Is pet insurance really worth it?

stator

If you can't afford to pay thousands of pounds every year on your pets then you need insurance.
You need decent insurance, not "money saving" cheapskate insurance.
Lifetime policies are the best and reading the policy before you buy is a MUST.
I don't have dogs but other pets. I have claimed on their insurance many times and never been rejected. That's because I knew the rules before hand and know when to claim.
My only gripe is that the excess goes up as the pet gets older. But it's still worth having and has to be taken out when the pet is youngish.

missbiggles1

stator wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay thousands of pounds every year on your pets then you need insurance.
You need decent insurance, not "money saving" cheapskate insurance.
Lifetime policies are the best and reading the policy before you buy is a MUST.
I don't have dogs but other pets. I have claimed on their insurance many times and never been rejected. That's because I knew the rules before hand and know when to claim.
My only gripe is that the excess goes up as the pet gets older. But it's still worth having and has to be taken out when the pet is youngish.

I think you must have been very unlucky.

As I said, I have always had a minimum of 4 cats (although it did go up to 7 for a few years) and 2 or 3 dogs. Over the last 8 years, excluding sterilisation, vaccinations, worming and fleas, I've spent about a grand on the cats (over half that on 1 cat who has stomatitis and had to have all his teeth out, twice!) and double that on the dogs (over half that on 1 dog who had bone cancer and needed a bone biopsy and a leg amputation:(), averaging out at about £350 per year. I should add that all mine are rescues and many of them were elderly, so you'd think their vet costs would be higher.

Most of mine were too old to be insured anyway but, if that had been possible, I would've been paying well over £3k pa and would've spent over £40k on insurance rather than £3k in vets fees. To suggest that most pet owners with maybe a couple of animals need to budget for "thousands of pounds every year" in vets fees seems to me to be scaremongering and rather irresponsible - no wonder the refuges are full of animals if potential owners are put off adopting by people telling them that it'll cost a fortune if they do so!

Apologies for going on a bit but it's a subject I feel strongly about.

Money_maker

For dogs, yes. My friends dog has had both cruciate done, it was well over 2K each operation.

I have a 4 year old cat. I am matching my monthly premiums into a separate savings account and will continue to do so until the premium goes up too high and I will cancel the insurance and remain self funding.

stator

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think you must have been very unlucky.

As I said, I have always had a minimum of 4 cats (although it did go up to 7 for a few years) and 2 or 3 dogs. Over the last 8 years, excluding sterilisation, vaccinations, worming and fleas, I've spent about a grand on the cats (over half that on 1 cat who has stomatitis and had to have all his teeth out, twice!) and double that on the dogs (over half that on 1 dog who had bone cancer and needed a bone biopsy and a leg amputation:(), averaging out at about £350 per year. I should add that all mine are rescues and many of them were elderly, so you'd think their vet costs would be higher.

Most of mine were too old to be insured anyway but, if that had been possible, I would've been paying well over £3k pa and would've spent over £40k on insurance rather than £3k in vets fees. To suggest that most pet owners with maybe a couple of animals need to budget for "thousands of pounds every year" in vets fees seems to me to be scaremongering and rather irresponsible - no wonder the refuges are full of animals if potential owners are put off adopting by people telling them that it'll cost a fortune if they do so!

Apologies for going on a bit but it's a subject I feel strongly about.

It's not scaremongering to think of the worst case scenario.
If you truly care for your pets then you wouldn't want to put them down if they get a disease that is expensive to treat, whatever the odds are it's sensible to insure against it.
It's no different to other types of insurance. The chance of my house burning down in the net 12 months is less than 1% but I will still insure against it because the consequences for me would be huge.

Pet Insurance companies don't make a huge profit. So if you pay £100 per year insurance and don't claim, most of that money has gone to paying another person's vet fees. It's wrong to think of it was money wasted when there was no way for you to know before hand if you would need to make a claim.

missbiggles1

stator wrote: »

It's not scaremongering to think of the worst case scenario.
If you truly care for your pets then you wouldn't want to put them down if they get a disease that is expensive to treat, whatever the odds are it's sensible to insure against it.
It's no different to other types of insurance. The chance of my house burning down in the net 12 months is less than 1% but I will still insure against it because the consequences for me would be huge.

Pet Insurance companies don't make a huge profit. So if you pay £100 per year insurance and don't claim, most of that money has gone to paying another person's vet fees. It's wrong to think of it was money wasted when there was no way for you to know before hand if you would need to make a claim.

I certainly don't think that money spent on insurance is wasted and I have insurance for almost all aspects of my life and am just happy when I don't need to claim.

However, in most cases you're not talking about £100pa, certainly not if you're advocating top of the range insurance, more likely in the region of £600 pa average, which is fine if you have just 1 dog or a couple of cats.

What I was really taking issue with you about was your statement that "if you can't afford to pay thousands of pounds every year on your pets then you need insurance." because I do think that this is scaremongering and is likely to put people off adopting animals who are desperately in need of a home. Most people, unless they're terribly unlucky, don't have to to pay this amount in vets fees even once in their pet's lifetime much less as your post said, "every year".

Aretnap

missbiggles1 wrote: »

To suggest that most pet owners with maybe a couple of animals need to budget for "thousands of pounds every year" in vets fees seems to me to be scaremongering and rather irresponsible - no wonder the refuges are full of animals if potential owners are put off adopting by people telling them that it'll cost a fortune if they do so!

Nobody is claiming that bills of many thousands of pounds are a certainty, or even that they're particularly likely. Just that they're a possibility, and that if you're not going to insure your pets you need to think about how you'd deal with that possibility if you were one of the unlucky people who are in that situation.

For some people the answer would be "I can afford a few thousand pounds - the kids will just inherit a little bit less."

For others it would be "I wouldn't like it, but I could find the money from somewhere if I had to. I might just have to not take any holidays for a few years."

And for some it would be "I've looked myself in the eye and if the vet's bills are going to go beyond a certain point I could cope with having my pet put down instead of treating it."

All of which are fair enough - but if none of the above apply then the decision to go without pet insurance is one which comes with a significant risk.

lisa110rry

A friend of mine's five year old dog lost the use of her hind legs two months ago. Thankfully, she was insured as the vet bills are over £5,000. She is now almost back to her normal self and we, her friends, are hugely relieved she is insured as I think we would all have been distraught if the little lass had been PTS.

edit: PS, my 11 year old terrier-type mongrel is insured.

~Beanie~

I've just had a £4300 vet bill (for a cat) so I would say yes, definitely worth it.

Without insurance I would have had no way of paying that amount of money, as it was the insurance covered £4000 of it.

stator

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I certainly don't think that money spent on insurance is wasted and I have insurance for almost all aspects of my life and am just happy when I don't need to claim.

However, in most cases you're not talking about £100pa, certainly not if you're advocating top of the range insurance, more likely in the region of £600 pa average, which is fine if you have just 1 dog or a couple of cats.

What I was really taking issue with you about was your statement that "if you can't afford to pay thousands of pounds every year on your pets then you need insurance." because I do think that this is scaremongering and is likely to put people off adopting animals who are desperately in need of a home. Most people, unless they're terribly unlucky, don't have to to pay this amount in vets fees even once in their pet's lifetime much less as your post said, "every year".

It would only put someone off adopting a pet if they can't afford the insurance. And in my opinion people shouldn't adopt pets if they can't afford to pay for the vet care themselves or insurance to cover it instead!

lazer

I have just insured my 2 cats, been thinking about it for ages, but have now insured them for a few years anyway while I build up savings. £9.80 a month for 2. lifetime policy max benefit £4,250.


Peace of mind is worth it