Is pet insurance worth the money? Who here has it?

[Bas Pels]

For fish it is not worth the cost, as most vets don't know anything about fish.

Dogs are not catfish, I won't go into that subject

[Viktor Jarikov]

There are two schools of thought, as usual. One school is as old as the world. The other is relatively new, perhaps several decades old, it appeared in the wealthiest western civilization and many people subscribe to it... for seemingly good, humanitarian reasons, which I don't share though.

[TwoTankAmin]

Pet insurance is still insurance. My experience having insured cars. a home and valuable articles and excess liability is that if you have it, you often never use it. However, if you don't have it, you will regret it sooner or later.

With home insurance we had not used in years until we had a mold issues which was partially covered.
With car insurance I had to use it a few years back. A very slow speed collision. Prior to then I had not filed a claim for decades. I have paid the excess liability for ages and never had cause to use it. I am sure if i cancelled the policy somebody would have a slip and fall here and I would be sued for all I am worth and then some.

So how does this help you? Basically, it depends upon the potential risk v.s. the yearly cost to protect against that risk. However, it is a lot easier for an adult to decide to put a pet down than pay a huge cost for medical care. Children do not understand this. When they become attached to a pet, it becomes a family member and money is no object should it need medical care. So, the issue is not if the insurance is worth it to the pet but rather to the family which "owns" it. That also means it may boil down to the cost of the insurance and if it is affordable. It also depends on one's ability to pay for pet medical care out of pocket should the need arise if insurance is not purchased.

[Viktor Jarikov]

If the said adult caves in, I believe it would teach children a wrong message in the "it's the right thing to do" wrapper, that is, that animals are as valuable as people. You got 2-3 grand to spend on an operation on your dog? That's fine and dandy and humane.

Also, please, remember that $5 can feed a homeless orphan for a whole month in the poorest parts of the world. You can literally save that child with 2-3 grand. Just because you don't see their sad eyes in front of you, as you see your dog's eyes (and surely your heart is breaking), doesn't make them vanish. I believe that since we don't have endless means, like a wise merchant we should buy only the best and choisest things, which are to each their own...

Surely not taking sensible care of one's pet is wrong, no question there. Equating animal and human lives is as wrong. The golden path is in the middle. So much extremism in the world these days...

$0.02.

[TwoTankAmin]

I would not want to be in a home seeing the reactions when the parents told their young children that their beloved pet was going to die because mom and dad are not willing to pay what it cost to save it.

In the 1950s I watched our dog, which was maybe my best friend in the whole world, get killed when it was run over but a police motorcycle. I never kept another dog and I can still see that episode in my memory some 60+ years later as if it had happened yesterday. Moreover, I still have a somewhat negative view of the police to this day even though the dog was at fault.

What also occurs to me here, since this is a fish site, is that we all spend a decent amount of money keeping fish. How many starving children could each of us feed if we had no fish or tanks and instead donated that money. How about our cars, could we own cheaper ones and donate the difference? How about our homes. could we not live in less expensive smaller homes and less expensive neighborhoods?

[Viktor Jarikov]

In no way the following is a personal argument with you. Only some general thoughts of mine on the topic that'd be applicable to anyone.

A statement similar to the above I would consider rather emotional and factually wrong because it is only partially right. The dog would be dying first and foremost from its illness, injury, or age and not as much because of the parents financial decisions.

Many human lives too could be saved or prolonged if they were provided more and better and more expensive medical care. That and many other things, such as how many starving children one can feed, and what to do with one's finances are a private matter of everyone and they are assessed by one's conscience. It is also tempting to reason like that to convince oneself that there is nothing one can do at all.

[JamesFish]

Depends who you ask and the value you place on your pet.

I have 2 dogs and both are insured.

The first one cost £6000 in year one and £4000 in year 2. He has had 3 stable years and is now back in care.

Cost of insurance is lower than the cost of the vets so far. That said he has required 20x the price of the puppy to care for. But he is my pet and I will do everything and spend as much as I can.

I recommend it. As although the cost continues to rise it gives peace of mind.

[Barberry]

What do you know about caring for and training dogs?

[aquaholic]

I don't know if Australia is similar to your part of the world but sick pets with insurance are referred from general vets to "specialists" that charge a lot more. This cost is covered by insurance companies minus the insurance premium and generally customers agree. They like to get their investment back and assume the level of care and expertise will be better. Specialists charge much more because almost all of their work is from insured pets. And since insurance companies need to cover their costs, they increase the cost of insurance .... and so the cycle goes. Have a look at pet insurance prices (increases) over the years if you want a shock. There are lots of caveats insurance companies can use too.

My brother is a general vet for 30 years. Still extremely busy. Gets well paid for non specialist work but before "specialists" were available, general vets treated all pets for everything. Well... maybe they weren't able to provide kidney dialysis for kittens (if that is what is really needed).

If you want the comfort of pet insurance, go for it. But just because you have insurance doesn't mean you need to use it all the time - everytime. Practice some common sense or soon there will be cosmetic surgery options (may already have?)

[Bas Pels]

Now most of us have more pets than our fishes, and for those such an insurance might be a good idea.

For my fishes? I would not even know where to find a vet knowing anything about my fishes. For them it wil lcvertainly be a waste of money.

[tuzexuk]

I have a dog and I think that this service better serves him than my catfishes.

[CrazyPhishMan]

My CEO is also a traveling vet. She has stated that all pet insurances seem to a farce and not cover anything or provide any real value. I am personally of the opinion that all insurance is a scam/grift/extortion.

@TWOTANKADMIN I'm sorry you had that experience. My own dog was hit and killed by the schoolbus i was riding on when i was in 3rd grade and it makes me extra cautious with my pets to this day. At times I feel like i'm living in the movie Final destination.

Your viewpoints towards the "5-0" are founded regardless of the actual events

[aquaholic]

Everyone is different. I love my dogs but they are NOT family members and live outside the house.

Just like my fish, if it becomes too expensive or difficult to save due to illness or accident, I put it down (euthanasia). Sadly I've had to put down 2 dogs and don't keep one now.

I have car & house insurance but no medical insurance. On the occasion where expensive treatments are needed (cancer) I find the money and pay.

Each person is different so I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is.

[Jools]

This is basically a spam thread used by spammers but has drawn in the good folks of Planet to reply. Going to clear out the spam links and lock it now. If I delete it, the bots looking for the thread's topic will not find it and just create a new one.

Jools