Mandatory Pet Insurance?

[Hedgehog]

He's talking a person having insurance in case their dog bites someone, you sound like you are talking health insurance for the dog?

Yeah, precisely.

Dunno if that's mandatory in USA?

Perhaps it would raise the status of the dogs.

I can only relate to dogs vs other pets here in Sweden, where dogs have it better on all levels.

Although, it seems like most pets fare pretty well here?

But the least restricted pets, eg guinea pigs, rats et al, are also those who generally seem to be mistreated most.

So my guess is that a mandatory health insurance, and mandatory registration, would benefit the dogs tremendously.

JMO.



-Hedge

[~flower~]

Yeah, precisely.

Dunno if that's mandatory in USA?

Perhaps it would raise the status of the dogs.

I can only relate to dogs vs other pets here in Sweden, where dogs have it better on all levels.

Although, it seems like most pets fare pretty well here?

But the least restricted pets, eg guinea pigs, rats et al, are also those who generally seem to be mistreated most.

So my guess is that a mandatory health insurance, and mandatory registration, would benefit the dogs tremendously.

JMO.



-Hedge

  If people can't afford health insurance for themselves, how can they get it for their pets? 

   You can't FORCE someone to BUY health insurance for themselves or their pets.   I personally would not want to pay for insurance when a lot of the services that would probably be covered under insurance (vaccinations, poisons, etc) I would not use, so why should I have to pay monthly fees?

[Hedgehog]

  If people can't afford health insurance for themselves, how can they get it for their pets? 

   You can't FORCE someone to BUY health insurance for themselves or their pets.   I personally would not want to pay for insurance when a lot of the services that would probably be covered under insurance (vaccinations, poisons, etc) I would not use, so why should I have to pay monthly fees?

It would give the dogs higher value.

It would mean that instead of owning two, three or four dogs, a person would have to settle with maybe one dog, and pay that much more attention to it.

But mainly, it would probably scare away a lot of people who are unfit to own dogs.

Those people wouldn't get dogs, simply because of the slight hassle and cost involved.

Only those who are really committed, persons like you flower, would still be in the game.

For those committed however, the insurance would equal a better service for their loved one.

-Hedge

[~flower~]

It would give the dogs higher value.

It would mean that instead of owning two, three or four dogs, a person would have to settle with maybe one dog, and pay that much more attention to it.

But mainly, it would probably scare away a lot of people who are unfit to own dogs.

Those people wouldn't get dogs, simply because of the slight hassle and cost involved.

Only those who are really committed, persons like you flower, would still be in the game.

For those committed however, the insurance would equal a better service for their loved one.

-Hedge

  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. 

[Hedgehog]

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

[Vet]

I think its a huge, huge mistake to start depending on pet insurance.  Insurance companies are profit driven.  They do not necessarily result in better care for anyone---human or pet.  8 years ago, pet insurance was really good, covering most commonly encountered diseases and problems with minimal questions asked and giving the owners a reasonable reimbursement for their investment.   That really seems to have changed based on where you live, what pet you own, and the company you have insuring.   I got really, really frustrated with the insurance companies in NYC because I'd fill out the paperwork for clients exactly the way I had in Ohio and they'd reject the claim.  I've also had rejections for routine medications.  I see veterinary insurance taking the same route that human insurance has were doctors are not allowed to make a diagnosis/treat a patient as they want too because of the stipulations of the insurance company.  Now I'll be the first to admit it will be good to a degree because it will standardize care to a degree, but I'm afraid it will inhibit care too much. 

Pet insurance will help in the event of catastrophic injury (ie hit by a car or gunshot wound etc), but make sure you read the fine print on EXACTLY what is covered.  I've seen one declined claim on rads for hip dysplasia in a laborador becuase that was a "Common occurance" in that breed.  Different companies have different quality of coverage. 

[~flower~]

Good post Vet.   I have heard of claims being denied for exactly the reason you stated and unfortunately that was one of the reasons the people had the insurance in the first place!   

   Definitely read the fine print for any exclusions, stipulations, etc.  Some things have time limits before they will cover them.

  You also have to pay first and then wait to be reimbursed by the insurance company.   That is another way they differ (at least the ones offered now) from people health insurance.  Some people get the insurance in case their dog has an unexpected health condition come up, or gets hit by a car and needs surgery, and they think by having the insurance they won't have to find the possible thousands of dollars upfront only to find out they do! 

  Some people chose to set up an account they put money into that is designated only for pet emergencies, or they have a specific credit card to be only used for that.    I think right now those are actually better financial options for most people.   If you put $20-40 (about the monthly cost of insurance) or more in an account every month for each pet you could have a nice amount hopefully before you ever would need it. 

[Hedgehog]

I think its a huge, huge mistake to start depending on pet insurance.  Insurance companies are profit driven.  They do not necessarily result in better care for anyone---human or pet.  8 years ago, pet insurance was really good, covering most commonly encountered diseases and problems with minimal questions asked and giving the owners a reasonable reimbursement for their investment.   That really seems to have changed based on where you live, what pet you own, and the company you have insuring.   I got really, really frustrated with the insurance companies in NYC because I'd fill out the paperwork for clients exactly the way I had in Ohio and they'd reject the claim.  I've also had rejections for routine medications.  I see veterinary insurance taking the same route that human insurance has were doctors are not allowed to make a diagnosis/treat a patient as they want too because of the stipulations of the insurance company.  Now I'll be the first to admit it will be good to a degree because it will standardize care to a degree, but I'm afraid it will inhibit care too much. 

Pet insurance will help in the event of catastrophic injury (ie hit by a car or gunshot wound etc), but make sure you read the fine print on EXACTLY what is covered.  I've seen one declined claim on rads for hip dysplasia in a laborador becuase that was a "Common occurance" in that breed.  Different companies have different quality of coverage. 

The insurance cost (for dogs) here in Sweden is fairly low, I assume it's because it's mandatory.

But you as a Vet probably knows this stuff better than anyone.

I thought it could be a way to raise the the status of the dogs, and make it a bit harder to become a dog owner, so only those with a big commitment would get into it.

-Hedge

[~flower~]

Do you have government sponsored free people health insurance in Sweden?

 The insurance cost could be low (I just looked at one and for Emmett if I didn't want the vaccination coverage it would be $32 a month, another $9 a month if I wanted vaccinations) but what they cover and what you still have to pay out of pocket might not make it a good financial choice for some people.

Plus look at the exclusions, some of these conditions are the reason someone would want insurance, instead they will still end up paying 100% on top of the premiums they pay every month:

http://www.petinsurance.com/downloads/Exclusions%20by%20breed_All.pdf


http://www.petinsurance.com/downloads/Exclusions%20by%20breed_Dogs.pdf

[rockyfortune]

flower..check out

http://www.petsbest.com/

they are a bit different from VPI actually...it was supposedly started by the creator of VPI (which had been sold to a large human insurance company) who was forced out...they cover all dogs (which i know for a fact VPI doesn't because they turned my dog down for age reasons)...it's worth checking out but making it mandatory doesn't sound like a sound idea. 

[~flower~]

thanks, I am not really looking for pet insurance but I will check it out because you never know!!

   have to read all the rules for what is covered and what isn't.  Like my male dane had knee surgery when he was 6mos old.  I bet if that knee went again it would be considered and existing condition even though it was repaired. 

[Vet]

flower..check out

http://www.petsbest.com/

they are a bit different from VPI actually...it was supposedly started by the creator of VPI (which had been sold to a large human insurance company) who was forced out...they cover all dogs (which i know for a fact VPI doesn't because they turned my dog down for age reasons)...it's worth checking out but making it mandatory doesn't sound like a sound idea. 

VPI used to be a top-notch company with reasonable prices and coverage.  It's changed in the last 5 years---its still very good, but they have changed from what they used to be when I first started working with them.  This is one of the companies I've had some of the strange denials of coverage for---like they covered rabbit and cocker spaniel ear diseases in Ohio essentially no questions asked and declined coverage in New York City.   I had to fight tooth and nail for coverage for one client, who's pet ultimately died. 

I know Jack Stephens--I had a chance to meet him at the North American Veterinary Conference a couple of years back.  He seems to be a genuine, sincere pet lover.   He's in what I consider to be a brutal/cut throat business, but seems as if his heart somewhere near the right place.