Do you think that pet insurance is over the top given the current discussion about human health insurance in the US?
NAPHIA just put out a press release: Pets Provide Better Human Health and Wellness and Reduce Healthcare Costs - a rather timely topic these days.
As a pet parent who doesn't work out very much these days (unless you count giving my girls piggy back rides from bed to breakfast table to get them up in the morning), this is the part I really like:
Documented studies on human health suggest that pet ownership bestows the following benefits:
- Reduced risk of cardiovascular disease
- Higher survival rates from heart attacks
- Significantly lower use of general practitioner services
- Reduced risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis in children exposed to pet allergens during the first year of their life
- Better physical and psychological well-being for seniors
It's good to know that while I'm vacuuming up the cat-fur-dust-bunnies, they are good for my girls who will certainly never be allergic to cats!
Seriously though, the press release discusses the question ‘why provide pet insurance when so many humans do not have health coverage?'
What do you think?
- Even the thought of pet insurance is outrageous - if they get sick, just put them down
- People can do what they want with their money - none of my business
- Pet insurance helps reduce the financial risk of having a pet in the family and is part of my "pet parenting" responsibilities - I wouldn't do anything less.
