man for money for a meal saying that he hasn't eaten all day and the man replies, "Sorry, no. But things will be better for you tomorrow" - that man must be a politician.
If the beggar asks the same question and the man replies, "Sorry, no. But I am interested to know how your financial situation compares with the same period last month" - that man must be an accountant.
If the beggar asks the same question and the man replies, "Sorry, no. But I am interested to know how your financial situation compares with the same period last month" - that man must be an accountant.
A Gracious Society and Dr. Chee Soon Juan
I met Dr. Chee Soon Juan at a BBQ organised by the Online Citizen, and had a nice conversation with him. Read about my views in item 47 of:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/07/important-to-build-a-gracious-society/#comments
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/07/important-to-build-a-gracious-society/#comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)