What a rip off!!

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.

I had pet insurance for my two cats for one year. I stopped it three
years ago and opened up a savings account ($300/year) instead. As far
as an MD's motive for ordering tests, I think it has more to do with
potential liability than profit. Many of the tests that are ordered are
not performed by the MD that orders them. The doctor just wants to make
sure all the bases are covered.


-MIKE

I had pet insurance for my two cats for one year. I stopped it three
years ago and opened up a savings account ($300/year) instead. As far
as an MD's motive for ordering tests, I think it has more to do with
potential liability than profit. Many of the tests that are ordered are
not performed by the MD that orders them. The doctor just wants to make
sure all the bases are covered.


-MIKE

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

Likewise, thanks for sharing your experience with an insurer. It's all very
interesting, though first and foremost again, I am sorry your little cat has
been sick.

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

Likewise, thanks for sharing your experience with an insurer. It's all very
interesting, though first and foremost again, I am sorry your little cat has
been sick.

"Caliban" wrote
Of interest might be that [the July issue of Consumer Reports]
said that insurance plans for one's pets were not worth it.

I was fishing around and found an old post to this newsgroup that reproduced the
whole July, 2003 Consumer Reports article on vet care. Here's a link to it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pe...orts%22 &hl=e
n&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=q0ueev40hr17ev82g5jracg46vmg90te9u%404ax.co m&rnum=2

The article has a summary statement on the subject of pet insurance: "Pet
insurance won't necessarily save you money." So my statement above is overkill;
perhaps some pet insurance plans may be worth it.

"Caliban" wrote
Of interest might be that [the July issue of Consumer Reports]
said that insurance plans for one's pets were not worth it.

I was fishing around and found an old post to this newsgroup that reproduced the
whole July, 2003 Consumer Reports article on vet care. Here's a link to it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pe...orts%22 &hl=e
n&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=q0ueev40hr17ev82g5jracg46vmg90te9u%404ax.co m&rnum=2

The article has a summary statement on the subject of pet insurance: "Pet
insurance won't necessarily save you money." So my statement above is overkill;
perhaps some pet insurance plans may be worth it.

You said it could not be expected to get back more than the yearly
premium. Isn't that the point of any insurance?

I pay a few hundred a year for home insurance. Surely I could expect
more than that back if the house burned down.

My father was recently in the hospital 3 days. The total bill was over
$5,000. His Medicare paid for all but about $800. His premiums are $40 a
month, which during the year adds up to much less than the $5,000 bill.

If insurance never paid out more than the annual premiums, what would be
the purpose of getting insurance?

JWR

You said it could not be expected to get back more than the yearly
premium. Isn't that the point of any insurance?

I pay a few hundred a year for home insurance. Surely I could expect
more than that back if the house burned down.

My father was recently in the hospital 3 days. The total bill was over
$5,000. His Medicare paid for all but about $800. His premiums are $40 a
month, which during the year adds up to much less than the $5,000 bill.

If insurance never paid out more than the annual premiums, what would be
the purpose of getting insurance?

JWR

Yes, I think most insurance (that is an honorable) business does. It
operates on the assumption that most customers won't need it, so the
monies areavailable for people who do...kind of like a credit union.

But I'm getting the sense that this company doesn't operate that way.

ar
"I'm a Pisces fish, and the river runs though my soul."
G. Harrison, 2002

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 wrote:

You said it could not be expected to get back more than the yearly
premium. Isn't that the point of any insurance?

I pay a few hundred a year for home insurance. Surely I could expect
more than that back if the house burned down.

My father was recently in the hospital 3 days. The total bill was over
$5,000. His Medicare paid for all but about $800. His premiums are $40 a
month, which during the year adds up to much less than the $5,000 bill.

If insurance never paid out more than the annual premiums, what would be
the purpose of getting insurance?

JWR