> I also pay for pet insurance. Again, not required to have it but when I considered cancelling and self-insuring I filed a claim and was immediately paid out hassle free. That convinced me to keep it.

Don't get rid of it, the cost of healthcare for pets is quickly reaching the cost of healthcare for humans.

I believe it. I had a high deductible health insurance plan and had a serious injury that required a hospital stay. Even though I paid for all of it before meeting my deductible, it was still cheaper than the medical costs I have spent on one of my three pets who is actually young and very healthy, but accidents happen.

A family member's dog's ACL surgery cost more than the ACL surgery they themselves got a few years before. Pet medicine is filled by pharmacies and costs as much as human medicine does. It's nuts.

What's supposed to be nuts about that? The surgery costs the same no matter whether you want me to do it to a dog or a person. The pills cost the same whether you want to feed them to a dog or a person. That's exactly what you'd expect.

Drug costs are mostly a function of development and marketing (there are exceptions where production dominates). Development cost is dominated by cost of human trials. It is not clear that drugs (particularly for non animals not destined for human consumption) should be as expensive as human drugs. And that is before getting to to unusual gap between US drug prices and international drug prices.

> It is not clear that drugs (particularly for non animals not destined for human consumption) should be as expensive as human drugs.

Are they different drugs?

Sometimes yes, but it's the testing and regulatory approval costs that should in theory be lower for animals.

So what? Those costs happen before you sell the drug. That would make a difference for a drug that isn't approved in humans and therefore didn't pay the approval cost at all. It makes no difference for a drug that is approved in humans.

Agreed. Renter's insurance is a great consumer purchase in my experience, since it also doubles as insurance for your property outside the home. Not having to worry about your stuff getting stolen (for example, your laptop in a cafe) is great peace of mind.

Rental insurance paid me $3k when I had my backpack stolen in Belgium. This easily paid for 3 decades of insurance and, realistically, I think most people are likely to be the victims of theft at some point over a three decade period.

My theory is that the way they make this work economically is that many people aren't willing to go through the hassle of record-keeping and filing a police report to get payouts. (In practice, this took less than 1 hour of my time total.)

Thank you for the positive example!

Have you had to get anything paid out from renters insurance?

Pet insurance seems like a great business to be in… is there anything that requires you to actually have pet insurance? Would it cover costs from your pet hurting someone else? Or is it more to cover pet health costs? Really curious to know the ways it’s similar or not to US human health insurance hah

It is for unexpected pet health care costs. Your pet attacking someone would be covered under homeowners or a personal liability umbrella.

I've never made a renter's insurance claim.

Pet insurance is only for emergency and/or life-threatening injuries and conditions, and surgeries and other costs related to them. Think getting hit by a car or getting cancer. It doesn't cover vaccinations, annual visits, and tests done for preventative measures. This is the main difference between pet insurance and US human health insurance since if I understand correctly, most (all?) medical plans offered in the US are required to provide preventative coverage for annual visits, vaccinations, etc.

My pets are young and healthy so 100% of their medical costs are preventative which made me consider cancelling my policy. For reference I pay $65/mo for my policy which covers three pets. In my area an annual exam and vaccination series for the three pets costs $300 so about 2/3rds of my annual pet medical expenses is "wasted" on premiums. But a minor accident that could happen to any pet ended up costing more than a year's worth of premiums and it was nearly 100% covered by insurance without a deductible applying.

I've still paid more in premiums than I've gotten back (which is obvious; how else does the insurance make a profit?). I was considering self-insuring instead by taking the money I was spending on premiums and putting it into a savings account. After doing some research on emergency procedures I realized that in some rare circumstances a single injury could cost a decade of premiums. If this happened multiple times I'd have to make a tough decision to put down the pet simply because I couldn't afford the procedure. These pets didn't ask to be brought into this world and are often abused and neglected before becoming adopted. They deserve a long and healthy life if one is possible. I'd rather "waste" a few hundred dollars a year for the peace of mind that I can afford to treat any illness or injury that occurs.

10x is right. We didn’t have pet insurance. My dog got hit by a car in September. Everything is good now, but the incident broke his leg and popped his eye out of socket. Between emergency surgery for his eye and orthopedic surgery to put a plate in his leg (the other two options were amputation or putting him down) we ended up spending just shy of $9,000 for all the procedures and follow ups. I also feel very similarly about having a responsibility to my pets health. We’re lucky we could afford the procedures, because it would have been very hard to put him down.