Cat Forum / General Topics / April 2008
Vet Pet Insurance
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Khushbu Malik - 29 Apr 2008 11:50 GMT Hello,
Vet pet insurance is not only good for your pet but for yourself too. The trend of having vet pet insurance is increasing day by day. Visit the below link for more details about vet pet insurance.
http://vet-petinsurance.blogspot.com/
Vet pet insurance is necessary. Vet bills can mount up when it comes to your furry friend being ill. If you're lucky, you'll be able to pay for each illness as it comes - and it will, especially with an older pet. Read more details from:
http://vet-petinsurance.blogspot.com/
Often insurance companies start insuring pet from the age of six months but some does not give coverage to your pet if he or she is more than of eight years. See more details on:
http://vet-petinsurance.blogspot.com/
Regards, Khushbu Malik
Nina Jarvis - 29 Apr 2008 19:32 GMT >Hello, > >Vet pet insurance is not only good for your pet but for yourself too. It's also a waste of money. Remember the old addage: INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T MAKE MONEY PAYING CLAIMS, THEY MAKE MONEY NOT PAYING CLAIMS.
Ivor Jones - 29 Apr 2008 20:23 GMT In news:2bqe14pu20tuc56plsrvukqa9a0k65j3d9@4ax.com, Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: >Hello, : > : >Vet pet insurance is not only good for your pet but for yourself too. : It's also a waste of money. Remember the old addage: INSURANCE : COMPANIES DON'T MAKE MONEY PAYING CLAIMS, THEY MAKE MONEY NOT PAYING : CLAIMS. Tell that to the person I know who was landed with a £1500 vet bill 2 weeks after adopting a rescue cat. The insurance covered it, if they hadn't taken out the policy.....?
Ivor
William Graham - 29 Apr 2008 21:45 GMT > In news:2bqe14pu20tuc56plsrvukqa9a0k65j3d9@4ax.com, > Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ivor In general, you should never buy insurance for anything that you can afford to pay for without it. A good example is your automobile. You definitely need liability insurance, because you never know how much you might be sued for. But comprehensive? No. - It's a bad bet, because you can afford (usually) to replace the car yourself, and why should you pay some insurance company for something you can afford to insure yourself? Be your own insurance company, and put their profits in your own pocket. The same can be said for cat insurance. Get them regular checkups, and their shots, and you will be way ahead without the burden of supporting some insurance company.
Nina Jarvis - 29 Apr 2008 22:07 GMT >In general, you should never buy insurance for anything that you can afford >to pay for without it. Wrong. Many states require you to have auto insurance when you drive. Also you get insurance to protect yourself from being sued for millions of dollars ehen you do get into an accident.
When you get auto insurance you're not just insuring your car, you're also insuring for bodily injury, damage to property (not just your own.)
A good example is your automobile. You definitely
>need liability insurance, because you never know how much you might be sued >for. But comprehensive? No. - It's a bad bet, because you can afford >(usually) to replace the car yourself, Depends on the kind of car. Obviously if it is a $35,000 new car you should have comprehensive. On the other hand if the car is a $500 pile of junk (like the ones i've had many times) then you don't get comprehensive.)
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 02:48 GMT >>In general, you should never buy insurance for anything that you can >>afford [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > pile of junk (like the ones i've had many times) then you don't get > comprehensive.) Apparently, you didn't read the rest of my message.....I distinctly made a distinction between liability and comprehensive automobile insurance.....I am 72 years old, and have never purchased comprehensive automobile insurance. I have had liability insurance all of my life, on both my automobiles and my homes.
Ivor Jones - 29 Apr 2008 23:35 GMT In news:oZGdnU4aU_xkFYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com, William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
[snip]
: In general, you should never buy insurance for anything that you can : afford to pay for without it. A good example is your automobile. You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : regular checkups, and their shots, and you will be way ahead without : the burden of supporting some insurance company. So you could afford a sudden and unexpected £1500 vet bill..? Good for you.
Actually, car insurance, unless you are very well off, is not a good example at all. I have comprehensive car and motorcycle insurance because no, I cannot afford to replace both those high cost things myself. My car would cost probably £10000 to replace, the insurance is around £160 a year. It's a no-brainer. Same for my bike, it's worth about £5000 and the insurance premium, fully comprehensive, is about the same as for my car. Which considering the increased risks involved in motorcycling, isn't a bad deal at all.
As for my cat, she's worth *any* expense. But I'd rather pay £100 a year than run the risk of vet bills that might run into thousands.
Ivor
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 02:57 GMT > In news:oZGdnU4aU_xkFYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com, > William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > would cost probably £10000 to replace, the insurance is around £160 a > year. It's a no-brainer. What's a, "no brainer", is how you think some insurance company can afford to pay for all those claims, and big buildings and hundreds of employees, each with their own computers and desks, and do all this without charging you more for your coverage than it's really worth. Have you ever thought of insuring your own automobiles? That's what I have done all of my life. Now, if I were a taxi driver, and needed my car in order to work, well that might be different. But since my cars and motorcycles have just been recreational vehicles, I saw no reason to insure them for comprehensive coverage, and give all that money to some insurance company, who doesn't know me from a hole in the wall, but is willing to take a chance on my driving ability......I have never had an accident, and I know that, so why shouldn't I take a chance on my own driving ability? Also, since I knew that I didn't have comprehensive coverage, I was careful about where I parked, and whether or not I licked my car, and what valuables I left in plain view on the seat, and etc.....IOW, I took a little responsibility upon myself, instead of wasting my money on comprehensive insurance.
Ivor Jones - 30 Apr 2008 05:22 GMT In news:7fWdnaX1etOYT4rVnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com, William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
[snip]
: What's a, "no brainer", is how you think some insurance company can : afford to pay for all those claims, and big buildings and hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : view on the seat, and etc.....IOW, I took a little responsibility : upon myself, instead of wasting my money on comprehensive insurance. Well things are obviously very different where you live. Here in the UK we are legally obliged to have insurance, we can't insure ourselves as you say. So it is a no-brainer to have a comprehensive policy at very little more cost than just 3rd party cover, which is the legal minimum.
Obviously it's different as I am of an age where the premium is a lot lower than it would be if I were an 18-yr old new driver who's just passed their driving test. But as I said we are legally required to have insurance so it's sensible to get the best cover you can afford.
Anyway, let's get back to cats, shall we..? I still say it's sensible to do the same there.
Ivor
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 16:59 GMT > In news:7fWdnaX1etOYT4rVnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com, > William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Ivor Yes. Cats. I hope your cat insurance is better there than it is here. Here, it is mainly a rip-off, just as is human health insurance....Their main criteria for coverage is, "Does Bill Graham have this condition? - If yes, then we don't cover it. If no, then we will cover it conditionally....."
Nina Jarvis - 29 Apr 2008 21:47 GMT >In news:2bqe14pu20tuc56plsrvukqa9a0k65j3d9@4ax.com, >Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Ivor And you are aware that an insurance company could easily decline to cover the procedure? Just ask someone who has Blue Cross how often that happens.
Also you'll spend $7500 in the liftime of your cat but $12.500 for the health insurance for that same cat.
Insurance companies are in it to make money.
Take that $7500 and invest it in mutual funds. Then tap it in 18 years from now when you need it.
Ivor Jones - 29 Apr 2008 23:41 GMT In news:b22f14141mv412mpdku68h1su49p1r66m4@4ax.com, Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: >In news:2bqe14pu20tuc56plsrvukqa9a0k65j3d9@4ax.com, : >Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : cover the procedure? Just ask someone who has Blue Cross how often : that happens. Maybe, but that's a risk with any insurance policy. Here in the UK, the charity for which I volunteer, Cats Protection (www.cats.org.uk) have an arrangement with an insurance company to insure all cats adopted from us, regardless of age, and for life. Most companies won't consider insuring cats over around 8 years old. The cat I mentioned in my previous post was 15 when she dveleoped a previously undiagnosed problem that resulted in the £1500 bill. Nobody could have foreseen that and only the insurance policy saved the new owners from a very large bill.
: Also you'll spend $7500 in the liftime of your cat but $12.500 for : the health insurance for that same cat. How do you arrive at the figure of $7500..?
: Insurance companies are in it to make money. Of course they are, I never said differently.
: Take that $7500 and invest it in mutual funds. Then tap it : in 18 years from now when you need it. Not really applicable for a cat adopted at age 15.
Ivor
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 03:06 GMT > In news:b22f14141mv412mpdku68h1su49p1r66m4@4ax.com, > Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Maybe, but that's a risk with any insurance policy. Exactly......You have helped me make my point........Only buy insurance for liability, and then, make sure you read all the fine print carefully. For dumb, replaceable stuff, do it yourself, and save a bundle without having to rely on the honesty of someone else. Do you really think the veterinary insurance would pay for an involved operation on your cat? - Hell no, they wouldn't. But you can make that choice for yourself if you have money in the bank.
"Nothing gives a man confidence like money in the bank." (My father, in 1950)
Ivor Jones - 30 Apr 2008 05:25 GMT In news:Gpidnd43kK-VSYrVnZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com, William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
[snip]
: Exactly......You have helped me make my point........Only buy : insurance for liability, and then, make sure you read all the fine [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : involved operation on your cat? - Hell no, they wouldn't. But you can : make that choice for yourself if you have money in the bank. You missed out the bit where I said the insurers did just that for the cat I mentioned. Yes, they *did* pay for an involved operation on that cat.
Ivor
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 16:55 GMT > In news:Gpidnd43kK-VSYrVnZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com, > William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ivor Well, I guess we have come down to the definition of, "Involved".....When they start giving cats kidney transplants and heart bypasses, then I will sit up and take notice.....But right now, they kill pigs to get heart valves out of them......So, we've got a long way to go, don't we?
Paul Bearer - 30 Apr 2008 04:08 GMT >Maybe, but that's a risk with any insurance policy. Here in the UK, the >charity for which I volunteer, Cats Protection (www.cats.org.uk) What ever happened to the guy on this usenet newsgroup who used to extort money on their behalf?
Ivor Jones - 30 Apr 2008 05:25 GMT In news:agof145pgst5njl2tdef1li39tmvbldfda@4ax.com, Paul Bearer <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: >Maybe, but that's a risk with any insurance policy. Here in the UK, : >the charity for which I volunteer, Cats Protection (www.cats.org.uk) : What ever happened to the guy on this usenet newsgroup who used : to extort money on their behalf? Extort..? That's a strong word, what was that then..?
Ivor
The Undertaker - 30 Apr 2008 15:05 GMT >In news:agof145pgst5njl2tdef1li39tmvbldfda@4ax.com, >Paul Bearer <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ivor If the shoe fits......
I remember the guy in question. Extort fits the bill nicely. (Around here it would be one step below extortion or harrasment.)
Nina Jarvis - 30 Apr 2008 04:12 GMT >: Also you'll spend $7500 in the liftime of your cat but $12.500 for >: the health insurance for that same cat. > >How do you arrive at the figure of $7500..? Quicken. Amazing what you learn when you review your finances.
For my last two cats I spent about $7500, the price I was quoted for pet insurance was $12,000+.
>: Take that $7500 and invest it in mutual funds. Then tap it >: in 18 years from now when you need it. > >Not really applicable for a cat adopted at age 15. Around here you can't get cat health insurance after age 2 or so. After that they exclude coverage (prior conditions, etc.)
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 03:00 GMT >>In news:2bqe14pu20tuc56plsrvukqa9a0k65j3d9@4ax.com, >>Nina Jarvis <replyonusenet@emailprivate.com> typed, for some strange, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Take that $7500 and invest it in mutual funds. Then tap it > in 18 years from now when you need it. Excellent advice..... If you can't make money insuring yourself, then you have to be the most careless person in the whole world......Anyone who is the least bit careful and responsible should be able to make money insuring himself.........
Ivor Jones - 30 Apr 2008 05:29 GMT In news:rvKdnR9wNPotT4rVnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com, William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
[snip]
: Excellent advice..... If you can't make money insuring yourself, then : you have to be the most careless person in the whole : world......Anyone who is the least bit careful and responsible should : be able to make money insuring himself......... For things where you can, possibly. But we're not all financial experts and some things like cars legally require insurance.
Ivor
Nina Jarvis - 30 Apr 2008 15:07 GMT >In news:rvKdnR9wNPotT4rVnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com, >William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Ivor Speak for yourself. My area of expertise in the RW is finance.
William Graham - 30 Apr 2008 17:04 GMT > In news:rvKdnR9wNPotT4rVnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com, > William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> typed, for some strange, unexplained [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ivor Only liability......Not comprehensive.....You've got to stop confusing the two. Liability is where there is an accident and someone sues you for the damages. Comprehensive just covers the loss of your vehicle, like from theft, or fire or some such thing. Here the law demands everyone carry liability, but comprehensive is up to the individual. - I think this is a good thing.
|
|
|