Insurance for Your Pet in the US

In Europe over twenty-five percent of all pet owners carry a pet health insurance policy on their pets. Approximately half of Sweden’s pet owners carry insurance. A recent poll of pet owners in the United States predicted that only three percent had purchased a pet health care plan. Many veterinarians feel that three percent is a very generous estimate. One of the big reasons veterinarians believe so many Europeans carry pet health insurance is because of a bill passed in 1971 that stated if a dog was considered at fault for an accident, like a car wreck, then the pet’s owner would be held responsible. This prompted many dog owners to purchase something called Third Party Liability Insurance which would pay for any damages caused by the policy holder’s pet dog. Chances are good that if you were to ask ten of your neighbors how they felt about pet health insurance you would probably get ten very different answers.      

Some pet owners are fanatical about their pets. They will except nothing but the best for their family pet, the best food, the best water, the best doggie bed, and of course the best medical treatments available. Every time it even looks like their cat or dog is about to cough or sneeze they rush the pet to the veterinarians clinic and start a fresh round of antibiotics. Because maintaining the absolute best health care available is quite expensive this type of owner is quick to purchase animal health insurance that promotes good pet medicine. At the slightest hint you are even considering purchasing pet health insurance for your pet and this over the top pet owner is shoving all sorts of flyers and brochures and applications in your hand, sometimes they even offer to call their pet health insurance rep. for you. This is fine and dandy but generally (not always) their monthly pet insurance bills are higher then you can afford. Another owner might love their family pet just as much as the over the top owner. They might wish they could provide their pet with the very best but it simply isn’t economically possible. This pet owner’s advice about pet health insurance would be your own pet health insurance. Put the money you might have spent on a monthly insurance premium aside and use that to cover your pets medical needs. After all if you put aside thirty dollars a month then you’ll have enough money to cover the routine visits to the vet’s office plus have a little extra set aside if an emergency happens down the road. This type of insurance is called self insurance. While it sounds like a good idea there are a couple of problems. One if a medical emergency happens right away you might not have enough money on hand to cover the treatment and be forced to accept economic euthanasia for your pet. A second problem with self insurance is that its money that’s just laying around, its way to easy to see it as spare cash and use it on the family vacation or as a down payment on that laptop you’ve always wanted.       

If as a pet owner you decide that pet health insurance simply isn’t for you or your pet you will want to check and see if your homeowners insurance covers any potential accidents caused by your pet. If a dog or cat bites somebody the bitten person can sue you and in some cases demand that the pet be euthanized. If your homeowners insurance does not cover pet mishaps you should probably give a lot of thought to purchasing pet liability insurance.

Jay Schindler

TrackBack URI | RSS feed for comments on this post

6 Responses

  1. 1 Mr. Smartypants
    2012 May 16

    Is a government mandate of health insurance your idea of tyranny?
    if so then isn’t the government making a restaurant owner serve people they dislike, like the disabled, tyranny too?

    is it your opinion that makes it tyranny …because having health insurance isn’t the worst thing to ever happen?

  2. 2 Tommyyyy
    2012 May 16

    No. You can do what you want, you have a choice, (you may be sued) but with public insurance you have no say.
    References :

  3. 3 Comrade Hussein Satan
    2012 May 16

    Yes, it is tyranny.

    On the second, yes, that is tyranny too.

    Forcing the people to take part in a specific activity is tyranny. Would you like the government to force everyone to vote? Would you like the government to force everyone to own and carry firearms? I didn’t thinks so. These are rights and as such, I have the the choice of exercising them if I want. The liberals have declared health care a right but have removed my right to choose how I wish to pay for my health care. By taking away my right to choose AND forcing me to purchase a service against my will, the government has committed a tyrannical act.
    References :

  4. 4 Rebecca Doe
    2012 May 16

    Yes, to force someone to spend money on something they can’t afford is tyranny. It is like the stupid liberal law they passed that takes away a mans license if he can’t pay his child support. That way he doesn’t have reliable transportation to work, or fining people who can’t afford car insurance, or forcing people to buy car insurance before they can buy plates for their vehicles. Liberals create the poor and allow the government to rob people, it is so sad that they can’t figure that out. After what they did with S.S I can’t believe anyone would trust them with their health.
    References :

  5. 5 oimwoomwio
    2012 May 16

    I don’t think it’s tyranny at all, I think it’s long overdue. Americans are fleeced for their medical care. Insurance companies pay too much for services (whether medically necessary or not) and the uninsured pay even more–unless they don’t pay at all, in which case you and I pay one way or another.

    We pay more than twice as much as the citizens of other countries for identical prescriptions, we pay by far the most for medical care while achieving the 37th-nest outcomes, and bankruptcy due to medical bills is rising in the US, while it is virtually nonexistent elsewhere…we’re being fleeced, with precious little recourse. That’s tyranny.

    It makes far more sense to mandate access to primary care rather than just emergency room care. I’m sure that more than one illness that could have been treated at a clinic with $24 worth of medicine has wound up days or weeks later in the ER with the taxpayers on the hook for $35,000 worth of Emergency services.
    References :

  6. 6 haveaheart
    2012 May 16

    No it’s not tyranny.

    For me, it’s my only hope & option. I have no Health Insurance at all. I cannot afford to pay for it. My employer does not provide it. I refuse to not work just so I can go on welfare and get medicaid, and because I work I do not qualify.

    It’s my only hope. I’m really hoping it goes thru someday.
    References :


Leave a reply