to insist we have pet insurance?

[Springersrock]

We have a dog and a cat. DD has a pony. All 3 are fully insured.

I’ve always insisted on having insurance as I never want to make a decision based on what we can afford, rather than what’s best for them (plus DD has rider insurance, liability insurance, her tack is insured, if pony dies stuff like removal, etc are all covered as well as injury and illness).

Both vet practices deal directly with the insurance company so other than paying the excess, we don’t have to worry about anything.

Most people I talk to seem to think it’s a huge waste of money - we’d be better off getting an emergency credit card, or putting the monthly premiums away in a bank account and DH is coming round to this idea too

For me, putting the money away each month is ok once you’re a few years in, but if pony got colic tomorrow we wouldn’t have enough money put away yet, and I don’t want to be paying off a massive credit card bill for years to come

So, AIBU to think the insurance is non-negotiable?

Yes, well in those circumstances Ginkypig the uninsured dog would have to be pts I imagine.

If I couldn't afford the insurance I'd rather not have a dog than be put in that position. Even surgery for something fairly minor is going to be expensive.

So if the uninsured dog breaks a leg the owner pts an otherwise perfectly healthy, possibly young dog.

IMO veterinary charges for pet treatment are geared towards insurance payments. If they didn't exist vets would charge a lot less if the money was coming out of the owner's own pocket.

Personally I don't think pet insurance is worth it, for most of the time it's just a tax on the 'worried well'. Putting money aside into a savings account would be a better choice, because if nothing happens (as is likely) I would still have the money instead of it propping up the huge pyramid that is the insurance industry.

Our dog is almost 10. We've never made a claim ever. But we know she's coming to the age that we probably will have to. We couldn't afford to pay a massive bill outright so the (roughly worked out) £3000+ over the years paid will be money well spent.

So for owners who say, have a change in circumstances, and although can just about cover feeding, are forced to cancel their pet insurance should give up their animals? Which is more irresponsible? Having no insurance for a period of time, however long that may be, running the risk of a health issue arising, which at the same time, may not happen at all. Or relinquish your animal - distressing for you, your family and the animal, putting strain on charities, and run the risk of animal being pts anyway? This non-negotiable line is overly simplistic, and judgemental. Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is reckless or irresponsible, as demonstrated by some posters who have deemed the overall costs to outweigh the benefits in some cases.

We pay about 50£ a month for our Saint Bernards insurance. That’s £600 a year and 6000 over a ten year life span... that’s WELL worth it. Considering the prices of treatment, surgery etc if anything happens

...are forced to cancel their pet insurance should give up their animals?

yep, the feckless poor should not have pets either, obviously.

My ex-MIL had two dogs who she couldn’t afford so got rid of when they developed issues, then she got a sharpei who she didn’t insure - she set up a GoFundMe thing for his treatment on a few occasions now (despite going out for dinner most nights to eat and has a lot of holidays), she then got another sharpei and bred that sharpei and it had two (surviving) puppies she has kept. Hasn’t insured any of them but just puts up crowd funding pages when something is wrong... which seems to be ALL the time! Honestly, I think not having insurance is bloody irresponsible. Even if you have savings it probably turns out more viable to just get the pet insured anyway.

Also obviously if you have a pet and then you fall on hard times it’s totally different. But it’s nothing to do with poor people not being able to have pets, it’s to do with being able to afford pets for the pets wellbeing and safety

It isn't a case of poor people not being able to have pet or likewise people who fall on hard times. But realistically, what is going to happen if their pets do needs an operation or even extended treatment? If the money isn't there, then it isn't there.

I imagine they have to judge very carefully when and if to go to the vet and probably in a great many instances the animal will recover from whatever it is and be okay. But sometimes that's just not going to happen and treatment becomes vital. What happens then?

The PDSA do a lot to help people in these circumstances, @pigsDOfly.

Yes, I know the PDSA do great work under such circumstances. Can anyone use them, how do you prove you need their help unless you're on benefits?

My dog cost me ( petplan) around £1000 in the first few months after we had got him. We had paid out £50 in premiums at this point!

My dd had her puppy insured. Puppy became ill, on a drip etc. Bill of £800. Insurance company refused to pay. Luckily we paid for granddog. Sometimes having insurance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Dd changed insurance company’s.

agedknees why did the insurance company refuse to pay?

You do have to read the T&Cs closely because a lot of them will not pay for illnesses within the first two weeks of insurance and also anything you saw the vet for irrespective of claiming will be deemed a pre existing condition. Also I think people do view cost of premiums as high and sometimes choose the cheap ones when you need to look at what you are getting (or not getting) for the cost.

I don't have insurance, I can afford to pay for my cats should anything happen to them, and it did, o e had a leg and toe amputated.
I paid for it.
I'm also quite poor and on benefits but I have stashed money for emergencies.

Granddog was insured with petplan. He had had diarrhoea before he was insured and developed an abscess on his throat after he was insured. They said the conditions where linked - I have no idea how. Anyway, he’s a healthy 3 year old dog now thanks to the bank of mum and dad.

He was on one of the costliest policies.

I have a cat and dog and no insurance , I would just pay if I needed to though

I think decent pet insurance is essential unless you put aside a decent sum each month as treatment costs can soon add up.

That's odd agedknees I have claimed for a variety of things for petplan and never had an issue. Did you challenge that result with the vets?

My dd did but she didn’t really persue it, had too much going on in her life. I would have fought tooth and nail, but it wasn’t my business. Gave her quite a shock because she thought she’d done the right thing getting him insured.

My horse is insured - and I have had 2 x £5k payouts for her within 5 years, so they have paid me more than I paid them. Definitely worth it!

We lost a young cat 2 years ago to poisoning - we could have sent him to a specialist centre as a last ditch attempt but it would have cost £8k and with no guarantee of success. He was uninsured (he was DH cat and he had never bothered) so we had to take the decision not to proceed. It probably did not change the outcome but the other 2 young cats are now fully insured, just in case.

I have an elderly cat who is no longer insured due to age as they won't cover for anything much now. But I'd also not put her though a lot either. I have some savings for her though.

Horse is getting older and will now have lots of exclusions so at some point will go to veteran policy only - but I am building savings so that I have fall back if required.

So in short - I think insurance is well worth it. The less well off you are, the more it matters IMO. But only if it is a decent policy. I can say very positive things about NFU (horse) and MoreThan (cat) as both have paid out without issue. Cheap insurance can be a false economy.

Not worth the risk of being without.

Didn’t claim a penny for my dog for 11 years - then I maxed his £8k policy three years running.