Vets Fees

[ranchdistressing]

On an entirely different note....

Just had the misfortune of catching a few minutes of Loose Women.....One of today's topics is how the government are now trialing a scheme where old people are given robot pets to "cure loneliness".

Am I naive to think it would have been better overall to give those lonely old people actual real life pets? Ones who are stuck in shelters, and I dunno....maybe put the tax payers money they're pumping into robots into employing people to help support those old folks in caring for the pets? Like a dog walking/vet transport/general pet care scheme?

Maybe solve a bit of the unemployment crisis too, while benefiting the lives of the elderly? Plus giving them the added interaction of the person who supports them to care for the pet coming to visit regularly...

But sure, let's pay thousands of pounds of tax payers money on soulless robots while dogs and cats etc sit awaiting loving homes in overrun shelters up and down the country.

(And before anyone comes at me going on about behavioural issues and costs and the complexities of such a project....I know there would be issues to work around to make it work and assessments needed and what not...which is why the government as chose robots, because it's always the easy option that prevails!)

 

[Eirawen]

I worked for an animal charity hospital years ago, when the drug order came in I could see the price of everything and some of it was pretty inexpensive e.g saline drips but private vets used to charge people a fortune for very inexpensive items, I expect they still do.
I have a small savings account for my cat it has £700 in it at the moment but I am putting into it every pay day, every bit counts.

 

[Snippysnips]

Honestly I think robots is a not bad idea especially for the elderly, there's no needing to walk them, feed them, take them to vets, or make sure there's enough toys, bedding etc for them

You seem to think it would be easy to employ people to go see the animal as well if the elderly were given real animals but the truth is services that visit the elderly are all ready pushed to their limits an it's not so easy to be employed within that line of work, you cant just employ someone then have them check up on a animal, people need to go through background checks that cost money, some places do pay for it but not all, in order to take the dogs walks you also need insurance which can be pricy an why dog walking services are limited, you also need to think where is that animal going to go if the elderly person was in hospital for a lengthy time, what if the animal suddenly gets hurt but the owner has no way to get to a vets an the nearest vet cant get out, just like a home carer id imagine that a pet carer would also have so many homes per day to visit and would only be able to offer limited time per house per day

While it seems nice to give animals in shelters to the elderly, it's just not going to work, employing people isn't going to be easy an will also be costly an we may not end up with enough for it to be possible, you would need enough people willing to do this work which may not be the case, I love dogs but am not comfortable around other people's dogs so as much as I love animals I wouldn't be taken a job like that, you would also need back up plans for numerous lengthy hospital stays, the event the person dies, like how many times is a animal going to be put in an out of care? You also have to think what's fair for the animal especially because they bond with their owners, so I do see why robots in this instance is better

 

[ranchdistressing]

Honestly I think robots is a not bad idea especially for the elderly, there's no needing to walk them, feed them, take them to vets, or make sure there's enough toys, bedding etc for them

You seem to think it would be easy to employ people to go see the animal as well if the elderly were given real animals but the truth is services that visit the elderly are all ready pushed to their limits an it's not so easy to be employed within that line of work, you cant just employ someone then have them check up on a animal, people need to go through background checks that cost money, some places do pay for it but not all, in order to take the dogs walks you also need insurance which can be pricy an why dog walking services are limited, you also need to think where is that animal going to go if the elderly person was in hospital for a lengthy time, what if the animal suddenly gets hurt but the owner has no way to get to a vets an the nearest vet cant get out, just like a home carer id imagine that a pet carer would also have so many homes per day to visit and would only be able to offer limited time per house per day

While it seems nice to give animals in shelters to the elderly, it's just not going to work, employing people isn't going to be easy an will also be costly an we may not end up with enough for it to be possible, you would need enough people willing to do this work which may not be the case, I love dogs but am not comfortable around other people's dogs so as much as I love animals I wouldn't be taken a job like that, you would also need back up plans for numerous lengthy hospital stays, the event the person dies, like how many times is a animal going to be put in an out of care? You also have to think what's fair for the animal especially because they bond with their owners, so I do see why robots in this instance is better

At no point did I say it would be an easy solution. I said it would have been a nicer idea for the use of tax payers money and could be a possibility with the right application. A robot gives nothing but one more thing that needs to be charged, which is ridiculous considering the costs of energy.

 

[Mamacita]

On an entirely different note....

Just had the misfortune of catching a few minutes of Loose Women.....One of today's topics is how the government are now trialing a scheme where old people are given robot pets to "cure loneliness".

Am I naive to think it would have been better overall to give those lonely old people actual real life pets? Ones who are stuck in shelters, and I dunno....maybe put the tax payers money they're pumping into robots into employing people to help support those old folks in caring for the pets? Like a dog walking/vet transport/general pet care scheme?

Maybe solve a bit of the unemployment crisis too, while benefiting the lives of the elderly? Plus giving them the added interaction of the person who supports them to care for the pet coming to visit regularly...

But sure, let's pay thousands of pounds of tax payers money on soulless robots while dogs and cats etc sit awaiting loving homes in overrun shelters up and down the country.

(And before anyone comes at me going on about behavioural issues and costs and the complexities of such a project....I know there would be issues to work around to make it work and assessments needed and what not...which is why the government as chose robots, because it's always the easy option that prevails!)

Well if we're going down that route, why not just skip the pet thing entirely and pay people to interact with the elderly? If it's to cure loneliness.

I guess pets are living, feeling creatures. It's not good for them to bounce from home to home when the elderly person dies and it would really be, like you say, huge logistics nightmare but also not ethical in my view. Just skip the whole operation involving pets and pay for live in carers

 

[Merpedy]

I worked for an animal charity hospital years ago, when the drug order came in I could see the price of everything and some of it was pretty inexpensive e.g saline drips but private vets used to charge people a fortune for very inexpensive items, I expect they still do.
I have a small savings account for my cat it has £700 in it at the moment but I am putting into it every pay day, every bit counts.

Nah mate this would never happen!!!

I feel like a lot of the vet nurses I’m seeing speak on this (and it’s not targeted at the poster here, I happen to have a few vet nurse friends) is that they’re taking it personally. Chances are these vet practices are run by business people and not vets themselves. People generally respect vets and vet nurses

 

[SaltandPepperChicken]

Is it possible to find out how much the big corporations pay the shareholders? I watched a Joe Lycett documentary last night where he took on the water companies that were paying the shareholders vast amounts and not doing much needed repairs to sewage works and it made me think of this situation.

Vets and animals should not be for making already rich people even richer. I know there has to be some profit. Staff deserve a fair wage for the work they do, and then there are costs of premises, utilities, insurance etc but there needs to be a much greater amount of transparency. Obviously the government will do bugger all about it, but change needs to happen.

 

[Snippysnips]

Is it possible to find out how much the big corporations pay the shareholders? I watched a Joe Lycett documentary last night where he took on the water companies that were paying the shareholders vast amounts and not doing much needed repairs to sewage works and it made me think of this situation.

Vets and animals should not be for making already rich people even richer. I know there has to be some profit. Staff deserve a fair wage for the work they do, and then there are costs of premises, utilities, insurance etc but there needs to be a much greater amount of transparency. Obviously the government will do bugger all about it, but change needs to happen.

This

Our vets posted about why prices where going up an it mentioned shareholders, I honestly feel like vets hands are tied here an because you are seeing a vet it's easier to take it out on them as being the "bad guys" because that's who your point of contact is, but without shareholders a lot of the more private practises would suffer with funding, so vets are stuck in a loop, they need to keep shareholders happy by paying out an shareholders are only going to stay if they are happy

 

[SaltandPepperChicken]

This

Our vets posted about why prices where going up an it mentioned shareholders, I honestly feel like vets hands are tied here an because you are seeing a vet it's easier to take it out on them as being the "bad guys" because that's who your point of contact is, but without shareholders a lot of the more private practises would suffer with funding, so vets are stuck in a loop, they need to keep shareholders happy by paying out an shareholders are only going to stay if they are happy

Totally. This is the root of it all. Gone are the days of the lovely local vets that knew us and were our friends. The people the knew and genuinely loved our pets. Now it’s hard to see a face you even know and have to pay exorbitant costs for doing so.

I just want to also say that in my personal opinion that I feel like the nurse here was treated unfairly.

 

[Snippysnips]

Maybe because I've not had a bad experience with mine but I absolutely love my practice an all the staff in it, they have been wonderful with my "demonic" rabbit, I do feel sorry for them about the prices because people's frustration (at something many vets can't help) will be taken out at them, there is nothing worse than having a sick pet an finding it's going to cost hundreds or even thousands an so many insurance places find loopholes or aren't fully clear what is an what isn't covered, am grateful for my vets for printing questions for me as some of them I'd never have thought about checking out as it never crossed my mind, one of them being to make sure that my insurance would still cover him if he was referred to a specialist or if insurance only covered his registered vet practise, thankfully my insurance covers this but i can imagine the stress it would be if someone assumed it would be covered an it wasn't

 

[ranchdistressing]

Well if we're going down that route, why not just skip the pet thing entirely and pay people to interact with the elderly? If it's to cure loneliness.

I guess pets are living, feeling creatures. It's not good for them to bounce from home to home when the elderly person dies and it would really be, like you say, huge logistics nightmare but also not ethical in my view. Just skip the whole operation involving pets and pay for live in carers

Yeah, great, in an idea world! (Just like my suggestion!) But guess what? People don't want care/befriending jobs, and hat's why there's an unprecedented crisis social care! Hourly and live-in carers are like hens teeth!

The sad reality is more people want to work with animals than they do people.

My suggestion wasn't "oh let's shove all the animals in shelters into the homes of old people", obviously they would need to be relatively well older people who just need some support, not those on deaths door or liable to pop their cloggs at a seconds notice. But unfortunately I neither have the time nor the energy to write a 30 point manifesto on my suggestion to cover every pro and every con, because it merely was - a suggestion.

Is it possible to find out how much the big corporations pay the shareholders? I watched a Joe Lycett documentary last night where he took on the water companies that were paying the shareholders vast amounts and not doing much needed repairs to sewage works and it made me think of this situation.

I'm sure this investigation will expose what the shareholders are making, at least I would hope that's something they'd look into.

Vets and animals should not be for making already rich people even richer. I know there has to be some profit. Staff deserve a fair wage for the work they do, and then there are costs of premises, utilities, insurance etc but there needs to be a much greater amount of transparency. Obviously the government will do bugger all about it, but change needs to happen.

Totally agree!

Profits are fine if they're reinvested, but the fact is most profits go into the back pockets of shareholders and no one else. Profits shouldn't be for funding champagne lifestyles, especially if those profits come from anyone's suffering - animal or human.

The failure to reinvest profits leads to independent practices selling out to people like Vets Now, who will give them a huge funding boost so they can buy new equipment to attract more clients, while essentially throwing those same clients to the wolves by forcing them into paying absolutely ridiculous fees for emergency care.

there is nothing worse than having a sick pet an finding it's going to cost hundreds or even thousands an so many insurance places find loopholes or aren't fully clear what is an what isn't covered, am grateful for my vets for printing questions for me as some of them I'd never have thought about checking out as it never crossed my mind, one of them being to make sure that my insurance would still cover him if he was referred to a specialist or if insurance only covered his registered vet practise, thankfully my insurance covers this but i can imagine the stress it would be if someone assumed it would be covered an it wasn't

The trouble is, even if you THINK it's covered, they can still deny the claim. And when the animal reaches a certain age things get excluded or you end up paying a percentage of a claim ON TOP of the monthly/annual insurance premiums.

My most recent pet insurance experience has been the underwriter getting changed, which led to the insurer being able to deny claims because the underwriter changed the terms. Didn't matter that it was mid-policy, or anything. They decided to change the rules and everyone who'd been paying in had to accept it or be left without any insurance at all. The whole industry is an absolute disgrace!

 

[Mamacita]

Yeah, great, in an idea world! (Just like my suggestion!) But guess what? People don't want care/befriending jobs, and hat's why there's an unprecedented crisis social care! Hourly and live-in carers are like hens teeth!

The sad reality is more people want to work with animals than they do people.

My suggestion wasn't "oh let's shove all the animals in shelters into the homes of old people", obviously they would need to be relatively well older people who just need some support, not those on deaths door or liable to pop their cloggs at a seconds notice. But unfortunately I neither have the time nor the energy to write a 30 point manifesto on my suggestion to cover every pro and every con, because it merely was - a suggestion.




I'm sure this investigation will expose what the shareholders are making, at least I would hope that's something they'd look into.



Totally agree!

Profits are fine if they're reinvested, but the fact is most profits go into the back pockets of shareholders and no one else. Profits shouldn't be for funding champagne lifestyles, especially if those profits come from anyone's suffering - animal or human.

The failure to reinvest profits leads to independent practices selling out to people like Vets Now, who will give them a huge funding boost so they can buy new equipment to attract more clients, while essentially throwing those same clients to the wolves by forcing them into paying absolutely ridiculous fees for emergency care.




The trouble is, even if you THINK it's covered, they can still deny the claim. And when the animal reaches a certain age things get excluded or you end up paying a percentage of a claim ON TOP of the monthly/annual insurance premiums.

My most recent pet insurance experience has been the underwriter getting changed, which led to the insurer being able to deny claims because the underwriter changed the terms. Didn't matter that it was mid-policy, or anything. They decided to change the rules and everyone who'd been paying in had to accept it or be left without any insurance at all. The whole industry is an absolute disgrace!

So was mine, I know it's not going to happen because social care is in the state it is. Just some counter points to your suggestion. Both have merits and both have major obstacles!

 

[Snippysnips]

Yeah, great, in an idea world! (Just like my suggestion!) But guess what? People don't want care/befriending jobs, and hat's why there's an unprecedented crisis social care! Hourly and live-in carers are like hens teeth!

The sad reality is more people want to work with animals than they do people.

My suggestion wasn't "oh let's shove all the animals in shelters into the homes of old people", obviously they would need to be relatively well older people who just need some support, not those on deaths door or liable to pop their cloggs at a seconds notice. But unfortunately I neither have the time nor the energy to write a 30 point manifesto on my suggestion to cover every pro and every con, because it merely was - a suggestion.

You said people don't want care/befriending jobs but what makes that any different if the person has an animal? Even if the person was still going into the house they are still going to need to befriend the client, you can't expect to hire people that will literally go in an only see to the animal, the elderly especially if we are taking those that are getting animals because of loneliness are going to want human interaction as well, ok they won't be doing a carers job by cleaning or feeding the client but they are still going to need to befriend them an talk with them an spend a fair bit of time, possibly even cleaning things up like pet toys or cleaning bowls out etc

An you can't tell if a elderly person is going to remain well, same goes for any age, you can be perfectly fine one day an end up numerous hospital visits the next, my gran was perfectly well, was in her 60s then out the blue cancer took over an she had months left, had a uncle that took unwell at 42 an was dead 3 weeks later, so age really means nothing

 

[WhippetGood]

Does anyone have any experience of vets recommending optional extras for an operation? My whippet is needing two lumps removing and the vet has sent me the invoice saying “I have included having intravenous fluids and pre-op blood sample due to his age. These are not compulsory but strongly recommended given his age.” Has anyone any experience of this? Is this necessary or are they just trying to make a bit of extra money?

 

[Snippysnips]

Does anyone have any experience of vets recommending optional extras for an operation? My whippet is needing two lumps removing and the vet has sent me the invoice saying “I have included having intravenous fluids and pre-op blood sample due to his age. These are not compulsory but strongly recommended given his age.” Has anyone any experience of this? Is this necessary or are they just trying to make a bit of extra money?

Yeah, I was recommended my rabbit get pre-op checks like a blood test before he went in, am probably a different experience to you as since my insurance was covering it then I just went for it

I'd say go with your gut feeling, if you would prefer the extra checks then it's best, my rabbit got the all clear but it did put my mind at rest they had checked him before hand, but if you feel he will be fine an has never had any bother then leave it, it really is just a check, I've had pets go on for operations before without it an in my case they were also fine

 

[kazizzle]

Does anyone have any experience of vets recommending optional extras for an operation? My whippet is needing two lumps removing and the vet has sent me the invoice saying “I have included having intravenous fluids and pre-op blood sample due to his age. These are not compulsory but strongly recommended given his age.” Has anyone any experience of this? Is this necessary or are they just trying to make a bit of extra money?

I was recommended this before my cat was spayed. I emailed the vets and asked if it was necessary and they said just recommended so I didn't bother as she was only 1 and had a general check up just a week or so before as we were new clients and they wouldn't do the spay without seeing her first. Vets visits are very stressful for her (and us as she doesn't like to be touched, picked up or held) so I didn't want to put her through more than needed and it wasn't clear if they would do it on the same day or if she would have to come in the day before.

She ended up needing loads of vet visits after her op though as she picked up fleas during that initial consultation (I'm assuming because she didn't have them at that initial appointment but did a week later when she went in for the op!!) and then had an allergic reaction to the flea bites so the poor girl had to go back multiple times for steroids and antibiotics on top of having her stitches checked. Traumatised for life. Also more money for the vets there...

 

[Saddlesoap]

Does anyone have any experience of vets recommending optional extras for an operation? My whippet is needing two lumps removing and the vet has sent me the invoice saying “I have included having intravenous fluids and pre-op blood sample due to his age. These are not compulsory but strongly recommended given his age.” Has anyone any experience of this? Is this necessary or are they just trying to make a bit of extra money?

How old is he? Generally I would recommend my patients get bloods done if they are 8 years or older because organ function deteriorates with age and we don't want the liver and kidneys compromised if dealing with anaesthetic agents and other drugs.

It's tricky though because younger animals aren't immune to problems. I have had owners of younger animals opt for bloods and it flag problems that warrant further investigations. Not commonly though.

Nearly all our patients get fluids. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think it's only an additional £10. Fluids help to prevent hypotension (low blood pressure). Low blood pressure for extended periods can cause organ damage.

 

[WhippetGood]

How old is he? Generally I would recommend my patients get bloods done if they are 8 years or older because organ function deteriorates with age and we don't want the liver and kidneys compromised if dealing with anaesthetic agents and other drugs.

It's tricky though because younger animals aren't immune to problems. I have had owners of younger animals opt for bloods and it flag problems that warrant further investigations. Not commonly though.

Nearly all our patients get fluids. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think it's only an additional £10. Fluids help to prevent hypotension (low blood pressure). Low blood pressure for extended periods can cause organ damage.

He’s 9 so my gut feeling is to stump up the extra and go for it - thanks so much everyone for your replies!