NTUC income shield VS Prudential PRUshield

[iAdvisor]

I understand it is a yearly visit. When one is diagnosed with such condition, this could go on for years. Might as well use that $3000 to buy a rider that covers everything. Furthermore, the incentive given makes alot of difference.



Insurance is not perfect but if you combine different products together, it can be closer to perfection.

You are right about spending the 3k to buy the rider to cover everything, when you have a long illness. But no one know when would you contract something like that. How much savings can you a accumulate over the years when you are healthy?

2ndly, do you know how many people of the older generation are unable to afford the integrated shield plan, or due to the high premium, they have to downgrade to a lower end plan? Do you know wasteful it is to pay high premium for higher end plan, and in the end downgrade to a lower end plan?

Lastly, I fully agree with you on your last comment. A combination of different products, with addition of different companies, will truly create a plan close to perfection. Being a ifa, even if the client is concern about the 3k capped, we also can offer ways that is more economical to address that need using other companies product.

I personally like ntuc shield is because my client can sustain a private plan for much much longer period, without the need to fork out cash for premium. And there are so many ways to address the 3k per year liability, which are much better choice.

 

[iAdvisor]

The only good thing aviva is free coverage for your children of 3 till age 20. Something like that... will help to save a lot if u got 3 kids in future.

Yes, hi Jessele. You can save alot using aviva shield plan for child coverage. But take note, it only cover free till gov/restructure ward. It's adequately enough I should say.

I usually advise this depending on the financial status of the client. For kids, private plan will cost 131 from cpf and $111 cash per year. That's only 242 per year, to enjoy the need of private hospital treatment.

Depending on the comfort level, I wish to keep the option to go private hospital for my child when needed.

 

[iAdvisor]

Just to clarify, I'm speaking highly for the ntuc shield plan not because I'm from Ntuc.

I'm a IFA who carries products from different companies. This allows me to structure products from different companies to create a financial plan that best suits the need of customer, using the best product in its class.

 

[PruCorgi]

It's not a clear-cut choice between paying more for 100% coverage or paying less for 90% coverage. Really depends on a person's situation and preferences. I do acknowledge the arguments you made in favour of using other means to take care of the $3000 deductible. I know some people choose to rely on their employer insurance for that portion.

Anyway, speaking for myself, I don't really see it as "wasteful" if people eventually downgrade to a cheaper plan. While they had the more expensive plan, they had the option of choosing from private hospitals... Those have benefits too, such as greater comfort, shorter waiting times, and more choices of doctors... who knows... maybe the specialist for my medical condition can only be found in a private hospital.

That's how I made my choice between restructured and private plans... I didn't see the point of skimping on this plan. Would rather get the best plan possible given my current budget and adjust later if needed. And set aside some money (maybe through savings or through investments) just to fund the premiums. It's still better than paying the hospital bill with a 1:1 ratio anytime.

 

[iAdvisor]

It's not a clear-cut choice between paying more for 100% coverage or paying less for 90% coverage. Really depends on a person's situation and preferences. I do acknowledge the arguments you made in favour of using other means to take care of the $3000 deductible. I know some people choose to rely on their employer insurance for that portion.

Anyway, speaking for myself, I don't really see it as "wasteful" if people eventually downgrade to a cheaper plan. While they had the more expensive plan, they had the option of choosing from private hospitals... Those have benefits too, such as greater comfort, shorter waiting times, and more choices of doctors... who knows... maybe the specialist for my medical condition can only be found in a private hospital.

That's how I made my choice between restructured and private plans... I didn't see the point of skimping on this plan. Would rather get the best plan possible given my current budget and adjust later if needed. And set aside some money (maybe through savings or through investments) just to fund the premiums. It's still better than paying the hospital bill with a 1:1 ratio anytime.

Firstly, it is not wise to use employer insurance to cover that 3k liability. One should always claim from employer first, to reduce own limit.

When I mean wasteful, it's not wasteful to get private plan, but wasteful to downgrade thereafter. Whereas, you can always manage the risk, so that you can sustain a private plan longer. I personally also prefer private plan if one is affordable.

To set aside money just to fund the premium, is like getting a loan to fund another loan. If you know you have problem sustaining that plan, why take it up at the first place? It's not the only choice. The funds channel for the higher premium now and then, could generate you a lot more 3k in return.

But of course, there is always a choice. Like I knew kfc could makes me fat, I just likes it. Lol

 

[XRegaX]

Just to clarify, I'm speaking highly for the ntuc shield plan not because I'm from Ntuc.

I'm a IFA who carries products from different companies. This allows me to structure products from different companies to create a financial plan that best suits the need of customer, using the best product in its class.

As far as I know, IFA don't even put into consideration into your financial planning using products from:

• Prudential
• Great Eastern
• AIA

just because you can't carry.

 

[XRegaX]

Any one know what is difference between this 2 and which one provides better protection in term of more medical fees coverage? Especially for old folks, which one is better choice?

Referring to policy limits:
Comparison_of_MediShield_and_Private_Integrated_Plans.html

If you consider the policy limits, NTUC has the lowest compared to the rest of the insurers.

Pertaining to claim rates > Medisave-approved Insurance | Ministry of Health

Prudential is still the fastest across all Shield providers. And Prudential comes with yearly adjusted policy rate feature to fight yearly inflation.

 

[iAdvisor]

Referring to policy limits:
Comparison_of_MediShield_and_Private_Integrated_Plans.html

If you consider the policy limits, NTUC has the lowest compared to the rest of the insurers.

Pertaining to claim rates > Medisave-approved Insurance | Ministry of Health

Prudential is still the fastest across all Shield providers. And Prudential comes with yearly adjusted policy rate feature to fight yearly inflation.

First of all, I guess you are seeing the wrong thing. Ntuc enhanced income shield policy limit is 600k. They used to be the highest before aviva raise their limit to 650k this year. Prudential is only 500k. Are you looking at the older ntuc plan?

Regarding the claim rate, I don't see prudential being the highest except when the claim is done within 2-4 weeks. Ntuc is the highest within 1 week.

Please advise if you were referring to other numbers.

Regarding the adjustable rates, well if you understand other shield, then you realised this is nothing much, imo. Their policy limit of 500k, is the baseline of all others issuer where ntuc is 600k, and aviva is 650k. Aia allow additional claim of 100k if it's due to cancer, which is on par with ntuc (if due to cancer). Prudential is saying, if require, they will adjust the limit, meaning non-guaranteed, so... aia limit is 600k if cancer, else its 500k. Ntuc is straight 600k, and aviva is 650k no matter what condition. So does that adjustable rate a winning feature or just to keep on par with others.

Let us know if my understanding of the prudential feature is wrong. Thanks

 

[iAdvisor]

As far as I know, IFA don't even put into consideration into your financial planning using products from:

• Prudential
• Great Eastern
• AIA

just because you can't carry.

Well, we carry aia now as well. Update your information.

And show me a product that is uniquely prudential or GE, that I can't find alternative for.

 

[XRegaX]

Well, we carry aia now as well. Update your information.

And show me a product that is uniquely prudential or GE, that I can't find alternative for.

Prudential PruMulitple Crisis Cover

 

[XRegaX]

Well, we carry aia now as well. Update your information.

And show me a product that is uniquely prudential or GE, that I can't find alternative for.

GE SupremeProtect

 

[iAdvisor]

Prudential PruMulitple Crisis Cover

I think aia already got such cancer only plan. With multiple claiming feature. Aviva also have something similar, I've got to check. Axa also have.

If I remember correctly, aia one will reduce sum assured after each claim.

Now may I ask for the sake of readers, for the 2nd claim, is it still the full sum assured? If yes, base on the advertise pricing, 633 annually for 50k coverage only, is competitive though. But meaning maximum claim is 125k. But if you can afford such premium, why not buy the plain vanilla term plan? It's just a play of perception.

Whether if you like to claim 50k + 50k or straight 70-80k (base on female age 35, non-smoking, term 50 years, @ $633 pa should be able to get). If client only contract once, it's worst off. If really contract twice, the sum at risk is also not high.

If we look at practicality, when something happen you hope to claim as much as possible at that very moment, and not creating a safety net for the 2nd incident.

I've client who ask me, if they own 2 or more policies from different companies, can they only claim from one, and not the others first, so that they can keep for next event. It sound nice to have safety net, but practically would you not claim from all source when something happened? Cash on hand is better than anything

 

[iAdvisor]

GE SupremeProtect

200% coverage for 5 advanced stage ci. Tm legacy plus is 250%, manulife is 270% for All ci.

Only thing here is whole life tpd, this one really do not have. Only aviva till 70 or 75. But for that problem, you have elder shield.

 

[XRegaX]

I think aia already got such cancer only plan. With multiple claiming feature. Aviva also have something similar, I've got to check. Axa also have.

If I remember correctly, aia one will reduce sum assured after each claim.

Now may I ask for the sake of readers, for the 2nd claim, is it still the full sum assured? If yes, base on the advertise pricing, 633 annually for 50k coverage only, is competitive though. But meaning maximum claim is 125k. But if you can afford such premium, why not buy the plain vanilla term plan? It's just a play of perception.

Whether if you like to claim 50k + 50k or straight 70-80k (base on female age 35, non-smoking, term 50 years, @ $633 pa should be able to get). If client only contract once, it's worst off. If really contract twice, the sum at risk is also not high.

If we look at practicality, when something happen you hope to claim as much as possible at that very moment, and not creating a safety net for the 2nd incident.

I've client who ask me, if they own 2 or more policies from different companies, can they only claim from one, and not the others first, so that they can keep for next event. It sound nice to have safety net, but practically would you not claim from all source when something happened? Cash on hand is better than anything

Multiple Crisis supports up to 3 CI claims on the same Sum assured. Max up to 2 cancer claims and 1 non-cancer claims.

 

[iAdvisor]

Multiple Crisis supports up to 3 CI claims on the same Sum assured. Max up to 2 cancer claims and 1 non-cancer claims.

Of different group as well. I remember that's the same as aia. Axa also have something similar recently. For that pricing, it's quite competitive though.

 

[XRegaX]

IFA are considered the more wealthier compared to bonded agents. As long as one has no morals and don't have an open heart. It all draws down to ground zero. Personally have seen lots of IFAs kenna cancer and eventually crossed over.

Seen IFAs go overseas for travelling 2 times a month up to 6 months straight. I only believe that products exist on different requirements of unique individuals combination. Choices are made for individuals' own discretion of choice. How can a product help a policyholder is how he/she perceives it and usually how agents twist their words to earn a fatter commission.

 

[XRegaX]

First of all, I guess you are seeing the wrong thing. Ntuc enhanced income shield policy limit is 600k. They used to be the highest before aviva raise their limit to 650k this year. Prudential is only 500k. Are you looking at the older ntuc plan?

Regarding the claim rate, I don't see prudential being the highest except when the claim is done within 2-4 weeks. Ntuc is the highest within 1 week.

Please advise if you were referring to other numbers.

Regarding the adjustable rates, well if you understand other shield, then you realised this is nothing much, imo. Their policy limit of 500k, is the baseline of all others issuer where ntuc is 600k, and aviva is 650k. Aia allow additional claim of 100k if it's due to cancer, which is on par with ntuc (if due to cancer). Prudential is saying, if require, they will adjust the limit, meaning non-guaranteed, so... aia limit is 600k if cancer, else its 500k. Ntuc is straight 600k, and aviva is 650k no matter what condition. So does that adjustable rate a winning feature or just to keep on par with others.

Let us know if my understanding of the prudential feature is wrong. Thanks

Prudential with its adjustment feature is S$566,900 / policy year

 

[iAdvisor]

IFA are considered the more wealthier compared to bonded agents. As long as one has no morals and don't have an open heart. It all draws down to ground zero. Personally have seen lots of IFAs kenna cancer and eventually crossed over.

Seen IFAs go overseas for travelling 2 times a month up to 6 months straight. I only believe that products exist on different requirements of unique individuals combination. Choices are made for individuals' own discretion of choice. How can a product help a policyholder is how he/she perceives it and usually how agents twist their words to earn a fatter commission.

Not sure if you are in the trade but, base on the dollar and cents, bonded agents have more possibilities. In ifa, mostly we do not have tiered commission, not like agents who owns a team, can gets comms base on team sales.
But nevertheless, making big bucks depends on one's capability, so stating ifa earns more are sweeping statement. I would say not people are aware of ifa that make us more appealing for consumer.

I agree with you totally that it's a individual choice, and that a heartless ifa makes no different to agents. There are all kinds of people in the world...

 

[iAdvisor]

Prudential with its adjustment feature is S$566,900 / policy year

Thanks for that number! Is it advertised? It's sad that it's still lower than ntuc. I still love ntuc on this. Has.

 

[XRegaX]

Aviva has the lowest claim return rates checked out below link
Medisave-approved Insurance | Ministry of Health

My folks are previously covered under Income and Aviva but seriously like iAdvisor say better to have cash in hand. Aviva's claims processing takes months.

Whenever I sign a document with my previous IFA, she takes 2 weeks to hand in and best she never wanted me to fill in the dates for me. I have a reign of ex-agents who like to do the same.