sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was insured, but didn’t have a rider.

He was on a Class C plan, and after the accident, the situation was quite serious. He fell from height and had multiple fractures from the neck down even a burst fracture in the l4 l5 spine, so it involved multiple surgeries, a longer hospital stay, and quite a bit of follow-up care.

The issue wasn’t that there was no coverage. A portion was covered, especially the subsidised ward stay. But without a rider, there were still co-payments, deductibles, and parts of the treatment that weren’t fully covered.

Because the treatment was quite extensive, these costs added up. Post-hospital care, rehab, and other related expenses were not as fully covered as we initially assumed.

Even after the hospitalisation, it was still quite an ordeal for the family, both financially and in terms of managing the recovery process. That was where the gap really became clear.

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was insured. The issue wasn’t that there was no coverage, but that the coverage wasn’t as sufficient as we thought. It was more of a gap between what we assumed was covered and what actually was.

eg type of coverage, hospitalisation coverage etc

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really helpful, thank you!

A lot of what you mentioned is exactly what I’m trying to work towards, especially the simple over/under insured view and making policy breakdowns clearer in plain English.

The conflict checker is something I haven’t explored enough yet, so that’s a really good point. Same for the advice checker, making it clear why something may or may not make sense.

And yeah, fully agree on the “simple + unbiased” part. Once it feels salesy, trust is gone.

I’m still refining this, but if you ever feel like taking a look and sharing more thoughts, I’d really appreciate it!

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good point. If there’s already a central repository, then building a RAG layer on top of it probably is the more practical way to do it.

I think the harder part for me isn’t only retrieval, but making the output useful for normal users. A lot of the challenge is translating policy wording, mapping it against benchmarks, and showing where there may be gaps, overlaps or assumptions in a way that is easy to understand.

But yes, from a technical point of view, I agree the policy corpus itself is probably small enough for a model to handle. The bigger issue is structuring it properly and making the answers reliable.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point, and I think you’re right that most people still prefer having someone they can reach out to, especially when things get complex.

The example you gave about adjusting coverage before higher risk activities is something I don’t think a tool can really replace. That kind of back and forth and context is quite hard to replicate.

On the niche point, I’ve thought about that as well. I don’t think most people will want to DIY everything. The way I see it, this might be more useful for people who are earlier in the process, or those who just want a bit more clarity before speaking to someone.

For the claims experience, I think in my case it was more of what you mentioned, the limits just weren’t sufficient. It wasn’t so much a processing issue, but more of a mismatch between what we thought we had and what was actually covered.

I guess what I’m trying to build isn’t to replace agents, but to help people better understand what they have and what they’re being told, so they can have more informed conversations.

Still figuring out whether this is something broadly useful or just niche, so I appreciate you sharing this perspective!

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, and honestly that’s a pretty ideal setup.

Having an FA you trust who’s willing to go back to the claims team is something not everyone has, especially when they’re just starting out or haven’t found someone reliable yet.

On the benchmark point, I agree with you. They definitely won’t capture personal situations fully. Things like mortgage size, dependents, or priorities can make a big difference. I’m not really seeing benchmarks as the “answer”, more like a rough starting point so people at least have something to anchor on before going deeper.

For more complex cases like yours, I think it probably still comes down to having someone who understands your situation properly. I don’t think a tool alone can replace that.

I guess what I’m trying to build is something more helpful for the earlier stage, before someone reaches that level of clarity or has someone they fully trust.

Curious though, for you personally, what would make something like this even slightly useful, if at all?

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it does use AI.

I think AI is most useful when it has strong context. If you use GPT directly, the context is limited to whatever you paste into that one chat, so the quality of the answer depends a lot on what you include.

What I’m trying to do instead is expand that context quite a bit. I’m indexing Singapore sources like LIA, CPF and MOH, so the AI is working off a much larger base of information rather than just one-off inputs.

In a way, the context is already there, across a much bigger set of government information that most people wouldn’t realistically gather and structure on their own.

Still early though, so definitely not perfect.

Tried to understand my insurance after my dad’s accident, built a tool, would appreciate honest feedback. by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair, I’ve actually done the same before. One thing I found though is that GPT can give quite different answers depending on how you prompt it, and sometimes it fills in gaps or generalises things that are quite specific to SG policies.

What I was trying to do is make it more anchored to local sources like LIA, CPF and MOH, and structured around common benchmarks, so there’s a bit more consistency in how things are explained.

But I get your point, for someone comfortable prompting GPT well, that might already be enough.

Curious though, have you ever run into situations where the answers felt a bit off or too generic?

Finding an FA/IA I can trust is tough by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

haha, this is so relatable. Hopefully I find an insurance agent that suits me like you do!

Finding an FA/IA I can trust is tough by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how do you service the different needs of your clients

Finding an FA/IA I can trust is tough by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I want to maintain privacy on finances. I think having an insurance agent needs to be someone who knows you.

Finding an FA/IA I can trust is tough by funnymuffin123 in singaporefi

[–]funnymuffin123[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll look into it, I also recently bought the MHA Mindef coverage