Aren't the coverages disclosed in advance?  Or do they pull the
"reasonable and customary" BS?  If so, ask them where you can get a
cat unblocked and treated for $300. If they can't produce the name of
a local vet, sue them for return of the difference in your premium.
Sounds fraudulent to me.

-L.

I'm sorry your cat has been ill.

I am not sure I am understanding the above correctly, though. I'd be curious
about where you stand on the following.

As you may be aware, and statistically and actuarially speaking, health
insurance as a business is not viable unless (for some given period of time)
reimbursements for all clients are less than the premiums. Presumably each year
an insurance company makes more in premiums than it returns in reimbursements.
In such a scenario, some clients get more back in reimbursements than they paid
in premiums, but most do not. Those that do not instead get "peace of mind."

I happen to think "peace of  mind" is worth money. These days it seems many
people with insurance have a different view.

If an insurance company is set up so that no client ever gets back more in
reimbursements than he/she paid in premiums, something is fishy (albeit it's
probably legal, too). Surely your pet's insurance policy indicates instances
where the reimbursement may very well exceed the premium, no? What's the upper
limit of a claim, for example?

Of interest might be that an issue (July?) of Consumer Reports said a few months
ago that insurance plans for one's pets were not worth it. As others here have
suggested, one is better off stashing some money away each month in a
cat/dog/etc. vet bill savings account.

I think one problem with human health insurance today is that people think
they're supposed to get more in services than they pay annually in premiums.
People readily agree when an MD suggests or "requires" a test or procedure when
in fact the MD is trying to make money and the test or procedure won't make a
bit of difference to the patient's health. The insurer goes along with this,
because it justifies the insurer raising your rates next time around. Which
causes the client to want still more medical tests and procedures (after all,
he's paying all this money for premiums), which the MD is happy to prescribe
(it's his/her bread and butter), which causes rates to go up further, etc.

Right now, we seem to have a Ponzi scheme in place with U.S.health insurance. I
think what's happening with it is carrying over to people's view of (the
relatively new) pet  health insurance.

Direct-pay and/or high deductibles for all might encourage consumers to be
smarter about their choices.

This is a political post, and you have enough on your mind, so blow what I say
above off or comment as you like.

I am very interested in what is happening to health care in this country, and
this is why I am posting.

Two cents.

The company is based out in Brea, California - up the road from me a bit.
They seem to believe in their product, but to be perfectly honest, it's
not worth it - quite frankly you can take the cost of their premiums and
like many others have said, stick it in savings somewhere and build
interest.

Now note too I said they're in California.  afr, I would suggest you
contact the California Department of Insurance (http://www.doi.ca.gov)
regarding this and get their advice - since they tout themselves as an
insurer, they should be under their jurisdiction.  Quite frankly, it seems
almost fraudulent IMO (IANAL, natch) the way they're doing this.

Perhaps I was naive. But when I invested in my pet's policy it was with
the thought toward having some assistance in case of an expensive
emergency. If procedures aren't well covered, why
bother even having insurance...or from the company's perspective, claiming
you provide it? To me, there's no honest logic in claiming that a provider
provides insurance if those emergencies aren't covered.People buy pet
insurance so that there is back-up during expensive emergencies. But when
the yearly premium is more than the expensive emergency, there is no back
up.

ava