Pet Insurance

[RSO 34]

And some more food for thought.

Some animals go beyond being "pets" and provide more than simple companionship. On one end there are the service dogs such as the one used by my friend who is a quadriplegic. Her dog provides her freedom to do the things most take for granted.

Then there are some like my Maltese used as a "therapy" dog. My dad used to watch her when I went away and she learned his daily routines since he was a "creature of habit". After he developed Alzheimer's following a massive brain hemorrhage he had some understanding he was sick but still wanted to have some independence. My little 8 pound Maltese would take him for his usual walk along the same route, bring him to his usual bench to sit for a half hour and then guide him back to his apartment. She knew his routine and she allowed him to have a sense of independence in trying times.

She did all that in the year following her pacemaker implantation in 2004. And she is sleeping on my chest right now as I type this......

Nico 24 hours after pacemaker implantation:

Dad with his granddog at christmas 4 months later:

Nico resting while I write about her on Prime:

 

[itrsteve]

The same kind of society where you choose to spend tens of thousands on something frivolous like an nsx rather than on medicine for a stranger.

Excuse me pot, kettle calling........

Just sayin......:wink:

ding ding ding.

 

[RYU]

I'll tread lightly here since this has the potential to not end well :smile:

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer or a right or wrong viewpoint. We're all simply a product of our environment. No one needs to be englightened and some of us are not stuck in the middle ages grunting like cavemen.

Here's some more food for thought and more a personal observation. It's amazing how certain societies can simply leave their parents in old people's home. I know.. i've heard the arguments.. they are better with their friends or people their age, etc. I won't even go there. Yet will spend thousands of dollars to prolong the life of a pet.

Like Vega$ touched upon.. they've also been bred to look cute so we humans can somehow find them more endearing. Some of these breeds have hip displacia (my german sheperds) and some can barely breath (my neighbor's pug). My gf's yorkies' heads are so big they can barely keep them up but they've been bred to look cute which undoubtedly makes them easier to love.. after all we're just human.

I also think it's great that these animals are used as tools to aid in human rehabilitation. If these pets enrichen your life in some way, more power to you, and I think that's great! Some of us simply cannot comprehend but I, for one, respect it.

First World problems. Let's be greatful we have them!

 

[Vega$ NSX]

The same kind of society where you choose to spend tens of thousands on something frivolous like an nsx rather than on medicine for a stranger.

Excuse me pot, kettle calling........

Just sayin......:wink:

No, that's exactly my point. When someone earns money, it is their choice to exactly what they please with it. If I want to spend my money on my house, my car, my kids or just put it in a giant pile and burn it, that's my choice.

So what I'm saying is that if people want to spend millions of dollars on their pets that's their prerogative. However, at the same token you should not condemn or judge those who chose not to. People are appalled if someone said they would rather just let their young pet dog die then spend $3,000 on a surgery to save them. That was the negative tone that was already being set with RYU's discussion until he really had to start back peddling and delicately had to choose his responses carefully. Really? Just because "you" feel a certain way toward "your" pet does not mean others share that feeling and it does not make them "heartless" or a "monster" because they do. THAT, my friend, is the pot calling the kettle black.

If I said I had a dog and decided to eat him, just what kind of verbal bashing and tongue lashing do you think I would get in this forum. Yet, if I said I ate a chicken or cow do you think anyone would care? Why, because a dog is cute or because you can pet it? I'm sure vegans could look down on you as meat eaters and say you are heartless killers for eating animals (which a dog is BTW). Does that make them any more "right" or conscientious?

The point I was making was this. If people want to spend all their money on their pets, then that's their choice. If people want to elevate their dogs to higher than human status, that's their choice. But if people want to treat dogs like just another animal and just let them die, then don't judge them because they don't share the same emotional connection you have to your own dog, just like they don't judge you for wanting to spend thousands of dollars on them.

And just to show I'm not totally heartless. :smile:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nnYRhanK3XA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RSO 34]

No, that's exactly my point. When someone earns money, it is their choice to exactly what they please with it. If I want to spend my money on my house, my car, my kids or just put it in a giant pile and burn it, that's my choice.

So what I'm saying is that if people want to spend millions of dollars on their pets that's their prerogative. However, at the same token you should not condemn or judge those who chose not to. People are appalled if someone said they would rather just let their young pet dog die then spend $3,000 on a surgery to save them. That was the negative tone that was already being set with RYU's discussion until he really had to start back peddling and delicately had to choose his responses carefully. Really? Just because "you" feel a certain way toward "your" pet does not mean others share that feeling and it does not make them "heartless" or a "monster" because they do. THAT, my friend, is the pot calling the kettle black.

If I said I had a dog and decided to eat him, just what kind of verbal bashing and tongue lashing do you think I would get in this forum. Yet, if I said I ate a chicken or cow do you think anyone would care? Why, because a dog is cute or because you can pet it? I'm sure vegans could look down on you as meat eaters and say you are heartless killers for eating animals (which a dog is BTW). Does that make them any more "right" or conscientious?

The point I was making was this. If people want to spend all their money on their pets, then that's their choice. If people want to elevate their dogs to higher than human status, that's their choice. But if people want to treat dogs like just another animal and just let them die, then don't judge them because they don't share the same emotional connection you have to your own dog, just like they don't judge you for wanting to spend thousands of dollars on them.

The whole point of this thread, before it started to get derailed, was whether pet insurance is a good idea. Those with insurance have chimed in to support that concept. There is no way I could have spent upwards of $20,000 for a pacemaker for a dog but I didn't have to worry about it since I purchased health insurance for her. If some insurance company wants to write that risk and make the payments for the surgery, I certainly will take advantage of that. I admit that I have been fortunate to have the benefit of obtaining that coverage before Nico got sick so that she can still enjoy a good life at almost 17 years of age (8 years on a pacemaker). Without that insurance, I would have had to let her go in 2004 as would most pet "owners" faced with similar potential medical bills.

You originally took issue with paying for medical treatment for an animal while "strangers could not afford medicines" and the $5000 being spent for surgery on a dog would be better used to buy medicines for these "strangers". I agree that you can do what you want with your money but don't "condemn" those with animals who choose to prevent their suffering by suggesting the money is better spent on these anonymous persons who cannot afford medicine. That is why I used the old "kettle reference" since we could all be called hypocrites under your analogy if we ever used our own money for our own purposes instead of spending it on "a cause".

Once again, the topic of this thread is "should I get pet insurance" and I think the simple answer is "yes" if you intend to get your dog/cat treatment beyone the basic annual shots. If you are so inclined to get advanced care, then insurance makes sense. Medical treatment decisions are made much easier when it does not come down to a choice between feeding your family and getting surgery for your dog.

And comparing us to other societies is not dispositive of the issue. There are still societies that subjugate women and I doubt anyone's wife/girlfriend here would accept similar mistreatment just because it is the "norm" in other cultures.

Not everyone treats their animals the same way and many are downright cruel and should never be allowed to have one (much like there are people who should not be allowed to have children but that is a different topic). However, although I am not judging anyone in the way they do or do not get medical treatment for their pet, there is an ethical responsibility associated with having any animal in your life to ensure that they do not suffer while in your care. Sometimes that means euthanasia and other times it means obtaining medical treatment where feasible. If it is within your means to purchase then insurance makes sense. If you are prolonging your dog's life while your children go hungry, then that makes no sense.

In this "first world" where most of here drive NSXs as a second or even third or fourth car, we should be grateful that we have the ability to drive such a car while feeding our families and taking care of aging parents. And while all that is being done, if you are able to provide a better, longer quality of life for a pet then by all means do what is reasonable and feasible to get medical treatment. That last decision is made much simpler when you know that insurance will help pay the cost.

 

[Matt_337]

I never looked into insurance for my dog. I always thought like Ryu in that at a certain threshold, I will let vader pass. However, these days, my threshold is now inching up. Perhaps I should look into vpi. Thanks for sharing your stories.


Sent from my iPad

 

[Vega$ NSX]

You originally took issue with paying for medical treatment for an animal while "strangers could not afford medicines" and the $5000 being spent for surgery on a dog would be better used to buy medicines for these "strangers". I agree that you can do what you want with your money but don't "condemn" those with animals who choose to prevent their suffering by suggesting the money is better spent on these anonymous persons who cannot afford medicine. That is why I used the old "kettle reference" since we could all be called hypocrites under your analogy if we ever used our own money for our own purposes instead of spending it on "a cause".

No, I think this is where you mis-understand me. I never took issue for people wanting to spend money on their pets. In fact, I'm defending that issue. I'm equally defending the right someone has to chose how they want to spend their own money and how they choose to care for their own pet. For "better" or for "worse". The right to choose to do so or NOT to do so. I wasn't doing the condemning, rather quite the opposite. RYU was the one being condemned for speaking his mind on his view of pets/dogs because it did not agree with passion of others, and I could see the condemning gang mentality that was coming down on him. He was asked:

"So if your dog were ill at a young age, but could be cured with a $1200 operation, you'd prefer to let him die?"

Let's be honest here. Do you think there is any answer he could give that wouldn't result in chastising other than a resounding "No"? It would be like a vegan asking you:

"Since it is proven you can live without meat, then clearly you condone the killing of animals for your own personal pleasures; aka the yummy taste of meat."

Once again, the topic of this thread is "should I get pet insurance" and I think the simple answer is "yes" if you intend to get your dog/cat treatment beyone the basic annual shots. If you are so inclined to get advanced care, then insurance makes sense. Medical treatment decisions are made much easier when it does not come down to a choice between feeding your family and getting surgery for your dog.

But that's my point. If you view animals they way "you" do then the answer is a simple "yes". But not everyone views animals the way you do and I don't think one should be judged or punished to say that their opinion is a simple "no" and that when a pet gets sick, they should be allowed to die or be euthanized. I mean where do you draw the line? Should fish get insurance? By your reasoning, the simple answer should be "yes" but I think a lot of people would feel that spending money on prolonging the life of a fish unreasonable. Why is that unreasonable and insurance for a dog not?

And comparing us to other societies is not dispositive of the issue. There are still societies that subjugate women and I doubt anyone's wife/girlfriend here would accept similar mistreatment just because it is the "norm" in other cultures.

I'm not just comparing us to other societies. I'm saying even within our own society we have many different gradients of viewpoints on how we treat animals in general. Fine, you take one extreme of cultures that subjugate women, but again what about vegans that say you should not kill animals at all, even for food. Perhaps they are more "advanced" since they have transcended the need to even kill for food, pelt or fur. Who is to say it is reasonable to provide medical care for a pet, yet it is perfectly acceptable to kill a cow for its meat. If you can justify that it is not right to subjugate women and that it's not right to not provide medical care for pets, then one can easily claim it is not right to eat animals for food/enjoyment. Yet would you want someone to condemn you for eating meat? Would I want someone to condemn me for not providing medical treatment to a pet?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RXWOhNoJhdY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[SWIFTVISION]

I've had pet insurance for my dogs through VPI for the past ten years...........

HTH

So at $80-160 per month for 10 years.....So you spent $14,400 and you still think your ahead???

My parents have insurance on their dogs and have not been happy with it. Esp. because the vet has to submitt your claims and they could really care less (not getting paid to do it).

 

[SWIFTVISION]

Naw man I can certainly back you up. .

I could care less about sick people but will bend over backwards for a sick dog.

I also have no respect for cultures which consider dogs food. And to compare a dog and a cockroach is dispicable.

 

[RSO 34]

So at $80-160 per month for 10 years.....So you spent $14,400 and you still think your ahead???

My parents have insurance on their dogs and have not been happy with it. Esp. because the vet has to submitt your claims and they could really care less (not getting paid to do it).

I think that Ken might be calculating the total cost for at least 2 dogs at the best coverage. I started paying $47 per month in 2004 when she was 8 1/12 and it is up to $72 per month now for an 8 year average of approximately $700. Total in premiums paid around $5500. Total benefits paid approximately $30,000 and counting.

I don't know about your parents but my vet emails me a bill, I fill out the VPI form online and scan the bill, email the scan to VPI and then follow online for tracking the reimbursement. Start to finish generally 4-6 weeks. Very simple and well organized. Trying to get an answer out of my coverage, Healthnet, is a nightmare by comparison.

 

[georednsx]

“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
― Will Rogers

 

[DocL]

Which VPI is the best plan to purchase? My dogs are are 6 and 5 years old, and although they are healthy you never know. In the past, my family has spent thousands of dollars for cancer treatments and surgery, and it sure would have helped having pet insurance.

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[SaleenS7Rs]

This thread came at a good time for me! I just bought a doberman puppy (17 weeks old) 2 weeks ago. So is it a good idea to maybe wait till the dog is older to get health insurance for the dog. What would be a good age to start 5,6,8 years old? I never really thought about getting dog health insurance till I saw how much some procedures cost. I guess I got very lucky all the dogs I have had lived to 13 years old with no major health issues.

 

[queenlives]

the combined vet bills for our two original cats ('96-'10) easily exceeded $25k that i would have preferred an insurance company pay.

we adopted two cats in mid-'10 who remain in good health and this is a great reminder thread to initiate insurance for them - thx!

 

[nsxtasy]

So at $80-160 per month for 10 years.....So you spent $14,400 and you still think your ahead???

During that period I have received approximately $9,000 more in claims reimbursements than I spent in premiums. So yes, I'm ahead, by about $9,000. Not as much as Bob, but I'm ahead.

My parents have insurance on their dogs and have not been happy with it. Esp. because the vet has to submitt your claims and they could really care less (not getting paid to do it).

That's not how VPI works. The vet doesn't submit claims. The policyholder (pet owner) sends the receipts from vet visits and pharmacies to VPI, and VPI reimburses based on those receipts. I assume that they contact the vet/pharmacy if there are any questions.

Bob mentioned that he gets his vet receipts electronically and submits them via e-mail. I get hard copy receipts from the vet and submit them via fax. You can also mail them paper copies if you like. As he notes, it's quite simple; there's an accompanying form you can fill out in hard copy or electronically.

 

[nsxtasy]

Which VPI is the best plan to purchase?

There's a comparison on their website here. I've found that the major medical plan (their highest level of coverage) is worth the somewhat higher premiums.

I just bought a doberman puppy (17 weeks old) 2 weeks ago. So is it a good idea to maybe wait till the dog is older to get health insurance for the dog. What would be a good age to start 5,6,8 years old?

Dogs can get serious illnesses at any time, although the likelihood increases over time. So do premiums. I've always gotten coverage as soon as I've brought a dog home, but it's a risk either way (if you do or don't get covered).

Our younger dog was born in June 2010, and we brought him home in early November of that year. Since then, we have paid $974 in premiums and have received $2054 in claims reimbursements. $1175 of that was for a serious bout of pancreatitis, and the rest was for routine care (shots, exams, dentistry). As you can see, without that serious illness, we would have about broken even, but with it we are $1K ahead so far. And he is not yet two years old.

Oh yeah, I also like VPI because of the picture of the bearded collie on their policyholder portal.

 

[westernb4]

VPI has covered a pacemaker implant

How did you know that your little dog needed a pacemaker?

Was he passing out?

If so, how did you know that he wasn't just Playing Dead?

 

[RSO 34]

How did you know that your little dog needed a pacemaker?

Was he passing out?

If so, how did you know that he wasn't just Playing Dead?

http://www.amcny.org/about-amc/pet-stories/nicos-story