Insure pets...or not?

kerri_gt

I would always have pet insurance - vet bills can be horrendous and really I see Pet Insurance as being part of a responsbile owner. Putting £25 away a month can easily get swallowed up if you need to pay for treatment. Personally, and I don't mean to sound harsh here, if you decide to have pets you should be prepared to pay all associated costs, you should pay your pet insurance and cut back elsewhere if necessary.

Darren_G

One thing nobody has touched on yet is that insurance is not just for vet bills - most also cover public liability.

In today's litigious society, it would not be too much of a stretch for someone to make a claim that the dog has attacked them or even caused a car accident etc..

Any cover is better than none, but some cover is much, much better than others, which is why I stay with PetPlan despite it costing more than some of the other insurers (most vets in my area will only deal direct with PetPlan, so owners using any other insurer have to pay the full amount up front and then put in a claim).

Luckily, I am not at the point where I have to make the difficult choice of taking cheaper cover or canceling it altogether, but insurance is, in my opinion, a fundamental part of the cost of owning a dog.

Good luck to the OP with whatever you decide to do

Norfolk_Jim

Many thanks for your perspectives on this one. Not having to put a dog down because of money was part of the original decision to insure to begin with but I hadn't thought about public liability.
The younger dog I delayed getting insurance for, then he went and broke a leg playing in the garden. That was an eye watering bill and a contributor to current woes.
Think maybe I'll keep this one going while I can.

Sublime_2

I've never bothered for my 2 rescue staffies. First one lived till they were 16/17, and my current one is 11, so far so good!

flecker

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.

I'm in a similar position to this - I don't have insurance but do have funds to cover an emergency. So far so good. We worked out the costs, the excesses and got some idea of the average health issues for this breed in a lifetime and the numbers didn't stack up for us. But it's a risk, obviously, and we're only taking it because we know we could afford to pay the vet's bills if needed.

So I'd agree that RAS's suggestion seems like a good one.

(BTW, yes, I've seen the same thing - vets whacking up the costs for anything that's going to be paid by an insurance company.)

anxious_mum

I'd go for insurance every time. I have two cats, they are both insured. One of the blighters had a really rare disease last year, cost was £2000 plus. All this for £15 per month (for both) and a £75.00 excess. I don't think there's a discussion personally, no-one has a crystal ball, and no-one knows what might happen.

throughtherain

Sublime wrote: »

I've never bothered for my 2 rescue staffies. First one lived till they were 16/17, and my current one is 11, so far so good!

Good for you. How would you feel if someone crashed into your car who didn't have insurance? Would it be ok if they said that "oh I had been driving for 17 years and had never had an accident, but now I can't afford the huge cost of repairing your car and paying for your expenses".

Being insured in a car is a legel requirement as it protects other motorists - it is important and fair to be insured. It is the same for animals - they deserve to be protected so that if something happens they can get the treatment they need. Obviously this comes with the caveat that if you can genuinely afford to pay whatever bills come along to protect the life, health and dignity of the animal then it's fine not to have insurance. However, if you describe choosing not to have insurance as a "risk" because it may be that you can't afford the treatment, it's not fair on the animal in your care.

If the attitude is that you'll get into debt or further debt to fund any unexpected treatment, this is a false economy as it will cost far more in the long run than the relatively cheap insurance, even if it feels like you can't afford it.

IMO insurance is as standard as providing your pet with food and water, unless you can genuinely afford to pay for any unexpected treatment.

impulsive

I've got a pedigree dog and she cost £12 p/m to insure. After only 4 months (she was 8months old) of insuring her she damaged her rear leg and had to have surgery which cost over £3k.

Without the insurance I would not have been able to afford this, or get credit for this treatment.
The other options were a £250 amputation of the leg or £80 to put her to sleep.


Even now the insurance is only £19 p/m and it'll take me years to pay back the £3k that my insurance company have already paid out.

In my eyes it's a gamble. Sometimes you win, but sometimes you lose. How would you cope if you lost is the big question?

Sublime_2

throughtherain wrote: »

Good for you. How would you feel if someone crashed into your car who didn't have insurance? Would it be ok if they said that "oh I had been driving for 17 years and had never had an accident, but now I can't afford the huge cost of repairing your car and paying for your expenses".

Being insured in a car is a legel requirement as it protects other motorists - it is important and fair to be insured. It is the same for animals - they deserve to be protected so that if something happens they can get the treatment they need. Obviously this comes with the caveat that if you can genuinely afford to pay whatever bills come along to protect the life, health and dignity of the animal then it's fine not to have insurance. However, if you describe choosing not to have insurance as a "risk" because it may be that you can't afford the treatment, it's not fair on the animal in your care.

If the attitude is that you'll get into debt or further debt to fund any unexpected treatment, this is a false economy as it will cost far more in the long run than the relatively cheap insurance, even if it feels like you can't afford it.

IMO insurance is as standard as providing your pet with food and water, unless you can genuinely afford to pay for any unexpected treatment.

I don't drive.

throughtherain

Sublime wrote: »

I don't drive.

Presumably the analogy still makes sense to you though?