Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Mrs rusty bucket - that is how some of the cheaper insurance companies work. As best I can tell - from reading a lot of pdfs (product disclosures or the fine print) - all the ones backed by Holl ards - which is all of them except the Alli a nz one - they all changed some time last year. All the H-backed ones except maybe medibank for people on that before they changed (not sure how the renewals are going now), no longer cover "bilateral" ie they will cover the first cateract in the first eye - but not any in the other eye... and there is a 20% co-payment in addition to the excess (which was reduced). I didn't get a say in that, they just changed all the cover to less cover and upped the premium. I considered swapping but I couldn't find one that was different. I think if my dog gets something nasty that doesn't go away with one treatment - like cancer - then I have life time cover up to a limit around $15,000. But if she gets something that drastically ruins quality of life - I'm not likely to spend squillions keeping her alive just because I have insurance to cover it. As best I can tell - paying a higher premium can get some preventative treatment covered (but why would you claim with the excess and co-payment making a net nothing for you) or it gets a higher annual or lifetime cover limit eg different premimums affect whether they cover up to $10K to about $15K max annual or lifetime (for one disease). Point me at a pdf that says something different (and isnt the big A) and I'll consider swapping to them. Not all insurance is bad - I've been very glad of my car insurance (although the company refused to pay for the listed accessories which I was pretty mad about) and health insurance. Edited August 8, 2012 by Mrs Rusty Bucket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giraffez Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 I think insurance is insurance. What bugs me wih pet insurance is the PDS is quite impractical and the lack of underwriters in this field gives them the advantage to do so. It's like saying, if you have back pain, we will only cover you one session of Physio and then you are on your own for the rest of your life. I rather pay for pet insurance and never have to use it, but the conditions and restrictions are quite impractical such that when your dog gets ill, they won't cover. I think I'm going to change over to pet plan if they are going to cover for existing conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katrinka Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 One of my premiums went up last year (as Stella turned 10), but overall I am in a big + on both policies. Just one major operation equails dog's lifetime premiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchnauzerMax Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Mrs rusty bucket - that is how some of the cheaper insurance companies work. As best I can tell - from reading a lot of pdfs (product disclosures or the fine print) - all the ones backed by Holl ards - which is all of them except the Alli a nz one - they all changed some time last year. All the H-backed ones except maybe medibank for people on that before they changed (not sure how the renewals are going now), no longer cover "bilateral" ie they will cover the first cateract in the first eye - but not any in the other eye... and there is a 20% co-payment in addition to the excess (which was reduced). I didn't get a say in that, they just changed all the cover to less cover and upped the premium. I considered swapping but I couldn't find one that was different. I think if my dog gets something nasty that doesn't go away with one treatment - like cancer - then I have life time cover up to a limit around $15,000. But if she gets something that drastically ruins quality of life - I'm not likely to spend squillions keeping her alive just because I have insurance to cover it. As best I can tell - paying a higher premium can get some preventative treatment covered (but why would you claim with the excess and co-payment making a net nothing for you) or it gets a higher annual or lifetime cover limit eg different premimums affect whether they cover up to $10K to about $15K max annual or lifetime (for one disease). Point me at a pdf that says something different (and isnt the big A) and I'll consider swapping to them. Not all insurance is bad - I've been very glad of my car insurance (although the company refused to pay for the listed accessories which I was pretty mad about) and health insurance. With Medibank pet insurance I think the excess/co-payment doesn't apply to the preventative stuff for the higher premium. It's just a straight amount for 3 of the listed items, each one a maximum of $50 (?). Not that it makes that much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lavendergirl Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Mrs rusty bucket - that is how some of the cheaper insurance companies work. As best I can tell - from reading a lot of pdfs (product disclosures or the fine print) - all the ones backed by Holl ards - which is all of them except the Alli a nz one - they all changed some time last year. All the H-backed ones except maybe medibank for people on that before they changed (not sure how the renewals are going now), no longer cover "bilateral" ie they will cover the first cateract in the first eye - but not any in the other eye... and there is a 20% co-payment in addition to the excess (which was reduced). I didn't get a say in that, they just changed all the cover to less cover and upped the premium. I considered swapping but I couldn't find one that was different. I think if my dog gets something nasty that doesn't go away with one treatment - like cancer - then I have life time cover up to a limit around $15,000. But if she gets something that drastically ruins quality of life - I'm not likely to spend squillions keeping her alive just because I have insurance to cover it. As best I can tell - paying a higher premium can get some preventative treatment covered (but why would you claim with the excess and co-payment making a net nothing for you) or it gets a higher annual or lifetime cover limit eg different premimums affect whether they cover up to $10K to about $15K max annual or lifetime (for one disease). Point me at a pdf that says something different (and isnt the big A) and I'll consider swapping to them. Not all insurance is bad - I've been very glad of my car insurance (although the company refused to pay for the listed accessories which I was pretty mad about) and health insurance. I think that is a real consideration also. A lot of the big item expenses I see relate to cancer treatments for instance which I don't think I would put the dog through if the outcome was a few more months of life. I would want an assurance that the dog would recover and have a good quality of life before agreeing to any expensive and gruelling treatments whether I had insurance or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adnil444 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Have a search on Consumer Reports website. They agree that pet insurance is a con and recommend that consumers will generally be better off selecting to try and get a healthy pet and keeping a buffer fund to cover unexpected veterinary expenses. True, people with unhealthy or accident-prone dogs sometimes get value for money from their insurance. That is how the insurance business works . . . the premiums of people whose dogs don't get bloat, rupture their cruciate ligament, etc. are used to pay the claims of people whose dogs do have such problems . . . and to pay for high salaries and expensive office space and advertizing. I disagree here. My young 4.5 yr old dog - very fit and healthy developed diarrhoea which turned out to be cancer (he had it in the lungs, liver, spleen, intestine). This was over a 3 week period. He had not been sick before in his short life. The tests etc cost me over $2200.00 and I got back $1800 within 10 days of the bill being sent to my insurance company (Bow Wow Meow). I have never had an issue with the insurance policy and have found that the few times I have claimed for my other dog (which have been for large amounts), I am quickly paid. I don't have the thousands of dollars sitting there to spend on these unexpected vet bills (don't think many people would) and I can claim up to $12K per annum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penumbra Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Have a search on Consumer Reports website. They agree that pet insurance is a con and recommend that consumers will generally be better off selecting to try and get a healthy pet and keeping a buffer fund to cover unexpected veterinary expenses. True, people with unhealthy or accident-prone dogs sometimes get value for money from their insurance. That is how the insurance business works . . . the premiums of people whose dogs don't get bloat, rupture their cruciate ligament, etc. are used to pay the claims of people whose dogs do have such problems . . . and to pay for high salaries and expensive office space and advertizing. I disagree here. My young 4.5 yr old dog - very fit and healthy developed diarrhoea which turned out to be cancer (he had it in the lungs, liver, spleen, intestine). This was over a 3 week period. He had not been sick before in his short life. The tests etc cost me over $2200.00 and I got back $1800 within 10 days of the bill being sent to my insurance company (Bow Wow Meow). I have never had an issue with the insurance policy and have found that the few times I have claimed for my other dog (which have been for large amounts), I am quickly paid. I don't have the thousands of dollars sitting there to spend on these unexpected vet bills (don't think many people would) and I can claim up to $12K per annum. But you did in all of those cases, right? Or am I missing something? I thought that you had to have your own money up front, and then the insurance company reimburses you later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 They do. Next? When I start work again in October, I'll be paying to support unemployed people as well. It's just how the "community" is run. Unless of course you would prefer all unemployed people to be homeless... Just another note, the states wouldn't run if it weren't for non-paid volunteers. Even politicians admit this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. Pets are a luxuary so there will never be a medicare for pets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaznHotAussies Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyBlue Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Have a search on Consumer Reports website. They agree that pet insurance is a con and recommend that consumers will generally be better off selecting to try and get a healthy pet and keeping a buffer fund to cover unexpected veterinary expenses. True, people with unhealthy or accident-prone dogs sometimes get value for money from their insurance. That is how the insurance business works . . . the premiums of people whose dogs don't get bloat, rupture their cruciate ligament, etc. are used to pay the claims of people whose dogs do have such problems . . . and to pay for high salaries and expensive office space and advertizing. I disagree here. My young 4.5 yr old dog - very fit and healthy developed diarrhoea which turned out to be cancer (he had it in the lungs, liver, spleen, intestine). This was over a 3 week period. He had not been sick before in his short life. The tests etc cost me over $2200.00 and I got back $1800 within 10 days of the bill being sent to my insurance company (Bow Wow Meow). I have never had an issue with the insurance policy and have found that the few times I have claimed for my other dog (which have been for large amounts), I am quickly paid. I don't have the thousands of dollars sitting there to spend on these unexpected vet bills (don't think many people would) and I can claim up to $12K per annum. But you did in all of those cases, right? Or am I missing something? I thought that you had to have your own money up front, and then the insurance company reimburses you later... Yep, and Id be curious to know how much you have paid in premiums each year and how much you have paid them in total over all the years? Insurance companies are not charities, they are in it for the money. They need to keep their shareholders happy by turning profits. They are not going to do that if they let their customer come out better than them financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penumbra Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. They do. Next? When I start work again in October, I'll be paying to support unemployed people as well. It's just how the "community" is run. Unless of course you would prefer all unemployed people to be homeless... Just another note, the states wouldn't run if it weren't for non-paid volunteers. Even politicians admit this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Edited August 9, 2012 by Penumbra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. They do. Next? When I start work again in October, I'll be paying to support unemployed people as well. It's just how the "community" is run. Unless of course you would prefer all unemployed people to be homeless... Just another note, the states wouldn't run if it weren't for non-paid volunteers. Even politicians admit this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. What are you implying Penumbra? One can only presume that you are saying the unemployed are non-paid volunteers that the state relies upon to run effectively??? Otherwise your statement about non-paid volunteers has no relevance at all to this thread. And no, I would like to see unemployed people being employed, not homeless. And you are putting guilt trips on people that don't agree with your pet medicare idea with this statement My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penumbra Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. They do. Next? When I start work again in October, I'll be paying to support unemployed people as well. It's just how the "community" is run. Unless of course you would prefer all unemployed people to be homeless... Just another note, the states wouldn't run if it weren't for non-paid volunteers. Even politicians admit this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. What are you implying Penumbra? One can only presume that you are saying the unemployed are non-paid volunteers that the state relies upon to run effectively??? Otherwise your statement about non-paid volunteers has no relevance at all to this thread. And no, I would like to see unemployed people being employed, not homeless. And you are putting guilt trips on people that don't agree with your pet medicare idea with this statement My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. No, only a dimwit would assume that. That's why I said "just another note" and put it a couple of lines away from the other note. And what I was "implying" with that other note is that our society runs on more than just taxes. If it weren't for those selfless volunteers in places like hospitals, we wouldn't have this society at all. Right, and how can a person get a job if they're homeless? Because that's where the dole is sending a lot of people. It just isn't enough money to live on. Now you are just creating a straw man argument. Well done. Edited August 9, 2012 by Penumbra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. They do. Next? When I start work again in October, I'll be paying to support unemployed people as well. It's just how the "community" is run. Unless of course you would prefer all unemployed people to be homeless... Just another note, the states wouldn't run if it weren't for non-paid volunteers. Even politicians admit this. What so all unemployed people do volunteer work? Thats news to me. I didn't say that either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. What are you implying Penumbra? One can only presume that you are saying the unemployed are non-paid volunteers that the state relies upon to run effectively??? Otherwise your statement about non-paid volunteers has no relevance at all to this thread. And no, I would like to see unemployed people being employed, not homeless. And you are putting guilt trips on people that don't agree with your pet medicare idea with this statement My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. No, only a dimwit would assume that. That's why I said "just another note" and put it a couple of lines away from the other note. And what I was "implying" with that other note is that our society runs on more than just taxes. If it weren't for those selfless volunteers in places like hospitals, we wouldn't have this society at all. Right, and how can a person get a job if they're homeless? Because that's where the dole is sending a lot of people. It just isn't enough money to live on. Now you are just creating a straw man argument. Well done. What do un-paid volunteers have to do with pet insurance? Really? Edited August 9, 2012 by Puppoochi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaznHotAussies Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Huh. Entitled much? Personally I think the world/country could be improved with many things, Pet Medicare is not one of them. The elderly & disabled should be more of a priority. True. But you notice how I didn't elaborate on the pet medicare? I never said that everybody should be entitled to full cover or anything like that. My main point was that many animals get put down because the owners couldn't afford say $500-$2000. If you claim to be a pet lover, then surely you would be a little disturbed by this. I don't think it's anyone else's business regarding whether someone "saves" their dog or puts it down due to not being able to afford treatment. In my opinion, if you want a pet, you have to take into account worst-case scenarios and decide what you're prepared to do. So what if owners have to put their pet down due to not being able to afford treatment. The animal doesn't know any different! Humans put way too many human emotions onto animals, where all they care about is security, food & company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubyBlue Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 *cough* troll *cough* this has gone well and truly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Have a search on Consumer Reports website. They agree that pet insurance is a con and recommend that consumers will generally be better off selecting to try and get a healthy pet and keeping a buffer fund to cover unexpected veterinary expenses. True, people with unhealthy or accident-prone dogs sometimes get value for money from their insurance. That is how the insurance business works . . . the premiums of people whose dogs don't get bloat, rupture their cruciate ligament, etc. are used to pay the claims of people whose dogs do have such problems . . . and to pay for high salaries and expensive office space and advertizing. I disagree here. My young 4.5 yr old dog - very fit and healthy developed diarrhoea which turned out to be cancer (he had it in the lungs, liver, spleen, intestine). This was over a 3 week period. He had not been sick before in his short life. The tests etc cost me over $2200.00 and I got back $1800 within 10 days of the bill being sent to my insurance company (Bow Wow Meow). I have never had an issue with the insurance policy and have found that the few times I have claimed for my other dog (which have been for large amounts), I am quickly paid. I don't have the thousands of dollars sitting there to spend on these unexpected vet bills (don't think many people would) and I can claim up to $12K per annum. But you did in all of those cases, right? Or am I missing something? I thought that you had to have your own money up front, and then the insurance company reimburses you later... I know my insurance (PetPlan) will pay the vet directly, so don't need to have the cash upfront if your vet is okay with that. I assume most will do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Most vets don't agree to this though unless you know them well, they know the dog's history and are confident that the insurance company will pay. If they insurance company declines the payout, or you don't fill in the paperwork quickly, the poor vet is left chasing up the payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Most vets don't agree to this though unless you know them well, they know the dog's history and are confident that the insurance company will pay. If they insurance company declines the payout, or you don't fill in the paperwork quickly, the poor vet is left chasing up the payment. True, however most people with large bills probably would not have paid the amount up front or in a lump sum anyway, so if the insurance company doesn't pay obviously it's the responsibility of the owner, as is the case if there was no insurance in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussielover Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Most emergency/24hr vets and specialists will require an upfront payment of around half of the estimated cost. Its usually good to be able to have access to a couple of thousand dollars in case of emergencies (easier said than done i know!!!). There are also emergency credit options such as Care Credit etc although the interest rate on these is very high. I now believe having accident and emergency illness cover is worth it. Most people can afford a few hundred dollars a year to cover pet insurance, but few would have immediate access to $5000-10000 for a serious accident or illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now