Ok I know this isn't about Labradors but it seemed like something worthy of sharing and I wasn't sure the best place to put it. Please feel free to move if you think it's better off in another section. I saw this shared on my Facebook through a behaviourist friend of mine and thought it was a very good read. It was, I think, written in defence of emergency vet clinics (albeit in America but it can kind of be transferred to the UK and other places) after someone spread the news on social media that an emergency clinic had refused to treat their dog after developing complications from a Spey because the owners couldn't pay. I like these kind of articles, that try to educate the public into the reasoning behind certain decisions made by vets and rescue centres etc. Although it won't reach everybody, I'm sure it does help to inform a few people that perhaps didn't know any better. I've linked it, I hope that's enough to provide a reference as that's all I could get from the Facebook share. http://pawcurious.com/2014/04/no-obamacare-for-dogs-5-things-you-should-know-about-the-vet-er/ I side with the emergency vet on this one and I totally understand the fact that they can't give away treatment for reduced cost or for free as they would go out of business. I know for a fact that there are many owners that don't come back to settle the bill at a later date, and so practices are wary of offering payment plans. On the other hand I know that there are just as many owners who make good on the payments, and that the ones that don't, are the people who ruin the system for everybody else. In my opinion not being able to afford vet care is no longer a valid excuse. There are so many options available now - pet insurance being the first one. Or if you don't like the thought of paying that much money to an insurance company, put it into a savings account specifically for your pets. You can get a credit card that you keep for emergency vet treatment. There are vets out there that offer payment plans so find one of those and register, keeping in mind how they operate their out of hours services with regards to payment. Personally I have pet insurance and I keep a credit card, just to be sure I can always afford the treatment. If you genuinely can't afford any of these options then perhaps you shouldn't have a pet to begin with.... Basic vet care for an animal is a right, not luxury they can go without if the owners can't afford it. So yes, I am totally on side with the vets for this one.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" Yes, I agree. Basic health care is a right and you must have a plan that will allow you to provide it. You must have that plan in place before you get a pet.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" Gosh......the comments are quite upsetting really. I do think its our responsibility as owners to be able to provide for our dogs. BUT, we can afford to do so. Does this mean that only people with money can own pets? I think this whole issue makes my brain hurt. I think really we are very lucky in the UK. I am thinking really about health care for humans. I know that the NHS is far from perfect, but I am thinking, what if we had to worry about our personal healthcare as well as our pet healthcare? At least there is less worry about healthcare for those with little money - be it human or animal care. At the end of the day, after reading this, I think I am so glad I live where I live.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" I am sorry, I do not agree, why should an animal die because the owner does not have money at that point. I HATE these new emergency clinics, usually situated some miles away from the usual vet. Vets used to provide 24 hour care, mine still does at the moment, sharing on call time with another practice. Veterinary care seems to have become a business now.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" To be fair Stacia, I think it has always been a business. Just like human Primary Care. But now we know more about everything, and because of the current economic climate, we just hear more about it and are affected more by it. Its a double-edged sword though. 10-15 years ago we would really have known nothing about any of this. Sometimes I wonder whether this would have been better.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" I think though, that since there is no NHS for animals, you have to be able to foot the bill. It's not really logical to say a total stranger in business (a vet) should provide his/her services for free. So does this mean only people with money can own pets? I think it does, yes. . I'm not happy with that as an answer, but if we don't like that as an answer we have to think taxpayers should subsidise other people's pets. Not sure I think that's right.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" The worry of this though, is that those people who might hugely benefit from having an animal in their life might miss out. I'm sure we have forum members who rely on the PDSA for their dog's care, but gain immensely in their physical and mental health as a direct result of owning a dog. The question is, where do you draw the line? (I fear if I start drawing parallels with the NHS/Benefits system I may get lynched)
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" I guess there is a basic level of care that people should be able to ensure, in my view. Not necessarily chemo or joint replacement or heart surgery. But vaccinations and worming and wound care and antibiotics and the avoidance of suffering....that kind of thing.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" I agree with Julie. A philosophy of "you should have what you can provide for" seems very harsh, but the alternative is all of us, as individuals, supporting and financing other people's lifestyle choices, no matter how crazy those choices may be (ten kid, fifteen cats and a pony for example). I know this philosophy has holes in it. I know that sometimes people that have planned and have made good affordable choices, fall on hard times, become sick, or can't cope with their finances for some other reason. I don't have a perfect answer to that one The article (and the responses to it) though are very interesting. I feel very, very sorry for the guy whose dog died, and I am sure I would be angry if this happened to me. But I don't think I would be writing the stuff he is writing, and wishing people dead. Which makes me wonder if something about the attitude of the dog's owner influenced the clinic's decision? Or why no friend or relative came forward to lend him the money until he could get to the bank in the morning? Do emergency clinics overcharge, just because they can? I am not sure. I don't think we have any emergency vet centres near me. My own experience of such a system is in dental treatment. A friend went to an emergency out of hours dentist that she found online, and after being examined and given a local anaesthetic, was asked for £1,000 for a filling. Not being in possession of such a sum, she left, had a few hours respite until the anaesthetic wore off, and found a regular dentist next morning. I appreciate that out of hours wages are more, though working antisocial hours on occasions used to be considered part of a doctor or vet's 'vocation' So I'm not sure that such vast costs are always justified. I feel fairly confident that my own local vets, in an emergency, would operate first and worry about the money afterwards, but I can understand how a big 'drop in' centre could not operate like this. It is complicated isn't it.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" [quote author=editor link=topic=5253.msg66123#msg66123 date=1396698645] I appreciate that out of hours wages are more, though working antisocial hours on occasions used to be considered part of a doctor or vet's 'vocation' So I'm not sure that such vast costs are always justified. [/quote] As a point of interest, many moons ago when junior doctors used to work on-call from 8am on a Saturday morning until whenever they were finished on a Monday evening, the pay for the extra "on call" hours, was in fact roughly half of the normal rate. I don't know whether that is still the case (I sincerely would hope not) or whether there is any parallel with vets. It is UNDOUBTEDLY more expensive to have employees working out of hours. Time and a half, at least, more for overnight hours. I am not sure whether this is the case in the US though.
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" [quote author=drjs@5 link=topic=5253.msg66114#msg66114 date=1396696597] The worry of this though, is that those people who might hugely benefit from having an animal in their life might miss out. I'm sure we have forum members who rely on the PDSA for their dog's care, but gain immensely in their physical and mental health as a direct result of owning a dog. The question is, where do you draw the line? [/quote] I think it's very complicated and difficult to untangle an example of a particular animal in need - who could say it shouldn't have the care it needs? Of course it should in an ideal world, which we don't live in, but that's different from thinking about what should be the desirable incentives for people taking on a pet in the first place. I know we have forum members that rely on the pdsa, and some who use the pdsa and pay a more than fair contribution to the cost. I'm glad that charity exists, and I have made donations to it, and will again. I'd like to think my contribution was helping people whose circumstances changed, or those facing an exceptionally high bill that was out of the ordinary (I've dealt with those myself, and they are painful, for sure). The pdsa does not distinguish between people who acquire a pet expecting to rely on the pdsa and those who do not. It is clear from the pdsa's annual report though that demand for its services outstrips the funds available, so it does not seem to be the case that it is able to raise the money to provide care to all pets who might need the service. So reliance on a charitable organisation may be problematic. In this context, this comment on the pdsa's Facebook page caught my eye: https://en-gb.facebook.com/pdsa/posts/10151701677561287
Re: "No Obamacare for Dogs" Years ago when we owned cats and not dogs, we never thought twice about calling the vet out to visit. We were young and didn't have much money so they must have been very reasonably priced. Years later I worked for a vet and the fees again were affordable. It seems only recently they are crazy money and I think this is due to insurance. I think more than twice now before I take the dog to the vet; some animals must suffer needlessly. I would be happy to pay into a 'fund' at the vets (a small amount) for people who genuinely couldn't afford a vital treatment.
