The fact that Lifesearch’s Kevin Carr declared himself a representative of “knowledge, ethics and common sense” in his article last week is laughable in view of the piece’s content.
In trying to rubbish my suggestion that someone buying online could make sufficient savings on critical-illness and life cover to afford a measure of income protection, Mr Carr temporarily forgot his “ethics” by omitting any mention of critical-illness cover.
Of course, the savings to be realised on life cover alone by side-stepping the advice process are unlikely to pay for a worthwhile degree of income protection but is he really suggesting that this is the case with both life and critical-illness cover? Look no further than the Prudential’s new format which can cost around twice as much as other critical-illness cover.
Mr Carr also seemed to demonstrate a lack of “knowledge” and “common sense” when tackling my argument that those who eat the wrong kind of food can do themselves all sorts of harm. He stated that: “As long as you have not been poisoned, the consequences, if any, are small.” I am afraid a nutritionist would beg to differ. They would maintain that those who seek their advice can be saved from harm every bit as traumatic as that which can result from buying the wrong protection products.
Nutritionists can cure horrendous skin disorders by prescribing the right diets and greatly reduce the chances of their clients suffering from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Hopefully, this provides food for thought for Mr Carr. But, in view of his status as a self-confessed critical-illness expert, I am miffed that he was not familiar with some of these conditions already.
Simon Burgess Managing Director, britishinsurance.com
Managing Director, britishinsurance.com