Law Needed > To Regulate Pet Insurers & Veterinarians

Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#1
Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.

Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed, from the insurance, AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.

Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) your cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.

And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:

1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."

2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
"...to improve animal and human health.."

3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."

By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.

Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
 
Oct 2013
60
16
Midwest
#2
I don't see how the pet insurers are the problem here. They seem to operate the same way a health insurance company covering human beings operates, they pay after the procedure. If your veterinarian doesn't accept the insurance then maybe you should find another veterinarian who will and if no veterinarian will accept the insurance then maybe you should think twice about paying the insurance company's premium.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#3
It is only a pet. You can get a replacement. One should never take heroic measures to save one. Just let nature run its course.
How dumb. You have no realization of the meaning of a pet. A pet (cat, dog, parrot, whatever) is your CHILD. If you don't understand that, you have no conception of pet ownership, and you have no place in this thread. It sounds like you're talking about a chair. If you think a pet can be easily replaced, you should never have a pet. Maybe you can find a thread about furniture.
 
Oct 2013
60
16
Midwest
#4
How dumb. You have no realization of the meaning of a pet. A pet (cat, dog, parrot, whatever) is your CHILD. If you don't understand that, you have no conception of pet ownership, and you have no place in this thread. It sounds like you're talking about a chair. If you think a pet can be easily replaced, you should never have a pet. Maybe you can find a thread about furniture.
Do you have a sick pet right now? We had to have one of our cats put down about 5 years ago, he had abdominal cancer and was in extreme discomfort. The operation was $9500, cash up front, and the vet wouldn't even consider a payment plan. I did go find another vet after that, he was so callous about the whole thing that I couldn't deal with him anymore.
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#5
I don't see how the pet insurers are the problem here. They seem to operate the same way a health insurance company covering human beings operates, they pay after the procedure. If your veterinarian doesn't accept the insurance then maybe you should find another veterinarian who will and if no veterinarian will accept the insurance then maybe you should think twice about paying the insurance company's premium.
HA HA HA. Well, OF COURSE, you should think twice, William. Actually, you need only think ONCE, and the thought/conclusion, obviously, is YOU DON'T GET IT. And this is why only 1% of pet owners have pet insurance. (who on earth is managing these pet insurance companies?) But this then keepas you from having your pet attended to (if you can't pay the thousands of $$ over the counter, up front. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitcherd whistle) This is hard ?

And I don't see how you can see the pet insurers operating the same way human health insurers operate. Of course they pay after the procedure. That isn't the question, The difference is the human insurers pay the doctor (or hospital), after you get the medical care. With the veterinarians, you get the reimbursement after YOU HAVE PAID the whole amount up front, or your pet IS DENIED CARE, which in most cases (where surgery be needed) that pet will DIE. Get it ?

As for finding another veterinarian who will accept reimbursement. lots of luck. So far I've explored quite a few of them, ALL refusing to be reimbursed, and requiring up front payment. It's hard to define this any way other than that the veterinarians, the pet insurers, and the AVMA are all a bunch of pet killers, with millions of cats, dogs, et al pets dying, all the time because of their selfish thoughtlessness.
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#6
Do you have a sick pet right now? We had to have one of our cats put down about 5 years ago, he had abdominal cancer and was in extreme discomfort. The operation was $9500, cash up front, and the vet wouldn't even consider a payment plan. I did go find another vet after that, he was so callous about the whole thing that I couldn't deal with him anymore.
Sure. That is all typical of them. But if they accepted pet insurance reimbursements (and you had that pet insurance), the surgery would have been done, and your cat might still be with you now.

A month ago, my cat Tommy died. The vet asked me if I could pay $5000 up front for his surgery (also abdominal cancer - 4 cysts + fluid in his stomach) I said no, and she recommended I signed to put him down. I decided to go with an ultrasound exam the next day, to find out whatever I could, but he died at 3 AM, before we could do that. Still, it was a scenario similar to yours, and to millions of pet owners, who are callously being denied care for our pets for no good reason. (and all by people who hypocritically claim to be oh so compassionate about animals)
 
Oct 2013
60
16
Midwest
#7
Trust me, I sympathize with you and I've been through this too but the fault here lies squarely with the veterinarians.
The idea that someone who went to school for years to be a vet can't figure out how to at the very least get some legal documents allowing the customer to sign over the rights to the insurance payment is pretty sad. Insurance companies can't force veterinarians to accept their insurance.
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#8
In my opinion, having a pet entails a certain level of responsibility to the animal. The ability of this creature to live is entirely under the control of the pet owner, and illness would also be their responsibility. The level of emotional attachment and need will define the steps taken to protect of save this animal.
Some will go to great lengths to save a family pet, spending quite a bit of money on death intervention. Some do not have the resources to do so, and thus will make the decision to allow the pet to pass. Last year our 16 yr. old Australian Terrier "Jake", became very ill. We spent quite a bit of $$$ on medications and attempted fixes....but he got to the point where the obvious suffering outweighed our need to have him with us.
We let him go, and it still hurts to think on. We switched vets three times out of hope, and probably got to keep him for several extra months......it is worth the cost, and insurance would be of no help whatsoever.
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#9
In my opinion, having a pet entails a certain level of responsibility to the animal. The ability of this creature to live is entirely under the control of the pet owner, and illness would also be their responsibility. The level of emotional attachment and need will define the steps taken to protect of save this animal.
Some will go to great lengths to save a family pet, spending quite a bit of money on death intervention. Some do not have the resources to do so, and thus will make the decision to allow the pet to pass. Last year our 16 yr. old Australian Terrier "Jake", became very ill. We spent quite a bit of $$$ on medications and attempted fixes....but he got to the point where the obvious suffering outweighed our need to have him with us.
We let him go, and it still hurts to think on. We switched vets three times out of hope, and probably got to keep him for several extra months......it is worth the cost, and insurance would be of no help whatsoever.
But to most pet owners (who can't afford up front surgery costs) the insurance would not only help, it would save the lives of millions of pets.
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#10
I guess for "some" people who are unable/unwilling to have REAL children, a pet is "like" a child. We don't fall into that category. We have had lots of pets (dogs/cats) over the years, and some have lived long, and some have not.

It is not lack of concept of pet ownership I have, merely lack of childlessness.
Someday when you're older, and your children are grown and gone (most of the time), your pets will be your kids. It's a rite of passage for us oldies (but goodies);)
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#11
As a side note, making pet insurance the same as people insurance (patient gets care first, then doctor gets reimbursed), not only benefits the pet and his owners, it benefots the pet insurers who, right now are missing business from 99% of pet owners (according to 2 pet insurers I spoke to), and it would benefit the veterinarians, who are losing a ton of business (although they may already have enough customers).
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#12
But to most pet owners (who can't afford up front surgery costs) the insurance would not only help, it would save the lives of millions of pets.
It is interesting that you feel qualified to speak for "Most Pet Owners", as if your opinions are automatically defining a majority.

As a longtime multiple pet owner.....I suppose I'm in the minority.
 
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#13
It is interesting that you feel qualified to speak for "Most Pet Owners", as if your opinions are automatically defining a majority.

As a longtime multiple pet owner.....I suppose I'm in the minority.
You say that as if you thought I was offering an opinion about something. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that most pet owners can't afford up front surgery costs, and when they can't they are ordinarily denied care, and the insurance would not only help, it would save the lives of millions of pets. Fact, not opinion. And the fact that the pet insurers themselves claim that only 1% of pet owners have pet insurance confirms it. Why do you think pet owners don't have it ? You think they care so little about their pets that they value $20/month more than their pet ?

Do you think the majority of pet owners CAN afford thousands of $$ to pay up front for pet surgeries ? If you do, you're dreaming. If you are a pet owner who can afford to pay up front for surgeries, then yes, you certainly would be in the minority, and a simple review of American's incomes and wealth could substantiate that.

PS - you changed my words. I didn't say "Most Pet Owners" You said that. I said > "...most pet owners (who can't afford up front surgery costs).." Those are 2 different sets of people. If you're going to quote, quote correctly.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2012
677
12
Florida
#14
Here are the contact numbers to contact the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). Tell them their policies are in contradiction with each other, and they should not be advocating pet care dependent upon pet owner initial payment with reimbursements to pet owners. Tell them their policy should be the same as people's medical insurance policies (care first, then reimbursements to doctors).

Phone - 800-248-2862

FAX - 847-925-1329

Address: 1931 North Meacham Road, Suite 100
Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360
 

Similar Discussions