Pets treated better than their owners?

We know that if you want full, comprehensive healthcare coverage in the US – you need to go to prison, be a ‘terrorist’ in Gitmo or in the military, or a politician. The rest of the people, well, they can jolly well ‘n do it for themselves!

Well these things always get me thinking. If humans can be treated in such a way what about our beloved pets? What if a pet has a bit of a sniffle before you buy your insurance? Can that mean you can’t get the kidney transplant that is needed? It must be the case – no insurance company would look at treating animals better than humans – surely?

Well …:

What is a pre existing condition?

A pre-existing condition is a condition which first occurred or showed clinical signs before the pet’s coverage started or which occurred during the policy waiting period. This would include conditions that have not yet been clearly diagnosed, are currently in remission, seasonal or being controlled via prescription medications. These conditions are normally excluded from the policy as the coverage is there to insure against future conditions and not to pay for conditions that your pet is already suffering from.

Any situation, event or medical condition not covered by the policy. The most common exclusions are those that relate to pre-existing conditions that your pet suffered from prior to purchasing a policy. However an exclusion that has been placed on the policy due to a pre existing condition may be reviewed at the policy holder’s request and can be removed subject to review and approval by one of our in-house veterinary consultants. For example, pre-existing conditions such as mite infestation or gastritis can be considered cured and removed from exclusion status on your policy. We would require your pet’s medical records from your veterinarian indicating the existing health of your pet, along with a written request to remove the exclusion. One of our in-house veterinary consultants will review the medical records and issue the change in your policy, if applicable.

This is one of the thousands of hits I got from a Google search, by the way, others will be different.

That then means that if your pet has been ‘cured’ of a certain condition it can be back on the policy, no questions asked.

All it needs is one vet to tell another vet, albeit an in-house one, that the pet is A-OK. But, what gets me more is the fact that even the in-house vet won’t stop a pet getting treated, even if it has had mites, for cancer. As long as they pet is on that insurance – it gets treated.

Erm … is there something wrong here?

What can we take from this? Well, it means, in plain-speak, pets are treated much better than humans, as long as you can afford the premiums. And, in other words, it is perfectly fine to treat un-insured Americans like pets, or animals at least.

For some reason – that doesn’t sit too well with me.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine


About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Blah!, Blogroll, Civil Liberties, Conservatives, Democracy, I shit you not, Medicine, Money, Opinion, Personal Opinion, Politics, Republicans, Twattery, United States of America. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Pets treated better than their owners?

  1. Ngoc laser says:

    Great post ive bookmarked it on Digg under “Pets treated better than their owners? Bolshy Bill”. Kudos!

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s