I can see your reasoning behind that Hedgie, but you can't force people to have insurance for themselves or even their kids, so how could it be a law that you have to have it for your pets?
Insurance doesn't necessarily equal a better service either. A person like me for instance who only vaccinates rabies as required by law, and does not give any others, or use monthly chemicals or poisons would be paying for an insurance that would have costs like that figured into the premiums. I won't be getting a discount because I feed a better diet and will probably have less chronic medical conditions (skin problems, etc), instead my premiums will reflect the cost the insurance company needs to charge to cover all the medical bills for over vaccinated, chemically treated, species inappropriate fed, dogs. For me that is not a benefit, especially if you multiply that over a few dogs. I am better off not having insurance instead of paying those premiums and just paying for what bills come up, as they come up.
Again, you don't have to have insurance for your children, but having to have it for animals isn't going to fly.
Plus how could you even enforce that? People would still have uninsured pets but they wouldn't take them to the vet because they wouldn't want to get fined for not having insurance or something?
Plus it is not illegal to have a healthy or an animal needing medical care down, so you can't tell people they have to shell out money every month when they could just have it euthanised if they couldn't pay for it's care.
You already have a basic insurance through the tax, everyone gets ER treatment, even those uninsured. Medicaid and Medicare is also tax funded.
I'm just looking at the difference between how dogs and other pets here in Sweden seems to fare. The classic comparison: Dogs vs cats, cats aren't regulated as hard, and also there are "summer cats", left to die by vacationing families, who gets a cat for the summer, but leaves it when it's time to go back home.
Stuff like that doesn't happen with dogs. They are held in much higher esteem. The regulation is much tighter, and getting to own one includes registrating it, and getting an insurance (health insurance).
The insurance is probably not that expensive, but it means that the dog is being considered.
The value is raised.
I cannot understand why you don't see the benefit in creating obstacles for reckless dog owners?
Wouldn't that benefit the dogs?
-Hedge