Even though there were five insurance policies listed in the article and I would have to agree that some of the listed policies do seem redundant to have, however, the points to substantiate why those policies should not be taken are somewhat lacking and not straight to the point in my opinion.
Take for example the mortgage insurance point.
- Just exactly what would be deemed to have holistic coverage?
- Perhaps it would be a good idea to briefly explain what a mortgage insurance is. And furthermore, which is the writer talking about? Mortgage insurance or mortgage "life" insurance? The mortgage insurance mentioned by wiki seems to be a "must" for mortgage loans which exceeds 80% of the property's sale price.
- And regarding the large sum discounts? The sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
- If these so called term plans are mentioned as an alternative to mortgage insurance, then shouldn't the writer explain what these term plans are and where we can find them?
And pardon me for being stupid here, but isn't a motor insurance necessary in order for the vehicle to be allowed on the road? If so, then the motor insurance isn't "unnecessary". Perhaps this point should be in another article by itself and not found here?
Although I have to agree that the credit card insurance is unnecessary, but the child insurance and critical illness insurance are arguable. "Accidents" aren't picky enough to only choose adults and not children, so why shouldn't we parents buy insurance to safeguard our precious children?
In short, I found that the points brought forth in the article just isn't sufficient to convince people about the redundancy of the insurance policies. Either English isn't his or her native language or the writer didn't spend enough time researching and writing the article.
Link to the article:
Five Unnecessary Insurance Policies
No comments:
Post a Comment