Self Insurance for pet rabbit

Soubrette

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?

Sorry I wanted to add a couple of points for those still awake with all this talk of insurance

Some people might work out their self insurance based on premiums but I wouldn't - I personally would rather have twice the most expensive procedure put away per animal.

So if you were looking at £3000 for treatment for a road traffic accident and had two cats then I'd probably only feel comfortable with £12000 tucked away.

I think something else I wasn't being clear on - most people who self insure will pay less overall than those that insure. Some people will not though.

Insurance, self insurance or no insurance are all a gamble if it is done on purely monetary terms so no one can say it's better for an individual to do it one way or another - only statistically on an overall basis.

There are other advantages to being self insured imo though. However, if I fell upon times so hard that I could not self insure then I would get insurance.

Sou

Edited to add of course the £12000 is my money so if after a long and uneventful life my dog passes away in his sleep and I have all the money left - then it is all mine. If you have paid into a policy and never claim then obviously your premiums will be a lot less than the £12000 savings but will be gone.

buxtonrabbitgreen

You may as well go the self insurance route for a rabbit. I looked into rabbit insurance and none of them covered any problems connected with teeth. In my experience nearly all rabbit illness problems are connected with teeth.

dacouch

Soubrette I agree with you that Self Insurance is a valid option if the person goes into it understanding the size of the potential vet bills and possible frequency of the bills in the case of certain conditions or a major accident.

If you have sufficient funds in the bank that you can afford to dip into at short notice then it is a possible solution for some people.

It is also worth researching possible genetic problems with the breed of dog or pet you have as certain breeds have a tendancy to develop certain conditions which can be very expensive.

The example of the pet insurance you gave is not really very balanced though as you have chosen the cheapest policy which by definition will give the lowest possible amounts of cover. It would have been a more balanced arguement if you had used so a mid ranged priced policy with mid range benefits and also if you gave an example on a whole of life policy that would keep paying out each year (This would be a top of the market price and cover)

Soubrette

dacouch wrote: »

Soubrette I agree with you that Self Insurance is a valid option if the person goes into it understanding the size of the potential vet bills and possible frequency of the bills in the case of certain conditions or a major accident.

If you have sufficient funds in the bank that you can afford to dip into at short notice then it is a possible solution for some people.

It is also worth researching possible genetic problems with the breed of dog or pet you have as certain breeds have a tendancy to develop certain conditions which can be very expensive.

The example of the pet insurance you gave is not really very balanced though as you have chosen the cheapest policy which by definition will give the lowest possible amounts of cover. It would have been a more balanced arguement if you had used so a mid ranged priced policy with mid range benefits and also if you gave an example on a whole of life policy that would keep paying out each year (This would be a top of the market price and cover)

You also make some good points dacouch

I did choose the cheapest policy but I feel the argument is still valid - almost all policies have limits per year and per condition but many people who are insured don't realise this.

They have far less cover than they think.

I used the cheapest one to make the point, it is up to those people who are insured to investigate exactly what their own limits are. It is not only self insurers who have to think how much their pet means to them in monetary terms, hard as that is sometimes, people who insure also have to decide on what level of insurance is right for them too.

Why don't you post a mid price and top end insurance? - don't forget with dogs that after aged 8 or 9 both premiums and excesses increase

I would also say - check out the reputation of the company you are insuring with - some companies seem notorious for their payouts.

Sou

dacouch

The option you posted offered £500 per condition a year, a more typical mid ranged policy would offer cover in the region of £2000 to £3000 a year which would make the arguements for pet insurance more of an option.

Dogs aged 8 or over do in fact attract larger excesses and premiums, the simple reason for this is that this is when they are elderly and are far more likely to need treatment (Often expensive and often need repeat treatments for the same condition)