Posted: 4/5/2014 6:36:58 PM EDT
[#2]
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/august/money/pet-costs/pet-insurance-rarely-worth-the-price-in-our-analysis/index.htm
"Pet insurance generally cost more than it paid out in our latest comparison of policies. (See Putting pet policies to the test.) Only in uncommon cases, when a pet required very expensive care, would the coverage have more than paid for itself. We compared three brands—ASPCA Pet Health Insurance, 24PetWatch QuickCare, and VPI—whose parent companies together control an estimated 90 percent of the market—and Trupanion, a relative newcomer. For our test, we used the lifetime vet bills of Roxy, a 10-year-old beagle in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. She has been basically healthy but has had a few costly episodes, including three visits to a veterinary emergency room, two dental cleanings under anesthesia, and her share of ear and eye infections and gastrointestinal distress. We projected the net benefit of pet insurance under nine policies for Roxy, a healthy 10-year-old beagle. Over the years, her vet bills have totaled $7,026 (in current dollars). Because Roxy has had few major health problems, the insurance would have cost more than it paid out. But when we added treatment for more serious problems and increased her vet bills to $12,685, five of the nine policies would have paid back at least a little more than they cost."
Note these two parts
We all know that an insurance company's business is to take in premiums and pay out as little of those premiums as possible, right? So why is it a shock that they make it hard to get anything back.
FMF readers that have said they are counting on pet insurance to help them out in case of trouble might be in for a rude awakening. As the author of the Wise Bread piece said, "In this case we were lucky. 76 percent of $545 is something we can afford right now. But what if it was 76 percent of $7,000?" Yes, 76% of $7,000 would be trouble for many people.
Now, ALL insurance companies have the model if they get people to as a group pay in more than the insurance company pays out. For human insurance, people are willing to take the hit for piece of mind and because there are human health catastrophes that can easily reach $100,000...or in some instances a TON more.
Yes, pets are more a member of the family than ever before. People are paying $10,000 to have issues corrected. But they aren't paying $100,000. People love pets as family members, but when a kid gets hurt you'll cash out your entire retirement savings, the college fund, and sell your house and live in a van if that's what it takes. Truth be told few pet owners are going to sell the house to save the pet.
If you are the type of person who would sell the house to save a pet, who would honestly pay $50,000 to save your pet, insurance is probably a good deal for you because it offsets a possible catastrophic financial hit with a very real and certain minor financial hit.
For most people, they'd be better served by putting roughly the same amount as the insurance would cost away monthly in a generic mutual fund or heck just in the bank.
|
|