Insure pets...or not?

Sublime_2

throughtherain wrote: »

Presumably the analogy still makes sense to you though?

Yes, if you'd read my previous posts.

throughtherain

Apologies - I've only read your posts on this thread. Will get round to the other 11,000 or so tomorrow.

bouncydog1

Definately try and keep the insurance going - hopefully it doesn't cease when the dogs reach a certain age?

We were paying around £60 month for ours but it was for life cover and responded to all claims, which over the years certainly cost substantially more than the premiums. Our springer developed joint problems and the monthly medication costs were more than the insurance, yet it was all paid together with the quarterly assessment visits.

If you really cannot keep the policy going then you must try and set aside some money each month because the one thing that is certain is that the cost of vets will not reduce.

foxgloves

When I adopted my first cat, I had no intention of getting pet insurance which ssmed like an extra expense. Cat, beautiful & much loved, turned out to be a bit of a prize fighter & I lost count of the times that first year that we went off to the vet for wounds to be stitched (then re-stitched as even in a headcollar he managed to get the stitiches out!). There then followed a major illness resulting in surgery & by the end of the first year, I'd spent just under £1000. I took out insurance at that point. Still paying it with current cat. Also a fighter, but so big, no-one will take him on, which is saving us money. Was wondering about cancelling the insurance as hadn't used it, but earlier this year, he had a medical emergency & we were glad the insurance was there to help with the bill plus help towards the cost of special food. If we didn't have insurance, I think i'd have to be strict about putting em ergency money away to pay for vet bills, so probably in the long run, even with higher premiums for an older cat (he's 10), we might as well stick with the insurance. I think it's a decision that will ultimately always be influenced by personal experience.

dreamdreamer

I'm with Tixy, we've never insured the cats but our dog is insured. He's a pedigree so has every genetic defect going (including total lack of brain function) and an idiot so gets himself into pickles a lot. Cats just seem to be better at taking care of themselves!! Our two cats have probably cost us £500 over the course of their life (they're 18!! and 6) mostly on jabs. The dog would have cost us thousands, after various leg injuries and other accidents, ear problems, 3 strokes and now issues with movement (at the age of 10). Our 18 year old cat has no ongoing health issues at all.

It's not a case of loving the dog more - I'm much more a cat person actually - but the cost/risk ratio just seems to favour insurance more for dogs. I certainly wouldn't be without it for a dog, and if I didn't think I could afford treatment for the cats I'd have it for them too.

Also a fighter, but so big, no-one will take him on, which is saving us money

I think this is where we got lucky - our older cat is HUGE and fearsome. The dog is terrified of him!

rising_from_the_ashes

Tixy wrote: »

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.

I'm the opposite of Tixy - the dog isn't insured but both cats are. I would always go with insurance where it's feasible - my old cat had kidney problems from 18 months and ended up on medication from the age of 4. He lived a comfortable live until the age of 10 but this was at a cost of several thousand pounds and would've been totally unaffordable without the insurance. Both my current cats are insured and it gives me peace of mind in case they get something horrible like Smudge did - I also think cats are more prone to getting run over by cars and things like that.

Like Vicxzy my dog was older when I got him - no medical history & no accurate age and the insurance co's wanted £45/month & £150 excess (5 years ago). If I made 1 claim a year, it would need to be approx £700 for me to "break even".

I've been lucky with him, a few upset tums/ear infections etc which usually cost about £60-90 a time (less than the excess would be).

He now has arthritis but I can buy his medication online and it works out at £14/month so even with this it's still a lot less than the insurance would be.

I do have a "pet pot" set up from my bank account and transfer money into it each month to cover things like all their boosters (about £150/year for the 3 of them) and an amount for the dog in case he needs any trips to the vets etc.


It's also worth noting that as both dogs have had treatment for conditions, these are likely to be excluded from any insurance that you take out now so it would still be a good idea to put a small amount away each month in case there's a reoccurrence of these.

dmg24

To have no pet insurance is irresponsible. Many of us see our pets as a part of the family. If we did not have the NHS, would we even consider not insuring ourselves and our loved ones for medical costs?

The idea of saving up what you would spend on insurance is fundamentally flawed. Whilst it may cover costs in the long term, what would you do if the pet had an accident next week?

Norfolk_Jim

The advice here has turned out to be very good advice, Spike was run over yesterday, big vets bill now due. Fractured pelvis and possible internal injuries.

antrobus

throughtherain wrote: »

Presumably the analogy still makes sense to you though?

Yes, excellent analogy.

Buy a car for £500. Take out insurance. Have an accident. Cost to repair car £1500. Insurers scap car and give you £500 to buy a replacement car.

Makes sense to me.