What a rip off!!

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:04:59 +0000, Laura R. wrote:

circa Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:47:37 -0800, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav,
Dennis Carr ) said,

Face it, you can save the money and just go to the vet for the
unfortunate stuff.

And if you put it in a savings account, you even accrue interest on it.

And there you have it, insurance advice and financial advice in one post! =^_^=

(Granted, savings accounts aren't exactly the best interest rate on the
market, but a money market account *might* not be the way to go here....)

--
Dennis Carr - | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------

"afr" wrote in message
. org...

I finally heard from Veterinary Pet Insurance re. my cat's FLUTD claims.
The claims totaled about $1500 that included getting him unblocked and
follow-up care. I got back $300.00. The annual premium is $445. Not
exactly worth it!!!

Transparent thievery.

But that premium is for a year, right? And the reimbursement you got back
was for one illness/claim? Obviously, hoping no more big clainms will be
neeeded w/in the year's coverage, but I don't see how you can logically
expect to get back more than what the yearly premium costs, for any one
claim, unless that just happens to be the way the condition's covered.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"afr" wrote in message
. org...

I finally heard from Veterinary Pet Insurance re. my cat's FLUTD claims.
The claims totaled about $1500 that included getting him unblocked and
follow-up care. I got back $300.00. The annual premium is $445. Not
exactly worth it!!!

Transparent thievery.

But that premium is for a year, right? And the reimbursement you got back
was for one illness/claim? Obviously, hoping no more big clainms will be
neeeded w/in the year's coverage, but I don't see how you can logically
expect to get back more than what the yearly premium costs, for any one
claim, unless that just happens to be the way the condition's covered.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

Sounds like my previous dental insurance!

Why not put $10 a week away just for such an expense. You'd have the $1500
next time in a little less than 3 years. You could open a special bank
account but with the 1% interest they are paying, putting the money into a
tin can would serve you just as well.

--
Barb
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Sounds like my previous dental insurance!

Why not put $10 a week away just for such an expense. You'd have the $1500
next time in a little less than 3 years. You could open a special bank
account but with the 1% interest they are paying, putting the money into a
tin can would serve you just as well.

--
Barb
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

afr wrote in message .org...
LOL. Actually, when this cat was a baby and had an intestinal virus, they
gave me back about 70 percent of the expenses. I guess when it gets to the
more serious illnesses, they scale back, which I think sucks.
I fail to see how reimbursement that is less than the cost of the policy
qualifies as "insurance"... except for the salaries of the vets who work
for VPI.


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.

afr wrote in message .org...
LOL. Actually, when this cat was a baby and had an intestinal virus, they
gave me back about 70 percent of the expenses. I guess when it gets to the
more serious illnesses, they scale back, which I think sucks.
I fail to see how reimbursement that is less than the cost of the policy
qualifies as "insurance"... except for the salaries of the vets who work
for VPI.


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.

"afr" wrote
LOL. Actually, when this cat was a baby and had an intestinal virus, they
gave me back about 70 percent of the expenses. I guess when it gets to the
more serious illnesses, they scale back, which I think sucks.
I fail to see how reimbursement that is less than the cost of the policy
qualifies as "insurance"... except for the salaries of the vets who work
for VPI.

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.

"afr" wrote
LOL. Actually, when this cat was a baby and had an intestinal virus, they
gave me back about 70 percent of the expenses. I guess when it gets to the
more serious illnesses, they scale back, which I think sucks.
I fail to see how reimbursement that is less than the cost of the policy
qualifies as "insurance"... except for the salaries of the vets who work
for VPI.

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.

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."

The maxiumum you can get for a blocked cat with flutd is about $530.00
My own undertsnading of health insurance is that most patients pay and
don't get sick, and that is how the profit is made.Maybe people who have
health insurance for cats and dogs have a higher percentage of patients
who do become ill, and thus the lower pay schedule. The tricky thing with
this company is if you send in six or more claims a year, your
premium doubles. I guess that is their way of insuring that profits exceed
expenditures.


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?

I'll have to look through it more carefully. I never looked at the
reimbursement schedule until he got sick. I suspect the cancer payment
schedule exceeds the premium.

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.

Thanks for that reference. I'll take a look at that issue. Based on this
experience, I would concur.


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.

I guess it depends on where one lives. Where I live, the doctors think
like insurance agents, and drag their feet when it comes to testing.

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.


I'm very interested in healthcare too. Thanks for posting.