Self Insurance for pet rabbit

cmodyssey

Hi,

I had a read of the pet insurance page of this site and think the best way for us to go is to do it the self insurance way.

Does anybody have any recommended amouts to save per month for the 'rabbit fund'?

Thanks in advance.

Soubrette

I think it depends on how much the rabbit means to you along with how much treatment and annual health checks cost in your area.

Would you pay £1000 out for an operation for it? £250? Any money that's required?

Once you've decided on your requirements then I would phone round the vets in your area and find out what their annual check ups, innoculations and tooth care would cost (ask if there is any other annual expenses the vet would add to those), then what the most expensive treatment would be (broken limbs, fixing teeth etc).

Then it's simply finding what you feel comfortable with in your insurance fund.

So if the vet says that it would cost £100 per annum for annual check ups etc and the max treatment they've ever paid out for a rabbit is £1000 for a complicated operation (as an example). Then I would make sure I was self insured to the tune of £100 + £2000 (in case there were two instances in one year) divided by 12 giving an monthly rabbit fund of £175 for the first year. The next year, if you've only used the rabbit fund for tha annual check ups then you only need to put in £100/12 as you would already have built up your £2000 emergency fund.

The big draw back with this strategy is what will happen if you've only saved £300 and your rabbit has a serious accident costing £500?

On the other hand, if you feel that your rabbit is only worth up to £250 in treatment (there are perfectly humane reasons why you might feel this way but sorry if it sounds a bit cold ), then you only have to by £100 + £250 per annum - giving a monthly rabbit fund of just under £30. Again once you have built up your fund of £250 then the next year as long as you haven't 'claimed' then you only need to top up the annual expenses part of your insurance.

Of course this still has the same drawback of what to do if an early illness or accident occurs which costs more than you've saved.

Hope this makes sense and gives you a starting place on what amount makes you feel comfortable and gives you some consideration for what you will do while you are saving up your insurance. (Don't forget all my figures are made up and you'll have to do some research).

I think it is very responsible of you to consider this - too many people equate self insurance with no insurance and they are two very different things

Sou

dacouch

Pet Insurance does not cover innoculations and annual health checks so you can take the cost of those out of the equation

Soubrette

dacouch wrote: »

Pet Insurance does not cover innoculations and annual health checks so you can take the cost of those out of the equation

To be honest you still have to pay for them so I count them in my self insurance calculations.

However, I find that your point leads onto one of the big advantages of self insurance, I get to choose what I 'insure' and am not at the whim of policy limits, exclusion clauses etc.

Sou

darich

The other thing to consider is that as soon as you start paying the insurance policy the rabbit (or any other pet insured) is covered for a multitude of large bills or injuries.....from day 1.
If you "self insure" then you'll be heavily out of pocket paying the bill and hoping that nothing else goes wrong while you're repaying yourself.

Personally, I think not insuring a pet is almost selfish - you're effectively gambling that your pet will be healthy to save on the insurance bill. I'm not having a go but I feel if you really care about any pet you own then insurance is something that should be purchased for the welfare and good of your companion.

Soubrette

I couldn't disagree more with you Darich - self insurance if done with care and planning can actually cover more than traditional pet insurance these days.

I do agree that owners who choose not to have insurance and just hope they won't have to cough up are being extremely selfish though.

I personally would strongly urge anyone with insurance to have an emergency fund as well - if anyone wants to read why then read the cruciate ligament thread on the Pets part of the board.

Also check your pet insurance every year - some people have found that their whole of life has changed to an annual limit per condition on renewal and only in the terms and conditions.

The days of unlimited whole of life cover are in its last death throes imo.

Sou

Quote

darich wrote: »

Personally, I think not insuring a pet is almost selfish - you're effectively gambling that your pet will be healthy to save on the insurance bill. I'm not having a go but I feel if you really care about any pet you own then insurance is something that should be purchased for the welfare and good of your companion.

On a similar basis, do you think more children should be insured?

darich

Quote wrote: »

On a similar basis, do you think more children should be insured?

Is this a serious question????

darich

Soubrette wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with you Darich - self insurance if done with care and planning can actually cover more than traditional pet insurance these days.

I do agree that owners who choose not to have insurance and just hope they won't have to cough up are being extremely selfish though.

To me the above is a contradiction. You disagree that putting money aside can cover more than cover costs but agree those who don't have insurance are selfsh?

I was confirming your point where you stated "The big draw back with this strategy is what will happen if you've only saved £300 and your rabbit has a serious accident costing £500?"
But you've said you disagree???

And all of your posts you've missed what i think is a critical point - the cost of the insurance. My two cats cost £13 per month for insurance - that's £156 per year.
Both cats are rescued - one is around 5, the other around 6. Typically a cat will live for around 15-18years. If i pay the £156 per year for the next 12 years, taking my 2 to 17 and 18years old, I'll have paid £1856 in total for insurance.
That's spread over 12years and i've got maximum cover from day 1 when i started the policy.

To follow up on your point - the one i confirmed but you then disagreed with - you think it's better to have approx 2 x £2000 sitting in the bank for the whole life of the cats so i don't need to pay £13 per month?
What if my washing machine and fridge break down and i need £500 to buy new appliances?
What if my car has a large repair bill?
What if my central heating fails and i need a new boiler?
What if all the above happen in a 6month period wiping out the £4000???

That's why I feel it's better to pay the monthly amount and not worry that I can't touch that emergency fund. I also don't know if £4000 would be enough to pay for a few complicated operations on either or both my cats if it were ever necessary. But I do know that if i pay £13 a month for pet insurance then as long as it's not an innoculation or a dental problem, my cats are covered.

Each to their own I suppose but i feel the self insurance route is still selfish and gambling on the health of a pet to save a few pounds.

Quote

darich wrote: »

Quote wrote: »

darich wrote: »

Personally, I think not insuring a pet is almost selfish - you're effectively gambling that your pet will be healthy to save on the insurance bill. I'm not having a go but I feel if you really care about any pet you own then insurance is something that should be purchased for the welfare and good of your companion.

On a similar basis, do you think more children should be insured?

Is this a serious question????

Yes. Although I was only really trying to highlight the ridiculousness of your comment.

Soubrette

darich wrote: »

To me the above is a contradiction. You disagree that putting money aside can cover more than cover costs but agree those who don't have insurance are selfsh?

I was confirming your point where you stated "The big draw back with this strategy is what will happen if you've only saved £300 and your rabbit has a serious accident costing £500?"
But you've said you disagree???

Sorry to take so long responding darich but I'm not on so often these days.

I think I have not made myself very clear if you think I am contradicting myself - to your first point, self insurance is not the same as no insurance. The first is not necessarily selfish but the second one is imo.

I personally would not self insure unless I had a pot of money built up already but I also think that different things work for different people - some people don't mind putting things on credit card, have understanding families who will loan money or already have savings.

Also some people are not as soft as I am with their pets (and some people are much much softer )

So self insurance may be selfish if you have absolutely no way to raise any funds in the short term and pretty much akin to having no insurance which I 100% agree with you, is selfish.

darich wrote: »

And all of your posts you've missed what i think is a critical point - the cost of the insurance. My two cats cost £13 per month for insurance - that's £156 per year.
Both cats are rescued - one is around 5, the other around 6. Typically a cat will live for around 15-18years. If i pay the £156 per year for the next 12 years, taking my 2 to 17 and 18years old, I'll have paid £1856 in total for insurance.
That's spread over 12years and i've got maximum cover from day 1 when i started the policy.

You are extremely lucky to have maximum cover, I believe that those days are ending, as I understand it, even pet plans most premium plan is now putting an annual claim limit (which is massive at the moment but will affect some people).

If cost is an argument then my counter argument is that by its very nature most people will lose out financially by being insured. Insurers have to cover overheads + claims + profits and charge everyone accordingly. If everyone managed to claim back exactly what they have paid in then premiums would still be loaded for the staff, building and other company costs plus profits for the shareholders or owners. Of course we know that many people claim far more than they have paid in premiums and of course that cost is spread out throughout everyone else premiums.

The sad fact is that if you are prepared to gamble and not bother with insurance then you are statistically more likely to be a winner than a loser. It's not a gamble I personally would take so I choose to self insure my dog partly so that more money I would pay to the insurance company goes towards his costs and partly because it gives me more freedom to decide exactly what I am going to pay for - no exclusions or excesses on my 'home' policy

darich wrote: »

To follow up on your point - the one i confirmed but you then disagreed with - you think it's better to have approx 2 x £2000 sitting in the bank for the whole life of the cats so i don't need to pay £13 per month?
What if my washing machine and fridge break down and i need £500 to buy new appliances?
What if my car has a large repair bill?
What if my central heating fails and i need a new boiler?
What if all the above happen in a 6month period wiping out the £4000???

Don't people have other savings to cover these things That is actually a semi serious point - if I were self insuring my pet then I would have a separate account with a direct debit set up to go in to it that was my pet's fund. If I had a series of unfortunate events such as your list above then the holiday fund would go first. Touching the dog fund would be just above the lose the house scenario.

However, lets say I don't self insure as such, let's say that I just have a general savings fund and it is severely depleted by a series of unfortunate events. Where is that different from going over the annual limit of my policy? I've just looked up the cheapest insurance for a 5 year old mongrel on a comparison site - it offers £1500 vets bill limit but only £500 per condition - what if my dog runs into the road and breaks his leg - that's probably at least £2000 I'm looking at for the inital surgery and then ongoing meds for pain? If he has complications or other injuries from the accident then I might be looking at a bill for £5000 plus - I get £500 paid for but now I have to find the £4500 (as well as the excess which is a paltry £69 on this policy).

Let alone if some problems with that leg is then excluded from the policy - two years later my dog develops arthritis and then insurer tells me it's because of the break and will pay nothing towards any of the meds he will be on for the rest of his life?

Who is better off in this scenario - the guy who had £4000 in savings or the guy who chose to insure?

darich wrote: »

That's why I feel it's better to pay the monthly amount and not worry that I can't touch that emergency fund. I also don't know if £4000 would be enough to pay for a few complicated operations on either or both my cats if it were ever necessary. But I do know that if i pay £13 a month for pet insurance then as long as it's not an innoculation or a dental problem, my cats are covered.

Each to their own I suppose but i feel the self insurance route is still selfish and gambling on the health of a pet to save a few pounds.

I have only investigated dog insurance and not many people are lucky enough to be in the position of paying their premiums in the happy knowledge that apart from day to day care the dogs will be 100% covered for life.

There are big pros and cons to both insurance and self insurance and it is indeed each to their own and what people's comfort levels are. Both avenues should be investigated thoroughtly - not saying your insurance is like this but too many people have assumed they are 100% insured until they have to make a claim and then are sadly disabused.

On the other hand - too many people blithely say they are self insured when they mean not insured and then when they have to pay out for their animals complain bitterly.

So in my mind the OP is one step above anyone who goes down either route with no research

Sou