Accident plan for newborn

[peterchan75]

Why isn't basic MediShield Life sufficient for H&S policies for kids? I did not buy them any H&S policies as don't mind them staying in B2 and C wards where there is a lot of subsidies... find that the extra premiums I pay about the same as a hospital bill. As I worked in government Hospitals before, I know that the serious cases all have to be reviewed by senior Drs so the classes does not make much difference except in comfort levels. Not like a senior consultant will see u first instead of a house officer if u r in A ward.

Both young parents, husband still mid-way through his graduate program. Claim until no more to claim. Grandparents have to come in and settle the bill(>$50k). More than a month in NICU. Cost for NICU is a lot more than ward.

 

[mummy1234]

Both young parents, husband still mid-way through his graduate program. Claim until no more to claim. Grandparents have to come in and settle the bill(>$50k). More than a month in NICU. Cost for NICU is a lot more than ward.

Is it because they chose non subsidised wards? Know of a Dr's premature baby in NICU in private hospital transferred to SGH to save costs.

 

[Bigoya]

Why isn't basic MediShield Life sufficient for H&S policies for kids? I did not buy them any H&S policies as don't mind them staying in B2 and C wards where there is a lot of subsidies... find that the extra premiums I pay about the same as a hospital bill. As I worked in government Hospitals before, I know that the serious cases all have to be reviewed by senior Drs so the classes does not make much difference except in comfort levels. Not like a senior consultant will see u first instead of a house officer if u r in A ward.

If you understand how govt. hosp. functions from your previous work experience and are okay with B2 and C ward then you wouldn't need pte hosp. coverage...
I do understand that generally parents are extremely concerned when something happens to their kids and govt. hosp. usually have extremely long waiting time and whatnot. But if you're fine with it, then Medishield Life is sufficient.

But on the other hand, do also note that Medishield Life do not cover fees for pre- and post- hospitalisation treatments apart from the other claim limits imposed.

 

[mSnooze]

For newborn,

Get all the essential basic, hospitals, juvenile cover and maybe accident plans.

Once bought all those, get a whole life plan with multiplier for them. It will be the cheapest that it is comparable with term, but you still get cash value. Even if your child next time surrender at 70 when multiplier ends, the cash value withdrawn is at least 3x more than your total premium paid.

 

[peterchan75]

Is it because they chose non subsidised wards? Know of a Dr's premature baby in NICU in private hospital transferred to SGH to save costs.

This one is based on my personal experience. My second child was born with IUGR at Mount A. Baby born malnourished due to problem with placenta. He had to go to NICU. Complication with high bilirubin and had to change blood twice. My child stayed in NICU for 21 days and cost us $20+K. Strangely, during that time, the NICU was full with problem babies. One grandparent was begging the nurse to transfer his grandchild to SGH or KK because they couldn't afford it. Couldn't transfer because no NICU space there.

 

[mummy1234]

This one is based on my personal experience. My second child was born with IUGR at Mount A. Baby born malnourished due to problem with placenta. He had to go to NICU. Complication with high bilirubin and had to change blood twice. My child stayed in NICU for 21 days and cost us $20+K. Strangely, during that time, the NICU was full with problem babies. One grandparent was begging the nurse to transfer his grandchild to SGH or KK because they couldn't afford it. Couldn't transfer because no NICU space there.

That is why cost is high.. it is a private class NICU...

Both my babies delivered in KKH cause I know they have the biggest NICU there and best neonatal support in case of any problems...easier to downgrade also if cost runs high.

 

[xiao.xin]

Why isn't basic MediShield Life sufficient for H&S policies for kids? I did not buy them any H&S policies as don't mind them staying in B2 and C wards where there is a lot of subsidies... find that the extra premiums I pay about the same as a hospital bill. As I worked in government Hospitals before, I know that the serious cases all have to be reviewed by senior Drs so the classes does not make much difference except in comfort levels. Not like a senior consultant will see u first instead of a house officer if u r in A ward.

This I've to disagree. A shield plan is to prevent hefty bill. I don't think the premium got kids will add up to your Hosp bill should something were to happen.

Nonetheless, even if it is the same, after you pay the bill already you think next time your kids still can get their own shield plan without exclusion?

 

[xiao.xin]

For newborn,

Get all the essential basic, hospitals, juvenile cover and maybe accident plans.

Once bought all those, get a whole life plan with multiplier for them. It will be the cheapest that it is comparable with term, but you still get cash value. Even if your child next time surrender at 70 when multiplier ends, the cash value withdrawn is at least 3x more than your total premium paid.

Well played bro. 3x. You wanna talk about the irr instead?

 

[mSnooze]

Well played bro. 3x. You wanna talk about the irr instead?

Give you an example. ANB 1 $500K Death/TPD/CI till 70 vs a WL with the same coverage multiplied till 70.

Term cost around $1.3k/year. WL cost $1.8k/year, pay for 25 years only.

Well played bro.

 

[xiao.xin]

Give you an example. ANB 1 $500K Death/TPD/CI till 70 vs a WL with the same coverage multiplied till 70.

Term cost around $1.3k/year. WL cost $1.8k/year, pay for 25 years only.

Well played bro.

I'm not saying that wl is no good. But stating 3x the premium doesn't seems very attractive if you were to ask me

 

[hwmook]

Give you an example. ANB 1 $500K Death/TPD/CI till 70 vs a WL with the same coverage multiplied till 70.

Term cost around $1.3k/year. WL cost $1.8k/year, pay for 25 years only.

Well played bro.

Nothing impressive if you do the maths....somemore projected only, most likely won't get that much. If you can wait 70 years to get the money then there are a lot of investment that can fetch much more.

 

[mSnooze]

Nothing impressive if you do the maths....somemore projected only, most likely won't get that much. If you can wait 70 years to get the money then there are a lot of investment that can fetch much more.

The amount i am talking about is guaranteed portion only, not even talking about projections.

You are treating this like as if it's full endowment. The underlying is still protection if you forget. Gave you an example but you don't seems to understand. You can always surrender it at guaranteed breakeven point after factoring inflation and result in a 0% gain of capital. At least you get back your capital than not in your BTIR.

If you can't see the value in WL on newborn then nothing more I can say. Yes, I am talking about newborns only, adults definitely more edge with BTIR approach.

 

[wealth_farmer]

A baby has no liabilities. No mortgage, no loans, no dependents. Why would you suggest whole life or even term life?

The amount i am talking about is guaranteed portion only, not even talking about projections.

You are treating this like as if it's full endowment. The underlying is still protection if you forget. Gave you an example but you don't seems to understand. You can always surrender it at guaranteed breakeven point after factoring inflation and result in a 0% gain of capital. At least you get back your capital than not in your BTIR.

If you can't see the value in WL on newborn then nothing more I can say. Yes, I am talking about newborns only, adults definitely more edge with BTIR approach.

 

[dendii]

Not exactly no liabilities.

As a parent, whatever is your baby/kid's liability is probably yours too. Unless given you can ignore whatever happens to them. Sure life coverage is not needed but CI protection is still necessary imo.

Some parents want to give their child something to start off too. Which in my case, I am definitely thankful for. They got me a WL when i am young so i am still keeping it like an "endowment" instead.

But to each his/her own. No right or wrong.

A baby has no liabilities. No mortgage, no loans, no dependents. Why would you suggest whole life or even term life?

 

[wealth_farmer]

Not quibbling over the H&S plan or even the accident plan for the child. I'd pay for that.

What I don't get is why an insurance agent would suggest whole life or term life for a baby/child? The parents need that additional coverage, not the kid. Because touchwood if the kid pass away, it's tragic but the parents are not financially impacted. No amount of insurance payout can ever ever compensate the loss of one's child.

But not the other way round; parents must adequately insure themselves to make sure their kids can carry on without them till after college.

I'd start my child off with an index tracking ETF immediately with an aggressive equity/bond allocation to give them that headstart. Cheaper and higher potential returns. Not an endowment or whole life plan. But yes I understand 20 years ago there were not as many options but now we do and we should pursue those more fit-for-purpose options.

There is no right or wrong answer, because at the end of the day as parents we need to do what we feel is best for our kids, with what we know.
Everyone's financial literacy level is different as is their risk appetite.

But what really pisses me off is when people (read: insurance agents) prey on new parents' fears and insecurities to push commission-rich products such as whole life, endowments or ILPs that don't serve the purpose the best way they (the parents and the baby) should be served. In that sense, we do have a wrong answer.

Not exactly no liabilities.

As a parent, whatever is your baby/kid's liability is probably yours too. Unless given you can ignore whatever happens to them. Sure life coverage is not needed but CI protection is still necessary imo.

Some parents want to give their child something to start off too. Which in my case, I am definitely thankful for. They got me a WL when i am young so i am still keeping it like an "endowment" instead.

But to each his/her own. No right or wrong.

 

[Bigoya]

Not quibbling over the H&S plan or even the accident plan for the child. I'd pay for that.

What I don't get is why an insurance agent would suggest whole life or term life for a baby/child? The parents need that additional coverage, not the kid. Because touchwood if the kid pass away, it's tragic but the parents are not financially impacted. No amount of insurance payout can ever ever compensate the loss of one's child.

But not the other way round; parents must adequately insure themselves to make sure their kids can carry on without them till after college.

I'd start my child off with an index tracking ETF immediately with an aggressive equity/bond allocation to give them that headstart. Cheaper and higher potential returns. Not an endowment or whole life plan. But yes I understand 20 years ago there were not as many options but now we do and we should pursue those more fit-for-purpose options.

There is no right or wrong answer, because at the end of the day as parents we need to do what we feel is best for our kids, with what we know.
Everyone's financial literacy level is different as is their risk appetite.

But what really pisses me off is when people (read: insurance agents) prey on new parents' fears and insecurities to push commission-rich products such as whole life, endowments or ILPs that don't serve the purpose the best way they (the parents and the baby) should be served. In that sense, we do have a wrong answer.

Well, things that pisses you off, pisses me off too.

But I'd like to ask, why do we almost always link insurance solely to its death benefits?

A shield plan could only cover as much as hospitalisation-incurred expenses while an accudent plan could only cover that much of outpatient bills that are caused by accidents.

As dendii mentioned, are CI coverage unimportant?
What if 10yrs later, this child got into an accident and loose an arm or the sense of sight, his treatment could be covered by H&S and PA, no doubt about it. But one thing for sure, he couldn't get any other life insurance to cover his death/TPD/CI in the future.

Is that never a concern at all?

The premiums of a good $1.5k a year put into investing, assuming you (the parent) makes an average returns of 8% p.a. for the next 20yrs from now, is only able to make you a return of $75k at best. Is it not worth migitating the risk with insurance instead?

I'm pretty sure most parents would be able to pay at least $100/mth for their kids's insurance while allocating another minimal $200/mth into growing a separate fund with other vehicles available.

 

[dendii]

I know where you are coming from and I fully agree with what you said as well.

First of all, parents NEEDS to be insured properly because that will cause the most burden to the family (loss of income, death, disability what not).

And hence I mentioned that life coverage for child is not as important because exactly like what you said, it does not cause that big of an impact to the family.

CI on the other hand, is a different situation all together. And this is the point that I am emphasizing on here. Most CI insurance will be tied to Death coverage as well so this just comes together.

Like what Bigoya said:
"What if 10yrs later, this child got into an accident and loose an arm or the sense of sight, his treatment could be covered by H&S and PA, no doubt about it. But one thing for sure, he couldn't get any other life insurance to cover his death/TPD/CI in the future."

To generalize and say that one's children just need basic H&S and accident plans is not right at all.

There are definitely better priorities and even depending on one's budget, you may not be able to do your financial planning in this manner. But dismissing this entirely is not the right way. Though preying on parent's fear and mis-selling will be a whole different problem we have already.

Not quibbling over the H&S plan or even the accident plan for the child. I'd pay for that.

What I don't get is why an insurance agent would suggest whole life or term life for a baby/child? The parents need that additional coverage, not the kid. Because touchwood if the kid pass away, it's tragic but the parents are not financially impacted. No amount of insurance payout can ever ever compensate the loss of one's child.

But not the other way round; parents must adequately insure themselves to make sure their kids can carry on without them till after college.

I'd start my child off with an index tracking ETF immediately with an aggressive equity/bond allocation to give them that headstart. Cheaper and higher potential returns. Not an endowment or whole life plan. But yes I understand 20 years ago there were not as many options but now we do and we should pursue those more fit-for-purpose options.

There is no right or wrong answer, because at the end of the day as parents we need to do what we feel is best for our kids, with what we know.
Everyone's financial literacy level is different as is their risk appetite.

But what really pisses me off is when people (read: insurance agents) prey on new parents' fears and insecurities to push commission-rich products such as whole life, endowments or ILPs that don't serve the purpose the best way they (the parents and the baby) should be served. In that sense, we do have a wrong answer.

 

[akwl88]

what is the statistic of children kenna death/tpd/ci?

assume definition of children is 16 yrs and below

 

[akwl88]

last time my parents brought for me whole life plan - aia prime life

returns and coverage are pathetic

surrendered in exchange for term and nvr look back lol

 

[dendii]

Don't think such information is available but it will be great if there is.

Regardless though, I personally do not think the statistic matter at all?

What is the statistic of someone not drinking, not smoking, eating healthy, exercising regularly getting any form of critical illness?

Does that mean such a person do not need any insurance coverage at all

Again, please do not generalize and make this seem like all children should get some coverage.

Financial planning is about an individual's own lifestyle and budget, and there are priorities that should play a bigger part first before we look at insuring our child.

what is the statistic of children kenna death/tpd/ci?

assume definition of children is 16 yrs and below