[froggy7]

This is a semi-serious, semi-facetious post. Mostly just to get people to think.

I've seen many people complain about vet fees, and one of the common refrains is that "they are just in it for the money" or "they should be willing to provide some free care". Which always disturbs me, because it seems to imply that vets should be an altruistic charity. And we don't require that from other professions. People don't think landlords are greedy for wanting their rent every month, or that stores are greedy for wanting you to pay for your groceries. I personally think that vets provide a valuable service, and should be paid accordingly.

So... how much should vets make? Should they be able to afford a house, or only enough to rent? If they can buy a house, should they be able to afford one with a pool, or is that pushing it? Now cars... should they be able to afford a new car, or only used? If used, how used does the car have to be? Should they be able to afford a family? Or are kids too expensive? Maybe just one kid? If they agree to stick to public school, so that they don't have to pay private school tuition?

How many of us would be willing to let someone else set our pay according to what that person thought we "needed"? Don't we all try and maximize what we make? Or are there people out there who have actually turned down raises because they didn't need them and thought it would be better for the company to use the money for something else?

[sbowman1030]

Amen!

[Fr_Chuck]

Well actually read some of the other posts and you will see people do think they should be able to live rent free, they should have the right to this or that.

[linnealand]

I'm sorry to see you writing this kind of post. Clearly you're referencing, and dangerously misquoting, various opinions discussed in the "should poor people own dogs" thread. I don't mean to come close to the attitude you portrayed in your post here, but I'm not impressed.

Suggestions regarding free vet care were related to non-profit organizations or the option of occasional pro-bono work for people who can't afford emergency vet care. There are many doctors and lawyers who offer these services from the goodness of their own hearts.

If you remember some of my posts correctly, they compare the drastic differences between my own experiences with private vet care in the states and private vet care in italy, with the clinics in italy winning for overall care, time, general services, and price. They bring up valid questions.

[JudyKayTee]

Well actually read some of the other posts and you will see people do think they should be able to live rent free, they should have the right to this or that.

I think the Entitled People post only on the legal threads - this made me smile (and it's true). :D

[linnealand]

This is a semi-serious, semi-facetious post. Mostly just to get people to think.

I've seen many people complain about vet fees, and one of the common refrains is that "they are just in it for the money" or "they should be willing to provide some free care". Which always disturbs me, because it seems to imply that vets should be an altruistic charity. And we don't require that from other professions. People don't think landlords are greedy for wanting their rent every month, or that stores are greedy for wanting you to pay for your groceries. I personally think that vets provide a valuable service, and should be paid accordingly.

People complain about gas prices, too. They also complain about the high cost of prescription medications. Others take issue with problems in public schools. Does taking issue with the way things are done immediately leap to a polar opposite point? Does it mean that they're all red commies? Or that they think cars should run on the songs flowers make in the morning sun?

Would you consider the possibility that there might actually be some vets (or doctors, or other professionals) that, for whatever reason, might sometimes charge excessively for the services they provide? No one I know thinks vets should live like paupers because animals need care. The issue at hand was asking if there aren't alternative solutions for people who might otherwise not be able to afford vet care at all. Also, I'm wondering if you don't think it would be possible for a vet to ever charge too much? What if every vet within a 500 mile radius of your home decided to start charging $500 for basic vaccinations? I'm all for healthy capitalism, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there are limits to what could be considered reasonable.

So... how much should vets make? Should they be able to afford a house, or only enough to rent? If they can buy a house, should they be able to afford one with a pool, or is that pushing it? Now cars... should they be able to afford a new car, or only used? If used, how used does the car have to be? Should they be able to afford a family? Or are kids too expensive? Maybe just one kid? If they agree to stick to public school, so that they don't have to pay private school tuition?

This is just provocative crazy talk as far as I'm concerned. I've actually never seen an argument this ridiculous put to a reasonable question. Perhaps I've just been lucky until now. Is there a human being you know (or have even read about in a fairy tale) who thinks that vets shouldn't have kids so they can pumping out free animal care night and day? I'm sorry, but I don't find this to be clever, relevant, amusing, or productive.

How many of us would be willing to let someone else set our pay according to what that person thought we "needed"? Don't we all try and maximize what we make? Or are there people out there who have actually turned down raises because they didn't need them and thought it would be better for the company to use the money for something else?

Right. I'm glad you're not my vet. I'm also glad you're not my emergency doctor, or my fire fighter, or my police officer. The way you're talking, it's every man for himself, and there are no other ways of handling the people who don't rise to the top. Maybe we should eat them.

[froggy7]

would you consider the possibility that there might actually be some vets (or doctors, or other professionals) that, for whatever reason, might sometimes charge excessively for the services they provide? no one i know thinks vets should live like paupers because animals need care. the issue at hand was asking if there aren't alternative solutions for people who might otherwise not be able to afford vet care at all. also, i'm wondering if you don't think it would be possible for a vet to ever charge too much? what if every vet within a 500 mile radius of your home decided to start charging $500 for basic vaccinations? i'm all for healthy capitalism, but i don't think it's unreasonable to think that there are limits to what could be considered reasonable.

First off, it's not so much the poor people and pets thread, per se, that got to me, but seeing some of the comments there on top of the frequent posts about "my pet is sick, but I can't afford to take it to the vet and no one is willing to work with me" for what is basic routine care, and the people who are upset that emergency vets want to charge emergency prices to treat their pets. And some of it is having worked in the medical industry, and having been on both sides of the issue. I've worked for companies that go to great lengths to try and find ways for patients to afford treatment, because we know that the patient will be better off with the product. And I've seen those same companies called greedy, because there are still people who need the product who are not able to afford it. So this issue is a bit more personal for me than it probably is for most. (People who work for oil companies probably feel the same way when other people complain about the cost of gas. I know when the price of gas shot up out here, my gas station ran ads showing people guessing how much profit the station made per gallon (generally guessed to be somewhere in the 1.50-2.00 range), and then pointing out that they only make around 3 cents per gallon. Less if you pay with a credit card.)

And it is a balancing act. It's easy for the pet owner to say "You want $200, and I can only afford $150, so why can't you just lower the price, just this once?" And you know, the vet probably could do that. $50 is not going to have much of an impact on the bottom line. But what do you say to the next person, or the tenth, or the hundredth one that asks? It's so reasonable in the individual case, especially if the animal is going to die without the treatment, but at some point you have to draw the line.

Is it possible that there are vets out there who charge too much? Sure. I've never met one, in seeing several vets as I've moved with my pets, but it's entirely possible. The problem is that I think that I have a different idea of what's "reasonable" in medical costs, since I've seen a lot of the hidden costs in medical care that most consumers don't. (Including the potential conundrum that insurance may actually cause rates to go up, because it increases the overhead for the healthcare provider (more paperwork) and increases the likelihood that insured get treatments done that they wouldn't if they had to pay the full price and not just the co-pay.) And part of the problem is that advances in human healthcare trickle down into vet care, along with the associated advances in costs. Twenty years ago, what could vets offer clients? Vaccinations, x-rays, some basic casting, surgery, and antibiotics. If your cat had diabetes, or your dog had cancer, there wasn't much a vet could do besides euthanasia. Now, we can treat those, but it comes at a cost. And where you are matters too. Prices are much higher for the same treatment in downtown LA than they are in Gun Barrel, Texas (population 300 and some). Paradoxically, prices are higher if you go to a vet school rather than your local vet, because the treatments are generally more specialized and cutting edge.

I also think that we tend to get imprinted with what things "should" cost. For example, I have some entirely unexplainable idea that apples "should" cost 69 cents/pound. I think that's what they were when I first started buying groceries on my own, so that price is stuck in my mind, and I am always shocked to see that they are 2.69/pound, even though they have been roughly that price as long as I can remember when I think about it.

right. i'm glad you're not my vet. i'm also glad you're not my emergency doctor

I will point out, just for the record, that I live in Los Angeles County. Since 2000, 15 emergency rooms in the county have closed because they couldn't afford the losses from patients who couldn't pay. Which obviously isn't good for the people who used to use them. But I'm not at all sure what the solution is. Ration care based on the ability to pay (if you have insurance, we'll do the MRI, otherwise we'll only do x-ray)? Close the emergency room, so that you don't face the prospect of closing the hospital? Keep them open, and raise taxes to make up the difference (keeping in mind that some of these ERs are losing over a million a month!)? Cut costs some other way (change the nurse/patient ratio from 1:4 to 1:8, for example)? But can you do that without impacting the quality of the care? Although that is potentially an interesting argument... is being sure of getting second or third rate care better than possibly getting none?