Insure pets...or not?

Norfolk_Jim

I have 2 dogs, both have had health problems in the past but are healthy now. One is 5 the other 2. I am trying to budget as much off my debt as I can and I'm looking at the pet insurance (about £25 for the 2 of them, not each) and thinking thats £300pa that could be going off my debt instead.
My concerns are - If I don't insure now and want to come back later would I even get cover with previously sick dogs?
Am I adopting a gambling strategy by not insuring? My thoughts are, if a dog gets sick I'd have to either stump up the vet fees myself or put the dog down - not a nice prospect - but then again they may stay well for years to come (and my plan is to be out of CC debt in 3.5 years and then try to reduce the mortgages).
Its tough making these kinds of decisions - just how do people decide one way or the other on this sort of stuff?

RAS

Jim

One option, put the £25 per month into a savings account for vet fees. If it is not needed, after a year, 18 months you have a vet fund and you can transfer the monthly payment across to the debts until such time as you need to top-up the vet fund?.

rosyw

I was in a similar dliemma last year and opted to keep paying out for the insurance, I knew I couldn't have afforded a big vet's bill, and let's face it they can be hundreds for something that seems to be fairly simple! I'm glad I kept it as I decided at renewal time to check out other insurers, it's costing me £22.50 per month for one dog, the cheapest I could get the same cover with a new insurer was a staggering £145 PER MONTH!!:eek:
It's really down to whether you can afford a big vet's bill or not. For me, even though I couldn't really afford the insurance, possibly having to have my dog PTS as I couldn't pay the vet was unthinkable.

throughtherain

In my opinion, and I do have pets, is that this is not a tough decision - you get the insurance. Yes it seems like a waste of money if you don't need it, but it's a good thing if you don't need it!

Please keep the insurance. It's the responsibile thing to do as a pet owner, and believe me, if something happens treatment could cost a LOT more than £300 a year. Treatment for pets is ridiculously expensive, and medication for ongoing problems can easily be significantly more than £25 a month and your insurance should pay for this if needed.

Also if there are emergencies with your dogs, the last thing you want to be worrying about is paying for treatment.

123budget

I was in the same position as you and opted to keep up the insurance - I'm so glad I did. My poor dog damaged her leg trying to chase a squirrel up a tree!! Two operations (12 weeks living in her cage as not allowed to walk) physio to get legs working again and a bill of around £5000.00 - sooo glad I was insured.

ghostmadlittlemiss

Personally, I'd definitely buy the insurance but I know I have a bias in that regard. When I was younger, my dad had to put our dog down because he couldn't afford the vet bills when she got ill. So I know I could never have a pet and not insure them. But that's just because of my experience, I know.
Kayleigh

vicxzy

Yes please insure them, I didnt get my dog til he was too old to insure & now hes costing me lots for ongoing medication, he had an op last year which was £600 & now is on meds costing around £60 per week.
My dog is my best friend & he has got me through so much while ive been struggling financially there os no way i could put him down he is my little support network x

bugslet

I think Ras's suggestion is the best one, but really it depends on your circumstances. If you can't get access to funds should you need to then, perhaps it's better to keep paying for the insurance.

I have 5 dogs and have never insured them ( and I'm not irresponsible!!!!) but I have the funds to cover an emergency. So far, I'm well ahead over what I would have had to pay out for insurance - maybe I've just been lucky. I've had one dog that had epilepsy for over 10 years and a bit of heart trouble in his last year, but he was not really expensive to treat. If I had only him then insurance might have been cheaper, but with having 5 and the others not requiring anything, then it was better for me.

I have heard and I may be wrong, but I think if you are paying for things yourself, they are not always the same price as the insurance company gets charged.

TakingControl

I would deffo go for the insurance. My last dog had a chronic illness and cost the insurance company £160 a month in medication, they paid 3 years until he passed away. The £20 or so a month don't look that bad then. And not to forget, 3rd party liability insurance is always part of pet insurance.

throughtherain

bugslet wrote: »

I think Ras's suggestion is the best one, but really it depends on your circumstances. If you can't get access to funds should you need to then, perhaps it's better to keep paying for the insurance.

I have 5 dogs and have never insured them ( and I'm not irresponsible!!!!) but I have the funds to cover an emergency. So far, I'm well ahead over what I would have had to pay out for insurance - maybe I've just been lucky. I've had one dog that had epilepsy for over 10 years and a bit of heart trouble in his last year, but he was not really expensive to treat. If I had only him then insurance might have been cheaper, but with having 5 and the others not requiring anything, then it was better for me.

I have heard and I may be wrong, but I think if you are paying for things yourself, they are not always the same price as the insurance company gets charged.

Apologies if my comment earlier caused offence - of course if you are able to fund any potential medical treatment needed you are not irresponsible. However anybody who does not have the means to treat their pets in an emergency and does not have insurance, is most definitely irresponsible. Pets shouldn't suffer because their owners can't get them the medical care they need.

Tixy

Its is a tough decision Jim for anyone.
For me personally I insure my dog but not my 2 cats. The dogs insurance has already paid for itself when she had an emergency operation, and the dog is a main member of the family for me. If I didn't have insurance I would spend any cost for any treatment she required (if I'm honest and if it were ever required I remortgage for the dog) so that tells me insurance is a must. With a dog then for me the insurance gives the added bonus of liability insurance.

For the cats I would and have spent money on their treatment but cost wise the insurance doesn't seem to add up so well. Not much cheaper than a dog to insure and yet far less likely to need expensive treatment from my personal experiances.