Who insures their animals?

Soubrette

Hintza wrote: »

I know we are very lucky with our vet's charges and am horrified by some of the charges I see on this forum for vets treatement and I can understand that down south especially the fees charged are very high and will reflect such things as property values but even so they seem very scary :eek:

But, i would be more horrified by the cost of insurance for two dogs and two ponies and as such we self insure. Now, I have had big bills but I find they smooth themselves out over time and I am pretty sure we are a lot better off not insuring.

Is this a country bumkin attitude or a tight Scots attitude or a naive attitude we have?

I must be a country bumkin too as I self insure my dog (and daughters two rats), this is totally different from not bothering to have insurance though.

I insure as little as possible with a view to the risk/affordability of the event.

For example I don't hold much truck with contents insurance because we do not have a lot of stuff and I can afford to replace the essentials if the worst should happen and I get cleaned out. This is not the only criteria - none of us are smokers (but we do live in an attached house)/no chip pan/someone in for most of the day/dog that barks when he hears what he presumably considers intruders. So I feel it is a low risk situation AND I have my insurance pot.

Buildings insurance is a different matter - I have no option on this because I am not rich enough to cover the cost of rebuilding the house. If I were then I might think again

I look at all my insurances as a whole and pet insurance comes into the equation. My dog is an old boy and expensive to insure with a big excess. I would not want him insured with a 'noddy' insurance which would refuse to pay out in large claims and my pot gives me control over what I deem should be paid out. My vet knows I'm not insured and so will often give me older remedies such as panacur liquid rather than panacur tablets recently which are effective but cheaper. With regards to public liability - he is muzzled when onlead because he is small furry keen and is very well behaved. He is not likely to escape and cause an accident. None the less I am always in two minds on this - I'm tempted to actually go with contents insurance for the free public liability that goes with it and I've sent off for some details on stand alone liability - again because I can't afford to self insure if someone sues me for millions.

On the other hand I have a very unfortunately friend who was bowled over by an excitable dog off lead (doberman) and as she is very small and slight, ended up with a leg broken in two places. Solicitors told her that she did not have a case worth pursuing but if the dog had been insured then the insurers would have paid up for loss of earnings etc, another disincentive for having insurance :rolleyes:

So in short - if I were poorer then I would have more insurance. If I felt the risks of something were very high, I'd have more insurance so if I lived on a flood plain then I'd probably have contents. If I have to dig into my pot to the tune of thousands and it was severely depleted - then I'd have insurance.

Despite the posts we read on here about people who are thankful for their insurance - most people will lose on their insurance premiums v insurance payouts so I am fairly comfortable with no pet insurance for the time being - but it is always under review.

Sou

geoff1057

For all people who are with E and L pet insurance,i advise you to change to another insurer.
DO NOT TOUCH E AND L WITH A BARGE POLE

even though they said my claim is sorted ,they still havent sent me my cheque,for just £200,a third of my actual vets bill which they have managed to dwindle down as much as possible. this is from my claim dated 12th NOVEMBER 2008

lowis

[quote=Notsosharp]I didn't have insurance for my cats but I do now, its just to have peace of mind more than anything else. I don't think what I pay (£14 for two) saved up for months and years would prolly cover a lot of the expensive stuff like cancer etc but I would question whether it was necessary to treat an animal for cancer. I think you do have to separate humans and animals and I think its prolly reasonable to treat a human for cancer but not an animal. It goes through a lot of pain and things and doesn't really know why and may not pull through in the end so sometimes I think its kinder just to let the animal go.

Actually, most dogs and cat respond very well to chemo (admittedly some don't, but you discover this very quickly so the animal doesn't go through too much discomfort). The levels of chemo given to a cat or dog are a fraction of those given to humans so the experience is not even comparable. In the case of cats, therefore, chemo is not considered a complete cure - but it can put a cat into remission for a good few years (depending on how aggressive the cancer is).

My cat had large-cell (aggressive) lymphoma in her tummy, she was given 6-9 months 'average' with the chemo treatment. I did a lot of research before deciding to try the chemo and decided to at least try it - I had read of quite a few success stories on various forums. Yes, probably selfish of me...but I was ready to accept it might not work, and was prepared for a goodbye if it didn't. The chemo did work though (she was visibly much improved after just 1 treatment) and I ended up getting 18 months more with my cat - and gave her 18 months of life she would have missed out on if I had not tried the chemo. Thank god I had the insurance in place to at least let me try!

The chemo treatment consisted of a weekly visit to the vet for 8 weeks, then a fortnightly visit to the vet over the following 18 weeks - she had a rotation of 3 chemo drugs administered over this 26 week period. She was in clinical remission by week 4 of her treatment. After the chemo protocol ended she went to the vet every 6 weeks for a check-up. Her quality of life was normal during the treatment and during her remission - she was just like any other normal cat. Anyone who saw her during her treatment (and after it) would never have known she was undergoing chemo or had had cancer. I can not stress how normal she was. The only side effects she suffered were her whiskers falling out (but these grew back once the chemo stopped) and she was usually a little lethargic after a certain one of the chemo drugs had been administered.

I am sure there are people who have not had such great experiences with chemo (or other prolonged treatments) for their pets, but I just wanted to post something positive as people who have not experienced treating an animal with chemo may immediately think it is a horrid experience like it is for humans, it isn't though. I know of many people (through forums) who have cats that have been in remssion for 3, 4 and 5 years since their chemo treatment.

foreign_correspondent

I think it depends on the animal as well - my friend has two elderly, crotchety house cats, one of them hates going to the vets so much and becomes so distressed that any prolonged treatment would just be too traumatic for the cat...

my dog, on the otherhand loves visiting the vet, and has no qualms about having stuff done to her!!

lowis

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

I think it depends on the animal as well - my friend has two elderly, crotchety house cats, one of them hates going to the vets so much and becomes so distressed that any prolonged treatment would just be too traumatic for the cat...

my dog, on the otherhand loves visiting the vet, and has no qualms about having stuff done to her!!

this is very true - luckily my cat was as cool as a cucumber and never made a fuss about going to the vet - she even seemd to enjoy the rides in the car, she loved looking out of the window and loved the fuss made of her by the nurses and vets

she was also only just turned 10.5yrs old when she was diagnosed (young for a siamese) so i felt it was worth trying.

hmc

ok with out causing a debate...
im now on benefits and no dog insurance
always used to have
if dog needed serious treatment we could take him to blue cross 1/2hr away
our local is 5 mins away

so if i dont pay full cost to blue cross(never been so no idea how it works) do i need to insure my dog with basic cover?
any suggestions please

foreign_correspondent

hmm I dunno how the blue cross work - i was talking to a lady whose son's dog shattered its shoulder, apparently he had to pay several hundred towards it, but it was a big bill!

Tribulation

hmc wrote: »

ok with out causing a debate...
im now on benefits and no dog insurance
always used to have
if dog needed serious treatment we could take him to blue cross 1/2hr away
our local is 5 mins away

so if i dont pay full cost to blue cross(never been so no idea how it works) do i need to insure my dog with basic cover?
any suggestions please

Not sure how it works. But I know someone on benefits that took their cat to the local RSPCA vets. Saw them for next to nothing on production of proof of their benefit, but the vet said the cat needed surgery on it's teeth. They were then advised that they needed to take it to a normal vets to have the op done.

So while you seem to get cheap consultations, it doesn't appear that you get cheap or free operations.

UKTigerlily

I know The Blue Cross have a Veterinary Fund, but that is a one off emergency treatment payment & not the full amount of treatment. I have no idea if they do other services.

hmc

thanks for replys
i think i will ring b cross and see what their policy is as i feel uncomfortable knowing i cant pay a large bill. could someone point me to the part of the site where you all say which insurers you are with
thanks