Pet Insurance

£65 excess seems par for the course. We have our animals with PetPlan, paying around £19 per month (1 dog, 2 cats). However, the cats are generally healthy, but the older one had to have a thyroidectomy - as it was elective surgery, we couldn't get reimbursed. But, when the dog fell off a wall and damaged her hip, the cost of the xrays and anti-inflammatory drugs was covered.

Hiya Jabba, I just got a quote with Petplan....£23.30 per month, that's more than I pay for house insurance. lol Might look for something a little cheeper than that.

Have a look at Tesco and Asda - their rates are lower.
If you are paying less than £23 for house insurance I think I need to check my policy - I think I'm paying much more than that!!!!!!!

I have used more than for my 2 dogs for the past three years, not the cheapest but one of my dogs has been very ill over the years and no problem with claims and the settled very quickly. one bill was over £1200 excess is about £80 if i remember but well worth looking into

One thing to consider is that some of the cheaper policies will only pay a limited amount per condition. Some policies (the more expensive ones) pay up to a limit per condition per year so if any treatment is going to be complicated and ongoing it wont be long until a limit is reached and then they wont pay out anymore, we had experience of this many years ago with our dog who had skin problems.
We recently got a black lab pup and when I researched it found that unfortunately the breed can get problems with hips and joints, I can just imagine how expensive hip surgery and rehab would be for a dog so I went for better cover this time. We were careful to make sure that the dogs parents were free from any congenital defect but I didnt want to take a chance. There's quite a bit of info and people's experience on 'Labrador Forums' about health insurance and lots of other Lab stuff too. I can't recommend the policy I took yet because luckily I have not had to use it so I dont know how good it is.

I'll declare an interest - I have a pet insurance site. The main things to look out for:
1) Get 'Lifelong' cover. Don't even consider anything else.
2) Once you have insurance if you make a claim you are pretty much stuck with that insurer because any other company will exclude ANY conditions that have previously been treated.
3) Never get insurance where the excess includes a percentage of the bill e.g. you put in a claim for, say, £500 and they charge you a £65 fixed and 10% excess - that comes to £115 you have to find.
4) Never buy insurance where the premium is annual but they 'allow' you to pay monthly via an in-house finance company. If your pet dies they WILL want to collect the outstanding payments for the rest of the year. That may mean that you were expecting a payout on the death of a pet - and you find yourself paying them!

Never use either E&L or the Kennel Club for your insurance. Both have a dreadful reputation.

I never knew that Pets were allowed to drive, let alone needed insurance:D

I am insured with Tesco.
My experiences have always been positive ones. 🙂

We had our rough collie insured with Direct line he had numerous lllnesses in his 5 years oif life and even with numerous claims it oinly went up to £22 per month and they were easy to deal wioth and never quibbledwith any claims we made. I woiuld use them again if we ever decide to get another dog

We have 3 cats, and have never used pet insurance. Looking back over the last 30 years, it would have cost us a lot more in insurance premiums than we've paid out in vets bills.

If you're able to save what you pay in pet insurance, you will be better off in the end because insurance companies and the brokers are there to make profit.

Myarka.

We have 3 cats, and have never used pet insurance. Looking back over the last 30 years, it would have cost us a lot more in insurance premiums than we've paid out in vets bills.

If you're able to save what you pay in pet insurance, you will be better off in the end because insurance companies and the brokers are there to make profit.

Myarka.

Yep. That's absolutely fine until one of your pets needs something serious. The average course of treatment by a vet now is over £200. And they are going up by approximately 12% every year. I had a seriously ill puppy - we were quoted in excess of £10,000 for a heart operation. Without insurance I couldn't have considered it but taking on the ownership of a pet gives you the responsibility to do what's best for it. I know many people who've had vet bills in excess of £2-3,000 per annum with ongoing problems.

You are only better off saving on the premiums if your pet doesn't get ill - or have an accident....

The average course of treatment by a vet now is over £200. And they are going up by approximately 12% every year. I had a seriously ill puppy - we were quoted in excess of £10,000 for a heart operation.

Using fear to sell insurance is one the oldest techniques. As I said, having had pet cats for over 30 years I've not yet received a vets bill I can't afford. I lost a cat through cancer on New year's day this year, if I had insurance the vet would have pressured me to have countless invasive tests and treatments that would have prolonged his suffering. Even worse Panarama made a programme exposing the vets lack of care at time he was there.

Now my cats are cared for by a vet who doesn't put insurance first.

Vets used to make diagnosis through experience and knowledge, now they want to make money out of countless tests. That's why vets bills are going up, because the insurance market is pushing them up.

Myarka.

albert ross. wish i had seen your post 14 years ago!!!!

also other things to be aware of. my insurance for both my cats started off at about £5 each per month. now 14 years later it costs me £34 each per month. the excess is also £180, yes £180 plus 20% of the rest of the claim. they may sound very reasonable at first but they go up quite a bit when the pet starts to age (with cats over 8 years i think) i am struggling with the decision do i stop the insurance and just save the 70 quid a month? thing is if something bad did happen (one already has kidney failure) i wouldnt be able to afford a massive bill, so although its really expensive now - way way more than MY life insurance to pay off my mortgage!!!! i will still keep it up i think just in case.

Using fear to sell insurance is one the oldest techniques. As I said, having had pet cats for over 30 years I've not yet received a vets bill I can't afford. I lost a cat through cancer on New year's day this year, if I had insurance the vet would have pressured me to have countless invasive tests and treatments that would have prolonged his suffering. Even worse Panarama made a programme exposing the vets lack of care at time he was there.

Now my cats are cared for by a vet who doesn't put insurance first.

Vets used to make diagnosis through experience and knowledge, now they want to make money out of countless tests. That's why vets bills are going up, because the insurance market is pushing them up.

I think you are mistaken. Firstly, I set up my insurance website simply to feature insurance companies that aren't a rip-off because I got ripped off by, all of people, The Kennel Club. I've researched, and continue to research, insurance companies.

It's not about fear. It's about common sense. The facts (not ill informed conjecture) are that vets bills are climbing. The RCVS admits to a 12% increase last year in fees. Independent studies show a 60% increase in fees over the last 3 years.

If you have pets that never need treatment, or only ever need some sort of low-level care, then I'm sure you don't need insurance. But if you search forums that deal with pets only you'll see countless posts from people with very ill pets who don't have insurance and wonder where they are going to get the £1,000 or £2,000 to pay for treatment their pet needs. And I bet they always thought their pets would always be healthy too.

Supposing one of your pets got hit by a car and needed major surgery. Do you, personally, pay out the several thousand pounds in vet bills, after care, etc. or do you just shrug your shoulders and say that you can't afford it and have your pet put to sleep? For a lot of people that's a choice they get stuck with.

The insurance market isn't pushing the fees up - it's reacting to vet bills going up.

I think you are mistaken.

Not mistaken at all, I'm talking from my experience of having cats for over 30 years.

It's fact that my vet's expenses have never exceeded what I would have paid on insurance.

What gets charged is obviously related to the of pet. But again in my experience I've never had to pay the level of fees you're describing.

But to repeat myself, because you missed my point. Many of the chain vets are using more expensive diagnostic tests. Many of these tests aren't needed, but are just another profit centre for their practice.

Perhaps the debate should be more about veterinary standards and ethics as a whole. But the industry is booming and insurance is just another way of taking money off the owners. You can hide a lot of costs when something is paid monthly.

Have a look at this Panorama programme about one such chain:

Myarka

Not mistaken at all, I'm talking from my experience of having cats for over 30 years.

It's fact that my vet's expenses have never exceeded what I would have paid on insurance.

What gets charged is obviously related to the of pet. But again in my experience I've never had to pay the level of fees you're describing.

Then you are the exception.

But to repeat myself, because you missed my point. Many of the chain vets are using more expensive diagnostic tests. Many of these tests aren't needed, but are just another profit centre for their practice.

Perhaps the debate should be more about veterinary standards and ethics as a whole. But the industry is booming and insurance is just another way of taking money off the owners. You can hide a lot of costs when something is paid monthly.

Have a look at this Panorama programme about one such chain:

Myarka

I'm not talking about 'chain' vets. I'm talking about ALL vets. The programme you refer to was indeed an exposee of the practices of that chain - and one particular vet - but it certainly doesn't apply to the whole profession.

The increase in vets bills is across the board. If you can afford the risk - fine. Lucky you. Now, please address my previous question "Supposing one of your pets got hit by a car and needed major surgery. Do you, personally, pay out the several thousand pounds in vet bills, after care, etc. or do you just shrug your shoulders and say that you can't afford it and have your pet put to sleep?"

The increase in vets bills is across the board. If you can afford the risk - fine. Lucky you.

The increase of vets bills is caused by the false inflation created pet insurance feeding diagnostic test that are not required.

Now, please address my previous question "Supposing one of your pets got hit by a car and needed major surgery. Do you, personally, pay out the several thousand pounds in vet bills, after care, etc. or do you just shrug your shoulders and say that you can't afford it and have your pet put to sleep?"

In 30 odd years it hasn't happened and if we include the pets I grew up with, it hasn't happened in 50 years. So based on those odds, I can't see a compelling argument for pet insurance.

Myarka.

In 30 odd years it hasn't happened and if we include the pets I grew up with, it hasn't happened in 50 years. So based on those odds, I can't see a compelling argument for pet insurance.

Myarka.

I'm not asking you about what has happened in the past. I'm asking what you would do if it did happen. Please tell us. Will you pay, personally, thousands of pounds for your pet to be helped or will you just put it down?

Your personal past experience is irrelevant. I'm asking how you would react if such a thing occurred.

I have answered your question. My experience of owning pets has shown that pet insurance is a waste of money, and more about market creation than animal welfare.

The vast majority of claims are not for pet RTAs. So do I live in fear that my cats are going to get run over? No, not at all.
But what does bother me is the loading of unnecessary diognostics to scare owners into thinking vets bills are much higher than they need to be

I have answered your question.

No, you haven't. In fact you totally avoided it by harping on about 'your experience'. If it were the same for all pet owners what you say would be fine. But then we wouldn't need any sort of animal health services if that were the case.

What works for you simply isn't the case for thousands of other pet owners. Trying to persuade people that they are going to be as lucky (or as well off) as you are is a dangerous thing to do.

...... is a dangerous thing to do.

And you don't use scare tactics to sell pet insurance?

I do like the advice from money saving expert, and that's consider self insurance for your pets. Have a savings fund for vets fees that you pay into regularly.

Obviously for pedigrees, horse, etc... then insurance can be worth considering.

Myarka.

And you don't use scare tactics to sell pet insurance?

I do like the advice from money saving expert, and that's consider self insurance for your pets. Have a savings fund for vets fees that you pay into regularly.

Obviously for pedigrees, horse, etc... then insurance can be worth considering.

Yes, Martin Lewis ('Money Saving Expert') is full of good ideas - like telling people to use websites that go out of business with their money (because he makes commission on his referrals). Or deliberately pushing people that pay him commission over better deals. He's been unmasked many times.

So, you pay £20 a month into your savings fund. Two months later your cat needs £2,000 worth of treatment. Where, precisely, do you get the remaining £1,960 from?

I have no interest at all in frightening anyone into buying pet insurance. But I do have an interest in hoping that people don't get into a situation where their pet needs treatment and suffers because the owner can't afford it.

I notice you still avoid the question I asked.

Doesn't the same debate apply to all insurance? We hope we're not going to get burgled and the house won't burn down and we won't crash the car and statistically it probably won't happen but we pay insurance just in case we're the unlucky ones.

Most of us here would say it's irresponsible not to have therapists' insurance but how many of us have ever had a claim?

Having said that do think there's an unholy alliance between insurance companies & vets to drive up prices.

Doesn't the same debate apply to all insurance?

Not really.......

There are insurances that we have to have by law, such as motor insurance and if you're in business and employ people, Employers liability insurance.

Then there are insurances that cover you for catastrophic events, such as buildings and contents insurance, or if you're in business public liability insurance. These are important because the consequence of a claim could be in the 10s of thousands to millions of pounds. So these insurances are seen as a necessary part of life.

It is more debatable if pet insurance, extended warranties, dental and health insurances (in a UK context), payment protection and certain types of critical illness/injury insurances actually provide any benefit. They are either expensive for the actual cover they provide or apply conditions that make them difficult to claim against.

I read an article a few years ago entitled, "Good insurance, bad insurance" and I found it quite an eye opener and now I apply the principles it contained and it has saved me thousands of pounds over the years.

Have my cats had any less care or treatment for not having insurance? No, but they've probably had less invasive tests and associated stresses. I've found there are those vets who try and make you feel guity for not having pet insurance, but that's because they are either missing out on some commission, or as in the Panorama programme, aren't able to pad out their bills. There are lots of good vets around, you just need to shop around a bit to find one.

Myarka

Not really.......

There are insurances that we have to have by law, such as motor insurance and if you're in business and employ people, Employers liability insurance.

By law you only need 3rd party motor insurance. Yet the vast majority of people insure their cars for damage/fire/theft. That's a free choice. And they do it because they know if they do have to claim then the overall insurance cost is likely to be far more than their premiums. The same applies to pet insurance.

It is more debatable if pet insurance, extended warranties, dental and health insurances (in a UK context), payment protection and certain types of critical illness/injury insurances actually provide any benefit. They are either expensive for the actual cover they provide or apply conditions that make them difficult to claim against.

That's a fairly ludicrous broad brush statement. My wife used her health insurance when she had cancer. She was treated faster, and in a lot more comfort, privately than she would have been in our local hospital.

The only difficulty in claiming is that people don't read the policies before they take them out and think they are covered for things they are not. I specifically vet the companies that I show on my website to make sure that they do pay out, without quibble, when a claim is made. The only time I've ever been made aware of a problem is when the policy specifically excluded something and the person holding it tried to claim. That's not the fault of the insurance company - it's down to the person buying the policy.

Have my cats had any less care or treatment for not having insurance? No, but they've probably had less invasive tests and associated stresses. I've found there are those vets who try and make you feel guity for not having pet insurance, but that's because they are either missing out on some commission, or as in the Panorama programme, aren't able to pad out their bills. There are lots of good vets around, you just need to shop around a bit to find one.

And we know that your cats have been in perfect health. I know, equally, that having had 2 pets with serious problems that I couldn't have managed without the pet insurance for the bills. I had one dog who went on receiving treatment year on year - all paid for by her insurance - and the payouts far exceeded the premiums. I've also known people who've had to have animals put to sleep because they couldn't afford treatment when their pets were seriously ill.

It comes down to responsible pet ownership. If you take a pet on then you owe it to them to be able to provide the best possible care if they need it. If you can afford it out of your own pocket that's fine. If you can't then you ought to insure. Shopping around for the cheapest deal from a vet when your pet has just been hit by a car doesn't seem a terribly good idea.

The only difficulty in claiming is that people don't read the policies before they take them out and think they are covered for things they are not. I specifically vet the companies that I show on my website to make sure that they do pay out, without quibble, when a claim is made. The only time I've ever been made aware of a problem is when the policy specifically excluded something and the person holding it tried to claim. That's not the fault of the insurance company - it's down to the person buying the policy.

I guess you don't watch BBC's watchdog? Miss-selling of insurance is one of the most common issues not only on consumer programmes but also on consumer websites.

It comes down to responsible pet ownership. If you take a pet on then you owe it to them to be able to provide the best possible care if they need it.

I totally agree and to me that means not opening up the doors to invasive diagnostic tests that put the pet through unecessary stress and pain in the name of care. Unfortunately pet insurance doesn't take into account the psychological damage that many modern treatments do to animals. Unfortunately pets are not able to give informed consent.

Shopping around for the cheapest deal from a vet when your pet has just been hit by a car doesn't seem a terribly good idea.

Are you talking from experience? You keep mentioning pets being run over, so you must have 1st hand experience?

Myarka.

I guess you don't watch BBC's watchdog? Miss-selling of insurance is one of the most common issues not only on consumer programmes but also on consumer websites.

And I guess you don't realise that Watchdog etc. are looking for examples of extremes. When they did their pet insurance 'expose' they missed out quite a lot - like the insurance policy where someone had to pay the full years fees after the death of their pet clearly says so in their terms and conditions. Like the 'expert' they had on to present the case for the insurance companies was actually a vet - not an insurance expert at all. And, just in case you think I'm on the side of the companies, I could have given Watchdog much better material than their researchers could have come up with - that's why I run an independent site that gives pet insurance advice.

I totally agree and to me that means not opening up the doors to invasive diagnostic tests that put the pet through unecessary stress and pain in the name of care. Unfortunately pet insurance doesn't take into account the psychological damage that many modern treatments do to animals. Unfortunately pets are not able to give informed consent.

So, what do you do if, say, one of your cats comes in one day dragging its back legs, unable to walk? Do you allow the vet to X-ray? Or is that 'invasive' and submitting an animal in distress to 'psychological damage'? Is the animal's pain irrelevant in case it gets 'psychological damage'? And do, please, tell us how you know that the animal has suffered 'psychological damage'. After all your pets can't tell you, any more than they can give consent to treatment.

Are you talking from experience? You keep mentioning pets being run over, so you must have 1st hand experience?

None of my pets have been hit by cars - some of the people who've contacted me about insurance have. It's irrelevant. The question is what would you do?

You keep avoiding answering that question, don't you? Which is it - pay or put to sleep? It's not a hard question - just give us an answer. Avoiding it speaks volumes about your attitude to animals.

And I guess you don't realise that Watchdog etc. are looking for examples of extremes. When they did their pet insurance 'expose' they missed out quite a lot - like the insurance policy where someone had to pay the full years fees after the death of their pet clearly says so in their terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions, the great get out clause. The customer is in the wrong because they don't read the terms and conditions. Not what I call customer centred service. Have you heard of human factors? Presentation of the terms of the terms of conditions can assist the purchaser to read them, or they can presented in such a way that that discourages read. In my experience the later seems to prevail. Not only that, some sales techniques tend to put pressure on the customer to sign as quickly as possible without reading the terms and conditions. So is it always right to the customer for not reading the terms and conditions?

So, what do you do if, say, one of your cats comes in one day dragging its back legs, unable to walk? Do you allow the vet to X-ray? Or is that 'invasive' and submitting an animal in distress to 'psychological damage'? Is the animal's pain irrelevant in case it gets 'psychological damage'? And do, please, tell us how you know that the animal has suffered 'psychological damage'. After all your pets can't tell you, any more than they can give consent to treatment.

Yes, been through that experience, had the xrays. Also had a cat that insisted on eating the wrong sort of grass that had to be surgically removed. So that did work out costing me, but nothing I couldn't afford.

A good example of how things have change is blood tests..... Now I do understand that the vet I was using could have been making it up as he went along. Vets, used to take blood while I held the cat, simple and quick. The last one before I changed, would have to book a hospital appointment where the cat would be sedated, paw shaved, etc.... before the blood is taken. So the cat has to go through 2 vets appointments, and we had to go through the extra costs. So diagnostic tests becomes an industry in itself, creating more work and expense when the vet has the skills and experience to diagnose without tests.

None of my pets have been hit by cars.

Excellent, I was getting worried that I was the only person who has cats that know the greencross code. They used to be members of the [url]Tufty Club[/url] but they kept thinking tufty was a mouse :eek:.

You keep avoiding answering that question, don't you? Which is it - pay or put to sleep? It's not a hard question - just give us an answer. Avoiding it speaks volumes about your attitude to animals.

My attitude to animals, hmmm that's an interesting point. Well they RSPCA seems to be happy with my attitude to animals because we take on rescue cats. They know my view on pet insurance and don't have any issue with it. The only people that have a problem with my view on pet insurance is pet insurance salesmen.

Myarka

Terms and conditions, the great get out clause. The customer is in the wrong because they don't read the terms and conditions. Not what I call customer centred service. Have you heard of human factors? Presentation of the terms of the terms of conditions can assist the purchaser to read them, or they can presented in such a way that that discourages read. In my experience the later seems to prevail. Not only that, some sales techniques tend to put pressure on the customer to sign as quickly as possible without reading the terms and conditions. So is it always right to the customer for not reading the terms and conditions?

Duh. If you are too stupid to read an agreement you are signing up to then that's your fault. You should also know that you always have a cooling off period when signing up for insurance. Dear me - who ARE you trying to frighten? All of the policies of all of the pet insurance companies are are quite clear and understandable - even those of companies I'd regard as unethical. No small print.

My attitude to animals, hmmm that's an interesting point. Well they RSPCA seems to be happy with my attitude to animals because we take on rescue cats. They know my view on pet insurance and don't have any issue with it. The only people that have a problem with my view on pet insurance is pet insurance salesmen.

You still refuse to answer the question though. Speaks volumes. And as the RSPCA no longer accept animals for rehoming I do wonder about your statement. Or perhaps you've had the same cat for 30 years? As someone who isn't a pet insurance salesman I can assure you that there would be many people who'd have a problem to your apparent attitude towards animal care.

Obviously you don't have sufficient regard for your pets to make sure they would be cared for should expensive treatment become necessary, so there's no point continuing this. I just hope that no animal in your 'care' ever needs serious veterinary treatment.