It added that the successful overturn of the House of Lords' Welfare Reform Bill amendments should be a wakeup call to the public and that the industry should be doing more to illustrate its value in replacing State provision.
The provider highlighted the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and warned people would likely see a substantial fall in their income and stricter eligibility criteria if they were to claim benefits.
John Bridge, director of sales and marketing at Cirencester friendly, said: "The vote in favour of pushing ahead with proposed changes to the DLA assessment and payment process should serve as a wakeup call to the public.
"The Coalition Government has decided that it cannot afford to support the current welfare system financially and it is therefore inevitable that changes to assessments and criteria for benefit entitlement will be reviewed.
"Whilst we are told that the changes being implemented will seek to ensure that those who truly need the benefit continue to receive it, these changes bring the argument for protecting yourself as an individual sharply into focus," he added.
Bridge targeted the necessity for the protection industry to better raise awareness of how big an impact losing a salary and relying on state benefits can be.
"The simple fact is that we can no longer rely on the State to provide support when we need it and I firmly believe that it is down to the protection industry to help the public protect themselves," he continued.
"In this climate advisers and providers alike should push the merits of insuring an individual's income against illness and accidental injury."
At present, DLA would provide a monthly income of £541.66 for those receiving the higher rate, something Bridge suggested would leave a "rather large gap in the finances of most UK households".
"For a modest premium a family could be protected should the main earner become unable to work due to illness or accidental injury, with that in mind it's easy to see the benefit.
"That's the message we need to get out there to the public because you just never know what might be around the corner," he concluded.
Advertisment
Stay up to date with all the latest news, product development and changes happening within the protection and health insurance market.
All of the latest news and features on all aspects of the protection and health insurance market are available from our print edition.
Advertisment
Visitor Comment
Add your comment
Add your comment
Shutting the stable gate too late
I agree strongly with the article advocating insurance in case of illness or unemployment. It is also true that not everyone fits into the 'professional' capacity where they may not even have heard of a direct debit. I am currently terminally ill. It has been a long illness. When I was working I was in a well paid professional job with a local authority. Not once di I think of insuring for illness - Oh that's what the Americans do - but the situation is serious and the Governmment should not be allowed to get away with these savage cuts to welfare. Thank goodness I will be dead but my heartaches for those who will have to live with this unforgiveable injustice. But insure now for later ? Bloody good sense if you can get a reasonable and fair deal.
Posted by: Gerald Phillips | Feb 06 2012
Good intentions wrecked by reality?
Were it that simple. The reality is that only those working at present who might have to rely on the State in the future are viable for the Protection Industry to insure. By far the majority currently living on benefits would be declined by insures. Equally the 'underclass' who occupy "broken Britain" do not fit the tidy world of internet/telesales and direct debits. There is a reason to beat the drum for the Protection Industry, but our products based on risk rather than inevitability will only serve a minority of those who suffer from benefit cuts.
Posted by: D Haggerty | Feb 06 2012
Add your comment