Scruffy McPoochie, the Arizona Republic’s Living section editor, loves stories about dogs.

He’ll print stories about anything if there’s a dog in it.

Dogs on Twitter: “Dogs can tweet, too (sort of).”

Dogs on Facebook: “Busy social network for the furry set.”

There was a story about swanky places to board your dog:

“Posh pads for pampered pooches.”

And, of course, the hard-bitten McPoochie’s finest moment, just five weeks later:

Another story about swanky places to board your dog:

“Ritzy pet resorts replace kennels of yesterday.”

(Some more examples of the section’s indefatigable appetite for such stuff here. McPoochie also has a thing for Starbucks.)

Even a grizzled vet like McPoochie can still get excited about his job.

Last week his ancient heart must have begun to race when he saw a new dog-related story come over the wires.

The subject? Dog insurance!

Wire stories like that—they come to him free, with no need for making his staff do any work—are kibbles from heaven.

McPoochie’s tail wagged excitedly as he read the expository prose:

Typically, pet owners pay a monthly premium. As their pet needs veterinary services, they pay the bills upfront, then submit them for reimbursement.

Some plans cover what in human terms are considered “well visits,” including vaccinations and checkups. But many cover only costs associated with a pet’s illness.

Not just a dog story—a story that explains how insurance works!

He’s a key part of the Arizona Republic’s secret plan to bore people to death.

---

Anyway, it was the work of a few minutes to whip up a hedline—“Pet health insurance can ease vet-bill shock”—and toss it into the paper.

McPoochie must have stopped reading there, because the rest of the story doesn’t really fulfill the promise of that hedline.

Consider:

Even with pet insurance, hassle-free coverage is no guarantee. Nicole Abbott found this out the hard way.

When the Chicago attorney learned that her company offered pet insurance as part of its benefits package, she immediately signed up her beloved pugs Bella and Chooch.

At the end of last year, Chooch developed an unusual type of stones in his bladder, requiring $500 worth of testing and a $1,200 surgery.

But the insurance company denied the claim, saying Chooch – who previously had problems with routine bladder stones – had a pre-existing condition.

“I tried everything, and they wound up saying I’d have to appeal to the state agency that oversees insurance,” Abbott said.

“I’d spend hours at that point, so I just said, ‘Forget it. It’s not worth it.’ ”

Shortly after Abbott got Bella, the dog had a seizure and required hundreds of dollars worth of treatment. The pet-insurance company claimed Bella’s seizure came one day shy of her policy going into effect, so the treatment wasn’t covered. Abbott disputed that claim, but again hit a brick wall.

But yesterday could not have been a good day for McPoochie.

He has a new threat to face.

Another editor is, you might say, pissing on his territory.

Consider this story, “Popularity rises for pet health insurance”, published yesterday in the Republic’s business section.

It was the second story in as many days the Arizona Republic has published about dog insurance.

McPoochie could see, however, that his competition was not in his league.

It’s hard to believe, but the paper’s business section published a story not just on the same subject, but demonstrably worse than the wire story McPoochie came up with.

The wire story, from the Chicago Tribune, led with a pretty good anecdote about an adorable Lab who swallowed a teacup.

The Republic’s stirring lede, on its version of the story?

The humanization of pets and the increased costs of veterinary care have sparked a burgeoning industry: pet health care.

Sizzling prose!

And the Republic didn’t bother to do what the Tribune did as a matter of course—find someone who can illustrate the down side of the story.

I mean, the Tribune article was a shitty idea for an article, but it was reported out with integrity.

The Republic story doesn’t give readers the downside, and instead spends a lot of time letting people who sell pet insurance talk about the industry’s rosy future …

Within the next few years, it’s likely the rising cost of veterinary care will increasingly convert pet owners without health-care plans into clients, said Doris Amdur, founder of United Pet Care, a health-care company that offers discount plans.

… and relating stories that don’t make sense, like this one:

Teri Morris secured pet insurance for her dog Bella, 9, about 5 years ago.

Although Bella hasn’t had any major health problems, Morris knows vet bills can get expensive quickly.

Morris' dog Scooby died a year ago, after she spent about $8,000 in vet bills to treat his diabetes, thyroid dysfunction and bladder cancer, she said.

“At least some of that would have been covered if he had been insured,” she said.

Ok, so she had insurance for one dog for five years, but he hasn’t gotten sick. And she had another dog, who died a year ago, but he wasn’t insured? Why didn’t she insure both dogs?

Somewhere, Scruffy McPoochie is laughing.