Would people be happy

I find it expensive enough already!!
A little bitter horrible part of me says 'why should I pay for everyone else to keep their old unsound suffering horse going' - But I know not all cases are like that - I'm just in a grump today...
 
I can't imagine it ever being offered, or if it was it would be extortionate given how much longer horses tend to live compared to other pets.
 
I would, and with my small pets we have £5,000 per condition. So, it is not a never ending pot of money. What it does allow you is to notice something, say a Sarcoid, have the vet have a look, be able to treat conservatively (as in just watch and see) without having to worry that you need to have spent up on what you want within the 12 months. Then, for example, you could decide 2 years down the line to treat, maybe try banding. No worries, not too much off your £5,000 for Sarcoids. If this were successful you may have 5 years no issues, and if it returns then you still have all the time that the HORSE needs for its best outcome, and whatever is left of the £333sss. Once the £5K on sarcoids is spent up, then that is it for sarcoids.

TBH it all seems fairer to me. I know of severl horses who may have done well with conservative treatment, but who have had to be rushed into operations or other treatment because it all needed doing before the 12 months is up. Also under this regime some people will be reluctant to call the vet for a little concern, as then the 12 month clock is ticking.

As horses will only have the treatment they need, I don't even think it would be that much more expensive.
 
I'd much prefer to have my 5k with no expiry limit on it. I don't think it will ever refresh every year like some small animal policies but I think that having the option of spending the money in a few years time if it turns out to be required (ie in case of sarcoids sometimes) is a better situation than always feeling the pressure to spend all the money now before the condition is excluded. Don't think it NEEDS to cost all that much more either as they're not giving you any more money per condition just a bit more flexibility in the time frame that it's spent in.
 
Red-1 said:
I would, and with my small pets we have £5,000 per condition. So, it is not a never ending pot of money. What it does allow you is to notice something, say a Sarcoid, have the vet have a look, be able to treat conservatively (as in just watch and see) without having to worry that you need to have spent up on what you want within the 12 months. Then, for example, you could decide 2 years down the line to treat, maybe try banding. No worries, not too much off your £5,000 for Sarcoids. If this were successful you may have 5 years no issues, and if it returns then you still have all the time that the HORSE needs for its best outcome, and whatever is left of the £333sss. Once the £5K on sarcoids is spent up, then that is it for sarcoids.

TBH it all seems fairer to me. I know of severl horses who may have done well with conservative treatment, but who have had to be rushed into operations or other treatment because it all needed doing before the 12 months is up. Also under this regime some people will be reluctant to call the vet for a little concern, as then the 12 month clock is ticking.

As horses will only have the treatment they need, I don't even think it would be that much more expensive.
Click to expand...

This.
 
No. It would cost a fortune for a start.

But I also think it might make some people hold off making "that" decision to the detriment of their horse. There comes a time when you have to make the big decision and having an insurance company backing up possibly unwise "care" decisions might result in some horses being kept alive when the kinder option would be to do the right thing.
 
I would love this type of policy and yes I would pay a bit extra for it.

My dog has a policy that is 6k per condition, but without a time limit on it, which means I can take my time and treat conservatively.

I actually think horse insurers are missing a trick with this. From my experience it tends to be diagnose lameness - throw every diagnostic under sun at it, add a few more drugs on, max out the insurance before time limit is up.

How nice would it be as an owner to be able to say, right - horse in field for 6 months then reassess.
 
I'd much prefer to have the £5000 vet limit per condition until it runs out, rather than to be used up or you lose it after 12 months.

The current practice means people are almost forced to throw everything they can at a problem, rather than take a more conservative approach. Take some lameness for example, yes for a high value competition horse, it may be a case of trying to get to the bottom of the problem quickly. But for the more every day horse that is perhaps used for competitions, a more cautious approach involving periods of rest, taking shoes off and turning away for 6 months, may be what's needed. But no one wants to do that since the insurance clock is ticking. Quite often, IMO, we throw all we can at an unsoundness, a horse may appear better because its been injected with who knows what, had all manner of shoes stuck on its feet, but the actual problem is still there underneath and is not resolved. If we were to inject a runners joints with steroids, and give them fancy shoes, would they suddenly be able to perform at the same level before their injury? Of course not, but we expect our horses to, and I personally feel its largely as a result of people feeling pressured to get a quick fix before the insurance money runs out.

Just my two penneth... :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top