Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Careshield Life - review community Chairman's statements don't hold water

CNA interviewed Careshield Life review community Chairman, Mah and the discussion touched on higher premium for female and the starting payout of $600 which is still pretty low to be helpful to those who are severely disable. But according to Mr Mah, this new scheme has 'significant improvement'.

Mr Mah said females are required to foot higher premium because they live longer.  But it is the average life span of female which is longer than male, NOT survival years after being hit with severe disability. Are that statistic to show that severely disable female lives longer than their male counter?

According the Mr Mah, the new scheme has 'significant improvement' as the payout is $600 for life. But it is only $200 more than the previous scheme which payout is $400 for 6 yrs. This was last revised in 2007. So it is a miserable $200 increase over 13 years ! (2020-2007 as Caresheild Life starts from 2020).  Is this amount significant? 

We also need to see concrete statistic that those severely disable does live longer, as previously we were told the surviving years is 6 after being hit by severe disability.  If not there is no significant improvement in Careshield Life, except that it is significantly more expensive with 10 years earlier sign up age and 12 yrs longer and higher premium payment compare to formal Eldershield scheme.

Mr Mah also claimed that the new scheme caters for inflation.  He gave the example of a person suffering from disability at age 31 (2021) will get $600 payout for life.  While one who suffers from disability at age 55 (2045) will get $1000 for life. But to me this is because he/she pays longer premium that is why the payout is more rather than catering for inflation.  What about that poor chap who is hit with disability at age 31?  He still gets $600 in 2045 presuming he is still alive.  How can this be catering for inflation ?

Thus, the review committee for Careshield Life justification for the scheme premium and so call 'significant improvement' don't hold up to reasoning.

No comments: