Got a hedgehog? Kristen Zorbini-Bongard does. She loves Harriet so much she pays $80 a year to Veterinary Pet Insurance (VPI) to protect her from the possibility of a financial “stop-treatment” decision (AKA, economic euthanasia). This information courtesy of Public Radio International’s This American Life, where one of last weekend’s segments treated the topic in surprising depth.
Though “Insurance? Ruh-Roh!” is written by Planet Money's David Kestenbaum, it's preternaturally geeky Ira Glass who goes on tape to tell Harriet’s tale:
When Harriet’s mom found a tumor on her beloved, she claims that pet insurance helped give her the green light to undertake the expensive treatments to follow. In the end, VPI paid about $800. Kristen and her husband...$1,900. Despite the inequitable cash outlay, it helped. After all, Kristen’s not rich. And she loves Harriet like any of us do our dogs and cats. So if it helped her save Harriet’s life, it’s a good thing, right?
Yes, of course!
Ultimately, that’s the answer This American Life was reaching for. Though it hammered the point home somewhat artificially, the idea was this: Pet health insurance helps save pets by raising the stop-treatment bar. What’s more, the veterinarians, pet owners, pets and insurance companies all win. A “win-win-win” Ira chanted along with VPI’s CEO. And, best of all, no one loses sight of the ultimate goal or the underlying cost issues along the way.
Human health insurance could take a lesson from animals, Mr. Glass gushes.
Amid a sea of convoluted codes, layers of bureaucratic billing specialists, byzantine hospital bidding processes and every invested party gaming the system all the way, human patients get lost. Even more to the point, our nation’s upward spiraling healthcare expenses showcase that the cost of it all is an outsourced abstraction for the healthcare providers involved. In human health, it’s a lose-lose: costs go up and patients get compromised care for their huge cash outlays.
Human healthcare is undoubtedly a mess. This we know. But to riff on Harriet’s dubious success leaves me somewhat cold. How can one hedgehog’s 29% pet insurance payout possibly convince anyone to adopt pet health insurance? It’s an embarrassing example that would in no way convince me to run headlong into the arms of a pet health insurance carrier in the hopes of saving my pet’s life.
Luckily, there are far better examples of pet health insurance success out there. (Plenty!) Indeed, I have no idea how VPI’s CEO could go on record to claim a win-win-win when it’s clear that Harriet’s owners were either underinsured..or got screwed over.
But this isn’t really about Harriet or her owners, much though This American Life finds it humorous to hold her out as an example of our pet-devoted human ways. Rather, for me, it’s more to do with how veterinary medicine’s fee-for-service, lower-waste ways manage to keep costs under control.
Sure, that TPLO might not seem like a bargain, but it’s one hell of a lot cheaper than the human ACL-tear scenario (about a tenth or less). In this respect I do agree that veterinary medicine has a lot to teach human health. That’s because when vets and clients know how much everything costs, and when everyone’s a stakeholder in the cost conservation game, smarter decisions get made.
Add to this the fact that 17% of our hospitals’ costs don’t need to go to the billing department for arcane code translation and chronic insurance carrier disputes and you’ve got a recipe for an automatically slimmer, less wasteful system.
I’ll also agree that giving consumers a choice in their election of insurance carriers and plans makes a big difference to the viability of the system. Unlike our human system, for which individuals are effectively forced into one company’s plan by their employers, pet health insurance offers multiple carriers with multiple plans any owner can choose based on its merits and their personal level of risk aversion. (Not that Harriet’s owner had a choice, since only one carrier offers hedgehog insurance.)
Choice is critical when it’s obvious that human health insurance carriers use their market share to bully hospitals and skew the game in their favor. If every individual could freely choose a plan without having to worry about belonging to a group to qualify, insurance companies would have to compete based on the quality of their product and the effectiveness of their service. What a concept!
Yes, ultimately the pet health insurance industry has a lot to teach human health...if only because it’s based on a competitive, fee-for-service model in which everyone participates, competes and questions costs every step of the way.
Nonetheless, it’s unlikely that pet insurance, as it’s currently designed, could ever be held up as a model for human health insurance. As Mr. Glass concludes in this worthy piece, the difference between pets and humans is responsible for this disconnect. The human-animal divide is vast and lies fundamentally in the willingness of an individual to shoulder any cost, no matter how huge, to save themselves or their children, while the reality is otherwise for pets.
Why? Because, like it or not, most of us consume healthcare for our pets with the almighty stop-treatment figure buried somewhere in our brains.
Add Comment33 Comments
I'm not sure whether it's the stop-treatment *figure* in particular, but the concept of stop-treatment at all.
I recently read an article on the healthcare situation which stated that not enough people acknowledge that even the best insurance/healthcare program will still result in all the recipients dying.
It's morbid, but I think he's on to something. Also, I think people are more likely to accept this and make decisions (including financial ones) accordingly when dealing with animals than they are with people.
I doubt it's because of attatchment issues - enough people who claim to love their dogs better than their family still make rational end-of-life decisions. Then again, it's easier to get another dog than another father.
Maybe it's the naturally shorter life spans? By the time we're calling the shots for an animal we've probably lost a childhood pet or so, wheras most people bury family members only a time or two over their whole life.
I could see the availability of euthanasia playing a part too - deciding to euthanize is doing something. Choosing to do nothing can be much harder than choosing to do something.
Then again, I don't have pet insurance because my pets' 'stop treatment figures' as you say are within the bounds of cash we could have ready in an emergency. But I do have medical insurance for myself. I don't know what that says.
I find these comparasons fascinating.
puppynerd October 27th, 2009 01:13:29 PM
Sadly, many humans are at least on the dock, if not in the same boat as pets in terms of our ability to 'consume' healthcare. The only difference is that instead of a pet owner making the decision on economic euthanasia, it's insurance companies deciding not to pay for treatment and the human dying at a slower pace.
Yes, there are some safety nets for people, but if you're not old enough for Medicare, not disabled or otherwise eligable for Medicaid, and don't have insurance, a lot of places won't even see you, let alone treat you for symptoms. A friend had breast cancer and was so glad that her husband had insurance, and after hearing what the costs for treatment were (are, as she still has some things to continue), it was mindboggling (more than $200,000 so far). I don't have any assistance, and if I was diagnosed and whther I didn't have a job or was lucky enough to get a job with insurance, it would be a pre-existing condition that wouldn't cover treatment.
Could I afford treatment that would actually do enough good without burying myself beforehand in a mountain of debt - probably not, whether I had a job, and definitely not if I didn't. So, yeah, it wouldn't be an actaul euthansia, but I'd end up dying for lack of care. At least if I was a dog with an owner who could ease my way quickly and painlessly, I'd be much better off.
KateH October 27th, 2009 01:13:48 PM
You must be getting sick of me by now.
The three-card-monte in veterinary pet insurance is their calculation of "usual and customary." They claim (cough, cough) to average the charges of vets in your local area to determine the "usual and customary" and then pay the contractual percentage of that number. I live in the Washington DC area. About 5 years ago, one pet insurance company announced to me that the usual and customary cost for doing cataract surgery on both eyes of a bulldog, including pre and post-op visits, was $800. I called them up and said -- give me names. I want names. Tell me which vets in DC, MD or Virginia are charging that price. Even one name. The poor woman was blubbering and stuttering on the other end of the phone and finally spat out: w-w-w-well, you can ap-p-ppeal... In virtually no time at all they coughed up another $500. This was still a lot less than I had paid, but the clinic I had gone to was not cheap, and I could believe that out in the sticks there were general vets doing the procedure themselves for a lot less money, so I considered it a victory. But you HAVE to be the squeaky wheel when they try to screw you over like that.
Susan October 27th, 2009 01:25:03 PM
Susan: Without naming names, I will offer this: Reimbursement policies differ from one company to the next. Not all pet health insurance companies follow the same lead.
Dr. Patty Khuly October 27th, 2009 02:02:04 PM
I have pet insurance for my dog but not for my cats - I worked out the premiums over the life of the pet vs the coverage - for my dog, the coverage is good and the cost of treatment would be high, so it it worth it in my opinion. However, for my indoor cats, the premiums were almost as much as for the dog, but covered much less, plus in my experience, the costs of treating my cats for similar conditions was cheaper than for a dog, and is more likely to be within what I could handle out of pocket - so it didn't make sense. Plus cats typically get sick once they get older and the insurance here does not cover after 8 yrs. Sure, there are some surgeries that are very expensive, but most insurers cap their coverage so you'd be paying that anyways.
One thing I plan to do, is put the same money I would have otherwise paid toward pet insurance (~$30/month) and put that into a savings account which is specifically for pet emergencies. That way you can invest/get interest and get ALL the money, not just the 80% portion after the deductible, for only certain conditions. And if they are lucky ehough not to need it, then maybe later you can use it for something else.
I live in Canada and I love our health insurance setup here, so I can't really comment on how it compares to human US health insurance :-P
Kim October 27th, 2009 02:46:34 PM
I deliberately did not name names either, but either I'm very thick today or your response is unusually cryptic, because I'm stumped! Are you trying to say that other companies (1) are more honest, (3) less likely to be responsive to a challenge, or (3) other?
Susan October 27th, 2009 03:19:44 PM
Susan: Sorry for being cryptic...what I mean is that not all companies reimburse based on the lowest common denominator price in your marketplace. Some insurance companies reimburse as a fixed percentage of what you're actually asked to pay--which can differ from provider to provider. They won't second guess a veterinarian on these prices as long as they're relatively reasonable and customary.
Dr. Patty Khuly October 27th, 2009 04:05:24 PM
>>One thing I plan to do, is put the same money I would have otherwise paid toward pet insurance (~$30/month) and put that into a savings account which is specifically for pet emergencies. That way you can invest/get interest and get ALL the money>>
This is precisely what I recommend to my clients. Though I see a moderate number of insured patients (horses), I'm regularly astonished at the games the insurance companies try to play with clients. A small emergency fund is best if the client has the discipline to save (which I encourage).
I cringed while listening to the NPR program, not least because they did not mention the many exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or the fact that insurance companies frequently drop patients with expensive problems. This is not a good alternative to the human health insurance system, but I digress!
Outrider October 27th, 2009 04:38:39 PM
Pet Insurance has been a life saver for me but I've had a rather unlucky/accident prone dog. I once had VPI but switched to another provider because of the lowest common denominator pay out they like to give. My new carrier works off a more conventional system with a deductible and or co-insurance that once covered I get a full reimbursement on what ever it is the vet charged that is covered.
Overall though Pet Insurance in general has probably saved me almost 2,000 dollars over the 17 months I've had my 19 month old dog.
Andrew October 27th, 2009 04:52:16 PM
Well I had VPI insurance for my beloved Hanna dog. I never even used it more than once. But when at 6 years old, she was diagnosed with a liver shunt, they said so sorry that is not covered. My daughter, a veterinarian, had recommended them but I do not trust them at all. If she had had any trace of a liver shunt earlier in life, I could understand. Would not like it. How many dogs are athletic, healthy and showing no sings of a liver shunt for 6 years and then (though I understand this was building up) but almost overnight show effects though even when I took her to the liver specialist at U C Davis, he was not sure about an operation because she had no symptoms at first. She had the operation. Did not make it and after 6 years of insurance premiums, I was not re-imbursed even for the diagnosis.
We need a public option for our dogs also.
Eliza October 27th, 2009 04:54:37 PM
Just had to continue that multi-day streak, didn't you?
"Harriet's owners were either underinsured..or got screwed over." Seems more likely to me that Harriet's case is just the tip of what's to come. I predict we'll see more and more cases of pet insurance companies raising their premiums and reducing their payouts, stalling payouts, and denying claims while veterinarians feel comfortable to raise fees (because, well it's covered by insurance so...); all resulting in pet owners eventually paying more out of pocket and getting less. Never forget those insurance companies have to build in their costs and profit margins so, long term, owners MUST pay more to cover that because it wouldn't be included in paying the vet directly.
PJBoosinger October 27th, 2009 05:16:36 PM
Jeez - us PJ - where in the world do you get that vets would raise their prices because things are covered by insurance. The number of people who have pet care insurance is so small - and will continue to be small for the foreseeable future in most of the world - and vets aren't going to use the possibility of one owner having insurance and 99 others not having it to raise their prices. And if you're going to say that vets will only raise prices for those clients who have insurance is a giant stretch, considering that all the policies I've seen (and I'm sure most, if not all the rest) require owners to pay up front, which means a vet jacking up the price is risking pissing off a client. Yeah, it might happen, but stop making it out that this will be SOP for all vets. You need to tune up your piano so it plays more than one note.
KateH October 27th, 2009 05:37:26 PM
And, yet, if pet insurance were all it's touted to be, Harriet's owner wouldn't have gotten such a nominal reimbursement. The things I predicted are just human nature of taking advantage in business; it's exactly what happened in human medicine and insurance and, since the pet insurance is coming in about half way along the process (modified C&R plans), they are clearly already following the human model. It is no stretch to think they will continue to do so. They aren't shooting for a vast market but a selective one. When we start seeing more and more cases like Harriet's (and I'm sure we will in the near future, not like I didn't predict pet insurance problems here before and now they're starting to appear), we'll see who needs to change their tune.
Oh, and please stop accusing me of painting with that broad "all vets" brush. I rarely use absolutes like that, reserving them for when they are appropriate, unlike some.
PJBoosinger October 27th, 2009 05:59:00 PM
Well, duh, it's the insurance companies that are going to be the baddies, not the vets, so why you had to say that vets would raise their prices was what I was commenting on.
KateH October 27th, 2009 06:02:55 PM
Because assuming that it will stop with the insurance companies is unrealistic and rather absurd. Like there's not one single vet who will see profits to be made in this? Yeah, sure "ALL" vets are saints. JEEZ KateH, that's naive.
PJBoosinger October 27th, 2009 06:42:03 PM
PJ, just shove off - I'm not naive, as you ought to realize. I've worked in a number of clinics, and taken pets to a number of others, and lost a pet in a way that could have been avoided, so naive is not where I'm coming from. I'm just tired of your know-it-all, wink-wink, nudge-nudge about vets being in cahoots with the dark side.
K October 27th, 2009 06:58:23 PM
Harriet’s owner pays $7 a month for her VPI policy ($84 a year). VPI's policies are designed to be affordable and fit comfortably into the average household budget.
Hopefully, this translates into more pets being insured, and more pets receiving the care they need.
Grant at VPI October 27th, 2009 07:23:53 PM
There will always be docs that are out to make a buck, and I can see those that will raise the fees, or do more tests knowing the owner will get some reimbursement.. I see in medicine all the time.. I think it's a sad part of life..
On a different note.. I might've made a mistake when Socks was a puppy, and didn't take out a policy.. Now that he is a 4yo.. He has preexisting illnesses.. He is prone to ear infections, and allergic bronchial problems..
Barri & Socrates October 27th, 2009 07:39:21 PM
Kate, I have to somewhat agree with PJ on this one---if pet insurance should become the conglomerates comparable to human health ins. companies.
I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I recall in the 70's & 80's, when I was for the most part "uninsured" , being able to actually make a doctors appointment and pay with my checkbook. No frills, as I didn't need them anyways being under 30.
Now I am pretty much considered a "gold card" holder with federal plan ins., gosh I made one appt, x-rays, ekg, labs, mammogram, and tetanus shot later, I walked out healthy.
I see it with my elderly parents, everyone wants a piece of the pie. Before you know it, you have your GP, cardio, pulmonary, immunology-allergy, neurologist, and then finally an oncologist for good measure. Tests? Same ones over & over, just to monitor--Medicare?
Have you taken a look at hospitals lately? No longer the plain brick buildings--nope, two story atriums, artwork, saltwater fishtanks, some seem like going to the Ritz hotel. Why?
I don't have anything at all against pet health insurance, but I do not want to see pet healthcare follow human healthcare. Especially, end -of-life, let's try everything before inevitable death.
Barbara A./NH October 27th, 2009 07:51:35 PM
Grant: I agree. I want ALL my patients insured. But ultimately, that's because I want less to do with what's best for the wallet than what's best for the patient. But pet insurance via certain carriers hasn't panned out like I expected.
I understand there's got to be a reasonable middle ground where the pets can't be saved or when pet insurance just can't cover it. I just wish the value of pet insurance was more palpable to those who ended up relying on it. In my experience, higher premiums would be acceptable if only payouts fit the bill.
Dr. Patty Khuly October 27th, 2009 07:53:34 PM
Barb, I wasn't saying that the pet insurance companies weren't going to become more the human ones - they may ver y well be just as bad by the end of the decade for all I know. I'm just tired of PJ, for the last 4 days, doing the "vets have bad intentions" song.
KateH October 27th, 2009 08:01:54 PM
Equine insurance has been invaluable for me--my current plan is $350 a year, $250 deductable per incident, and then they pay absolutely everything up to $7500 each year. With all the options available to horses--stem cell therapy, shockwave, bone scans, MRI, etc--I've cost my insurance a lot more than they've cost me over the past 9 years.
I don't have insurance on the cats, though. For them, I'd prefer to go with the plan that someone mentioned above--putting X amount of money into a special bank account each month.
Sarah October 27th, 2009 08:27:29 PM
"I'm just tired of PJ, for the last 4 days, doing the "vets have bad intentions" song." And I get tired of you and others reading things in that aren't there and blaming me for your faulty reading and filtration. You really seem to like playing the whisper game but you should check your own perception filters before making accusations, especially false ones. You clearly get in these moods where you don't want to discuss the topic, just attack and start a personal fight. Must be time for me to go back to ignoring you.
PJB October 27th, 2009 09:11:24 PM
Sarah: Just $350/yr. for equine ins? That is CHEAP! I've read a lot of dog plans more expensive!
I have no clue on horse care though.
Re: the human topic, and am I the only one that finds radio, TV, magazine, newspaper, glossy mags & newsletters over the top? Competition for business, yet all are outrageously expensive?
Even my Mom thought all the tests & repeated tests were out of line, but as an elderly sick person could never say NO to them.
I truly feel bad about the health care system. Yes, I am one of the fortunate people, but I want everyone to be able to obtain "reasonable & good care" without soaking the system that "pays".
Sorry, I have gone astray here.
Barb A./NH October 27th, 2009 09:34:36 PM
Barb, No, you're not alone! Those ads aren't targeting patients, they target doctors. I've been collecting some references on this, health care costs, and the economy generally for an upcoming blog entry. I can remember have C&R 80/20 insurance when my son was little. I didn't run to the doc for every little thing but I knew I could afford to take him any time I needed. Even without the excessive testing, I've watched the skyrocketing prices of the same old stuff done the same old way except less efficiently. Really does remind me of featherbedding.
PJB October 27th, 2009 09:59:10 PM
Boy, this issue closely mirrors the current human health care system and issues thereof. That's why I do hesitate to comment. I will comment from a different angle.
I have never bought an animal. I have paid rescue organizations money to cover their costs, but none of my mutts have ever had a pedigree. In fact, both of our cats are alley cat stray kittens found and brought into our home. So rather than these cats and dogs getting attacked by a coyote or run over by a car, I have provided them for a pretty good life.
One of our past kids that had a good life was named Tasha. At about 7 years old she started slowing down. I took her to the vet and we found out that the cat had cancer all through her body. The vet gave me the treatment options along with prices. I told her to just put the kid down and be done with it. Now there were a lot of reasons. One was price of treatment, wear and tear on the cat, etc. But my other reason was that I really do subscribe to the "needs of many outweight the needs of the few." I have kept a lot of cats and dogs healthy and happy at the various shelters with donations, donations that I couldn't make if I put thousands of dollars into ONE cat just to keep her alive for another year.
Now I would say that broken legs, injuries, and other disease and such that can be recovered from would take more consideration. I haven't been put in that situation but I would think, being enough of a softy, I would save my kid. But I will say that if it was a cronic disorder that I had to spend a bunch of money on every other year, I don't think I would put the money out nor would I have an insurance company do the same. There are just too many potential rescues going to the oven every day for me to do such a thing. In the wild, the weak would not survive. Who am I to fight nature? Sounds cruel, but so is the massive euthinzation issue we have.
As far as the human equivilant, my Aunt was diagnosed with Leukemia, and went through six months of complete hell at a cost bumping up against a half a million bucks before she passed away. The last time I saw her I didn't even recogize who she was she was so bloated, bruised, and basically dead already. I also had an Uncle, who had is second diagnosis of prostate cancer, just told the Doc "I know what the treatment is. Just give me morphene and send me home because I am NOT going through that again!!" He died three months later.
EAB October 28th, 2009 07:20:52 AM
I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I recall in the 70's & 80's, when I was for the most part "uninsured" , being able to actually make a doctors appointment and pay with my checkbook. No frills, as I didn't need them anyways being under 30.
But something else has changed since the 70s, too, and especially since those halcyon earlier days when the doctor made housecalls and all those nice features our parents counted on and we remember from our childhood: If they find something serious wrong with you, they're more likely to be able to deliver meaningful treatment.
The insurance companies are profiteering, the doctors have moved down the income scale and are struggling with higher med school debt and trying to keep from sliding further down the income scale, and these things are pernicious in their effects--but still a significant part of the increasing cost of medical care is that "cancer" is not an automatic death sentence, and what we knew as "senility" is now Alzheimer's, and somewhat treatable, and--I could go on, but you know many of the other examples yourself.
It's not all the Evil Insurance Companies. Even though I want to see their execs unemployed, out of benefits, and trying to get care in the system they've had a big part in creating.
Lis October 28th, 2009 07:21:10 AM
I have to agree with Dr. Patty on this one about all pets being insured so that decisions can be made for the well being of the patient not the wallet. This is the exact reason the second I brought home my dog as a 7 week old pup I got a policy for him.
Although it took me about a year and two different carriers to find the right one, I am happy with it and feel very comfortable now that he has a policy that covers his mild hip dysplasia and has been indispensable with other issues ranging from panosteitis to a hystocytoma.
I pay about 34.00 a month but it can be much cheaper if you elect for more coverage but being as I am paranoid about insurance for myself and those around me I took a policy with 20,000 dollar max mainly because I want to make sure I am doing everything for my Luca that I can and not have to wonder what if I could afford this treatment or that.
Andrew October 28th, 2009 08:32:24 AM
PJ, if we're all seeing you say something you don't think you said...maybe you should be modifying your speech, instead of getting aggravated at us.
Galadriel October 28th, 2009 11:40:04 AM
Because I had a bulldog, my pet insurance rates were RIDICULOUS. On the other hand, when I first signed up (1999) they actually COVERED things, so I got something for my money. Then about 3 years in, another company took over the policy and changed the terms so that almost everything was excluded. Still, with a Bulldog, there were enough dire possibilities that the policy could pay for itself, so I kept it a few more years. In the end, I probably did get more out than I put in, but I'm awfully glad my two current dogs are so much healthier.
Susan October 28th, 2009 01:26:46 PM
Wow. This subject is so complicated it blows the mind. I really appreciate Dr. K's spending the time to lay out some of the comparisons & beginning to analyze the overall economic.
Is it simply naive of me to say that inevitably the pet ins. business will begin to go the way of our current human health ins. debacle that is killing people every day? I just had another encounter with it myself & all I can say here is--if I hadn't been able to maintain consciousness & known what I know--well, I wouldn't be writing this today, if ever. And for no reason than utter incompetence.
It's a little confusing to read these posts b/c market-driven considerations appear to be mixed in with cost-benefit analyses by animal owners, vets, and insurer's, at least, assuming the fiction of the scenario of known costs, known risks, corporate altruism (which runs counter to the basic tenets of our corporations law) and a sea of accurate, readily available information. It also assumes basically rational and fair (measured by?) behavior on the part of vets, animal owners, and insurers. Insurers, by definition, have little to no incentive to provide any of the fictional or desirable behaviors. In fact, their job is to gamble with our money and feelings about our animals--in effect to create even more of an emotional hurdle for animal owners who now must decide how their commitmment to their animal companions is measured in plans and premiums, as well as by their choices in vet care, their own knowledge, and how much money they actually have, in an economy that is being played by several layers of far deeper games than can be apparent to most of us.
When I first moved to Miami, land of the sharks and snakes (no offense to the originals), many years ago, I had a siamese mix who was coughing too much. Alarmed, I took him to the vet and paid what was then a relatively high price I could not afford for an FIV test. I was told the cat was positive, and that my other 2 cats would die too. Devastated, I returned home, doom in my mind. Nothing happened. I repeated the test, with the same high price and the same positive result. All the cats lived good long lives and the ornery little mix who had coughed lived to 21 years, now buried in a very private tropical paradise facing the bay.
I had been taken, coming from a vet who was honest, part of the community, and had good judgment-by the fear and guilt most of us deal with. Real cost and health info was not available to me then. And, for all I try I can't be adequately informed about the veracity of every claim regarding animal health and care. My own financial situation is precarious. So I end up depending upon my experience of and character of the vets I see, my own strengths and weaknesses and my knowledge of my animal companions.
It is my hope, that as we continue to learn about and respect the value of our animals, and other humans, we will begin to really follow priniciples of new paradigms, rather than replicating the old games. Our fundamental thinking about commodification of beingness needs to change. As long as our systems continue to oppress beingness, as a virtue, lives will be lost instead of embraced.
There are other ways to think about this.
SH October 30th, 2009 09:41:45 PM
Insurance of course may help in many circumstances, but there are still too many restrictions in terms of preexistent conditions.
But most importantly, you often end up having to decide to treat your pet or not based on what you have in your pocket because you never know beforehand how much the insurance will reimburse you. You pay, then ask for refund. So I see little advantage in having insurance if you can save money. You may be better off saving the money you would pay to the insurance in a bank account.
If you cannot save, then insurance might be a good option for you.
Daniela Caride November 1st, 2009 09:09:42 PM
the illnesses that really drain you are the chronic ones that come with aging. Kidney failure. Diabetes. Cancer. I looked at a policy Dr. K seemed to like back in the days when she was naming names, and came to the conclusion that it would only really be beneficial in the event of an accident. My cats are all indoor . . . so. The old age diseases that wrack up double digit thousands with multiple hospitalizations and expensive routine care? Not covered, or not covered much.
Of course, mere months after I got my quotes and made the thumbs down decision on insurance, my boy cat swallowed thread and needed surgery. Yes, it would have saved me in THAT case some significant money.
But now . . . ?
His habit of ingesting Linear Foreign Bodies is a pre-existing condition . . .
Stefani November 6th, 2009 05:49:20 PM
Add Commment