is pet insurance worth it for a cat/kitten?

Deals_2

tahnks for any tips

Soubrette

For most people, they'll pay out more in premiums than they claim, for a significant minority it'll be a life saver and they'll claim way more than they pay in.

Can you afford to have a cat with a serious illness and no insurance?

Sou

Stardust

For sure, I could never afford out my own pocket to have mine treated if there was an accident or illness. I think my animals have better health cover than I do

zzzLazyDaisy

I could afford to pay out if my cat got an illness - but he is only 5 years old. I don't have a crystal ball and don't know if I will be able to afford it in, say, five years time. The insurance gives me peace of mind and is a small price to pay for the affection and companionship he gives me.

About 30 years ago, before insurance was even thought of for cats, I had a cat that broke its pelvis when it was hit by a car. I had to have her pts - in those days they didn't have the skills and techniques they have now. Nowadays they can operate with a good degree of success but it costs thousands.

I'd rather not take the risk.

Lil_Me_2

yes yes yes yes yes

For me it's saved me hundreds of pounds and my cats are still under 2!

Unexpected vets visits are as follows -

1) £100 for a seriously swollen paw - same as excess so didn't claim
2) £350 for one of them constantly being sick and having an overnight stay
3) £50 for the same thing but she caught it after her brother so didn't need all the diagnostic tests, they just gave her the same treatment.
4) One was found to have a heart murmur. So far the treatment has been £450 ish. We're expecting to have a lot more claims on this one! The cardiologist is £66 a consult each time plus regular scans of her heart.

So total paid out in premiums is £280. Total cost of vets bills is just shy of £1000 and rising.

Considering the cost of the Tiger's heart scans and visits (we're looking at a visit in a few weeks, another scan in 3 months ish) is going to be around another £300 this year it is most definitely worth it for us.


Pets aren't cheap, so I think it's easier to factor in the cost of insurance and if you can't afford that then you'll be unlikely to afford any unexpected vets bills.

Caffca

On the flip side, I've been lucky, my 3 cats are 10 years old (had him 10 years); 14 (had her 9 years) and 6 (had him 4 years) and they have never been insured and I have never had to have them to the vets for anything serious - the odd puncture wound / split pad sort of stuff, nothing major. Now I know I have been very very lucky and am not suggesting you do not get insurance but you have to balance the risk against your need for financial assistance. If something does happen to one of mine I can afford to pay quite a large sum if necessary - I always put money aside each month into my "Justin Case" account - Justin has quite a little nest egg now! So it's a risk I can manage. Your situation might be different so you need to decide whether you could suddenly stump up £500 / £1000 or whatever amount or not. If not, then insurance is probably the way to go.

paddypaws101

I suppose a lot depends on your attitude to risk....and also how you view your pet! Is your cat just that, an animal that you care a lot for but could make an impartial decision about? By this I mean...if that cat developed cancer, or had a serious illness that could cost thousands of pounds would you feel comfortable to openly declare that you could not afford to treat and instead PTS?
BTW, this would not make you out to be a terrible person, although it is an emotive debate.
For me.....I am not convinced that insurance is always the way to go. I got a quote of £160 for my new kitten recently, but of course that has an excess of £60 and the premium will rise with age. So...most routine vet visits will not be covered and some cats will just be lucky and never need vet treatment.

Ironically....just as I was writing this, a work colleague called me as her cat had just crawled into her house. I picked up her and the cat and took them to my vet ( 3 doors down from my house! )
Vet suspects RTA, and has hospitalised the cat....so far the bill is £120 and that is without him charging for out of hours consultation. She really has not got the money so in her case insurance would have been a godsend.

crackerberry

I had a bill for £1,000 for my youngest cat. She was vomiting/had blood in her urine. The vet quoted £200 ish for an exploratory operation. Anyway in she went and over the course of the day I had three calls from the vet, the cost rising by a few hundred quid each time - end result a grand ...and other than trimming a bit of ragged gut they found, they found nothing else wrong. She wasn't insured - luckily I could stick the cost on a credit card but I wasn't working at the time and it was a struggle to say the least.

I immediately took out insurance and for my older cat too. The older one is ten and has never ailed a thing, except for dental disease resently... which isn't covered anyway.

Personally I would say get insurance. I only never did because originally and until four years ago money wasn;t a problem if I had to shell out a lot of it for a vet. Times have changed and the insurance cost is priceless in terms of peace of mind should the worst happen. Its scary how costs can escalate if there is a problem.

paddypaws101

I am still pondering this one! There may also be an argument for some of the cheaper policies that do not provide 'for life' protection. Ok so they do not cover every eventuality but would presumably provide enough cover for an RTA or similar event.

lowis

for me absolutely. i don't have access to large amounts of cash and i refuse to get into credit card debt.

here is what i have claimed (approximately) over the past 14 years of pet ownership:

1 x rabbit - £4500
1 x cat - £14,000
1 x cat - £5000
1 x cat - £3500

the premium i pay gives me a peace of mind - i am happy to pay for that, knowing i can do anything for my pet should he need it. i would hate to face the decision of having my cat PTS for something that could be treated/cured just because I couldn't afford the treatment.

lowis

paddypaws101 wrote: »

I am still pondering this one! There may also be an argument for some of the cheaper policies that do not provide 'for life' protection. Ok so they do not cover every eventuality but would presumably provide enough cover for an RTA or similar event.

you would be surprised at how these cheaper policies ramp up their premiums...it's a kind of false economy. you may also be surprised at how competitive someone like AXA or NFU are. for the sake of an extra £2 a month you could probably end up with a far superior cover.