To think the vet practice is in it for the money?

[QuietTiger]

Long story short, our cat had to go to the Emergency Vet last night (Sunday). His usual vet uses an "out of hours emergency service" which covers most of the various vets practices out of hours in our city. When I initially rang up on the phone, I was told by the vet nurse that "The out of hours fee is £70 before examination and treatment". Not a problem for us, the situation was urgent enough that my cat needed to see a vet and we have the money available (although my DH did mutter something about fecking cat always costing money, bastard vets ripping people off... ).

Whilst I was waiting to see the vet, a lady was there with her dog who was very sick - she'd had an emergency spay last week, spent £500 at her own vet and the dog had an infection and was bleeding internally. She was quoted £205 for treatment, the vets were also planning on keeping the dog overnight. The vet wanted a £200 deposit for treatment. BUT, because the lady only had £100 until tuesday when she got paid (and she was distraught by this time, because it was literally life or death), the vet was refusing to treat the dog apart from making it comfortable. The lady asked if she could pay the remainder this morning when she collected the dog, the vet was adamant that she had to leave a £200 deposit. He offered the PTS option (but it still would have cost £160!)

AIBU to think that the vet was being money grabbing and only had finances in the forefront of his mind? I was particularly livid because the vet insisted on discussing this in the waiting room in front of me and 2 other people, instead of giving the lady the curtosey of discussing her financial afairs and dog treatment in private. I appreciate that the vets concern was that the owner wouldn't collect the dog or pay for the cost of treatment, but surely their job is to relieve suffering and give emergency treatment? If you didn't care about your pet, you wouldn't be taking it to an emergceny vet at 9pm on a Sunday night, surely?

QT

ok so insurance does not pay out ??? but on the other hand vets love it and put it on records and use it to try expensive new drugs etc
.

I have been incredibly lucky with my dog insurance. Pay £15 a month (Direct Line), and actually took it out in the first place because dog had a fight with another one, which came off worst, and we only avoided v tricky situation with owner as her dog bit DH as he was trying to separate them. Fast forward a year and dog managed to nearly break his neck trying to jump a fence (damaged 3rd vertebrae) and nearly died. It happened at 5 o'clock on a Wednesday, DH and Dad raced him to vet (luckily still open), who referred him on to local vet hospital as his heart rate was dangerously low. He spent 2 weeks in the vet hospital with round the clock care as he was paralysed for the first week, had drip and X rays and MRI and other spinal tests, all costing about £3000. We had to pay £80 excess and £37 to the local vet who saw him first, and that was all. We would have had to make an awful decision if the insurance hadn't covered it, and I'm so glad we didn't have to make that call! Dog is now almost fully recovered, just has slight limp. Get pet insurance if you possibly can - it is so worth it!

good point weatherwax - make sure you discuss with your vet when you take out a new policy or change to a new policy, so they can discuss what conditions will be excluded in advance.

have had clients take out insurance after an initial consultation about an injury, then complain when it didn't pay out. Not our fault but we didn't get paid until about 2 years later and had to take them to court for it

If you can't afford to pay for pet insurance and potentially pay out a LOT of money upfront for treatment, then you shouldn't have an animal. It's 'that' simple surely ?

I believe there is a cost involved in even applying to study veterinary science before you are accepted on the course, then add to the mix 7 years of study.
Sure they love animals but they have to eat too.

Thats why we need a non profit based insurance set up - similar to a credit union - infact I would probably pay into a credit union instead of an insurance policy if I could not get one then would have some money saved and possible borrowing if needed.

And no I don't think you should have a pet unless you a realistic about what they can cost.

Both vets I know personally love animals - I can't see its the sort of profession you do unless you do . But again both vets I know like to eat :0

"Of what possible interest could it be to the vet, other than as it is with my horse vet - if you are insured, it is a licence to try out all the new fangled treatments and charge it to your insurance company. Therby increasing everybodies premiums"

I agree. Our own vets are pretty useless. It's hard to find a good vet local (or near local) to us. Recently, one of my dogs had a serious injury to her leg that requirwd emergency treatment. I couldn't get hold of my own vet so we had to ring the out of hours service of another local vet. They patched up the wound and asked to see the dog for stitching the next morning. They were aware we were insured. They used a general anaesthetic (risky for the dog) and stitched her leg. (about five stitches) At a cost of over £300. The dog managed to get the stitches out the same night (don't ask!) and we had to take her back the next day, when they simply put a few staples in and it took ten minutes. Why couldn't they have just done that in the first place? We also asked for an itemised bill following the intial treatment and suprise suoirse, their computer wasn't working properly, so they couldn't.

I have frequently been asked by vets if my dogs are insured, prior to them suggesting treatment. My dog needs the same care whether it is insured or not, so surely they should suggest the treatment and then if I am not able to afford it, discuss alternatives?

Sassybeast, for a lot of people, it's not about not being able to afford insurance, it's knowing that a savings account for pet related issues is going to be more sensible and economical. Pet insurance can be a massive rip off, trust me.

And EW, not liking vet bashing is not a reason to start 'owner bashing', I hope you understand what I mean and meant in my posts to you. It is absolutely admirable what you do, but that does not give you the right to pin unfair judgements on owners who are very much responsible, even though they don't insure. This is not a black and white subject.

You and I agree on the non profit insurance concept though, EW. Very good idea.

Pet insurance is fairly useless. We haven't bothered with any of our four dogs (over 15 years). We have saved money by paying for treatment ourselves.

the woman obviously does not remember it was me as she kept saying she didn't have enough money to get her cat spayed. I had give her leaflets about our free neutering on both the last occasions.

Why didn't you take the queen on the pretense of the kittens needing the milk - not untrue - and have her spayed whilst she was with the kittens ?

A dog is for life not just for christmas? We got our dogs when our children were small. My H was on a very good salary, we didn't take out pet insurance because of the cost/excess didn't seem financially sound given that we could easily afford to pay for any vet's bills we had to at the time. Fast forward 8 years and my husband lost his job and was finding it hard to find an alternative given his age and experience. Ended up on a much reduced income even with me going back to work. Tried to take out pet insurance then but with the age of the dogs and a pre-existing condition in one of them it was absolutely horrendously expensive. We have since had to have two of the dogs PTS because we couldn't afford the treatment they needed and there was no guarantee in both cases that the treatment would have been successful. One animal was 11 and one 12, now our remaining 11 year old labrador has suspected tumour in stomach and vet asked for £800 for blood tests and x-rays and then said they might have to perform an exploratory op depending on the results of the tests etc., so nearly £2k just to find out what is actually wrong before even deciding what, if any, treatment available. We said we couldn't afford it and would rather wait and see if she develops any symptoms. (The suspected tumour was felt at her annual check up/innoculation appointment.) That was 3 months ago and she is still eating, enjoying her walks, getting into mischief etc just generally being a labrador really! The vet made me feel like a criminal when I said that I couldn't afford everything they wanted to do. Made out that I didn't care for my dog at all. And all this in the middle of a packed waiting room too. We can never look into the future and predict what our situation might be in 11/12 years time. Does that mean that we shouldn't have pets? Sorry EW but I find your posts really quite offensive.

Of course the vet practice is in it for the money. That's how they pay the bills of the surgery and the wages of the staff (i.e. the food on their tables and the roofs over their heads).

Even if they were incredibly selfless and worked pro bono, how much do you think the drugs etc. would cost? And how selfish would we be to expect them to work for free anyway?

As has already been pointed out by a few posters, the vets are vulnerable to people simply not paying. If people find it easy to abandon pets, how much easier must it be to abandon them at the vets', bill unpaid? I'd expect any vet quickly learns not to put themselves in that position.

EW - I too work in cat rescue and have heard it all, quite literally and on more than one occasion, when I've been given yet another pathetic excuse about why the pet can't be kept/can't pay for treatment/can't be spayed/neutered (my personal bugbear, BTW) all I have wanted to do is put my fist through their face and say "give me your bloody animal you waste of space", so I do get your point. Unfortunately, however, pet insurance is not as black and white as people seem to think, which is partly why mine are not insured and I pay as we go. Many other people are in the same boat.

But, this post was not about me, it was about the attitude of the vet. To walk in the door, BEFORE any treatment or being seen by a vet, the charge is £70 because it's an "emergency facility".

The facts of my OP were thus. Lady came into the ER with her sick dog. She was quoted £205 for immediate treatment with potential costs rising to £250. This included the £70 "walk in the door" fee. (I know this because it was discussed in a loud voice in front of me and someone else in the waiting room, which was totally unprofessional).

The lady was asked by the vet for a deposit for treatment, which is entirely reasonable. Vet asked for £200 (almost the entire cost of the bill), Lady only had £100 and she asked if she could pay the rest when she picked her dog up. (This is at 8/9pm on a Sunday night) She wasn't refusing to pay, she was asking if she could pay in the morning to give herself time to get the money. Vet refused to treat the dog beyond "make it comfortable" because she wouldn't pay £200 deposit (because she didn't physically have it). The vet was giving no leeway and was actually reducing the lady to tears because she was forcing her to make a choice of treatment or no treatment.

Compare that with my cats (and my) treatment. My name "known" to the vet (through extensive rescue with the big organisations) so they are already wary of how they behave around me as they know I'll pick them up on their behaviour/attitude. Oddly enough, I was given the same quote, and when I then asked for a breakdown of the bill and queried it, it suddenly dropped by £38...

I actually think that I am NBU when thinking this vet is money grabbing. I have to say, I didn't quite anticipate a debate on pet insurance when I started the thread - I thought i asked a simple question!

So, what happens when people already own a pet and their circumstances change which means they are not so well off? They can still afford day to day care and maybe still afford insurance, but their dog is involved in an accident, no fault of the owner and the vet bill is £6000. Insurance will cover it, but the vet won't treat as they want the money up front.

Should they have got rid of the dog when they circumstances changed just in case of a scenario like this? Perhaos they should chuck their cat out on the street like the ones you deal with EW, at least then vets won't be risking being out of pocket... just the rescues that pick up the pieces...

It's not quite that simple. Firstly, 18 years ago when I got my first cat vet treatment was affordable - it is much more expensive now - it cost £80 to have my cats teeth cleaned under general anaesthetic back then - I was recently quoted £495 for the same job .

Fast forward 12 years and I had (thankfully) vet insurance when the cat was run over - £1000 later she was fine and the insurance paid. Then they said they would no longer insure her as she was too old.

So I then had a further 6 years without her being insured until I had to put her to sleep a month ago.

There is nothing worse than berating yourself for not trying everything and even on the day I put her to sleep I was still considering having her leg amputated (at a cost of 900 pounds) even though she was really too old to learn to walk on 3 legs according to the vet.

NEYTS - Not a clue to be honest - Why is the Vet liable not the owner - that to me is black and white. If asking people to be responsible is ''owner bashing'' - call the police I' guilty.

I see and deal with it all the time - so few of our rescues are due to unfortunate circumstance as to be negligible against the pure cruelty and casual fecklessness of people.

I will say it again if the Op was so outraged and concerned why did she not pay.

I can honestly say that I probably would have or at least lent the woman the money.

Some of you are very free and easy with your outrage and someone else's time and money.

You were saying owners that didn't insure were not responsible owners (which is wrong). When I questionned that, you said you were sick of vet bashing. This implies to me, that you began owner bashing (and yes, that's what it comes off as) as a reponse to vet bashing.

The vet was horribly unprofessional in the OP's example, it is heartless to have anything other than sympathy for the poor owner in that case. I will say it again as well, insurance would not have solved that problem, it was the issue of on the spot cash.

And perhaps the OP could not afford to pay for someone else's treatment. You referencing to that is irrelevant. However responsible the OP is, and I have no doubt she is, she does not have to pick up the tab for someone else.

but the vet does????/

Why didn't you take the queen on the pretense of the kittens needing the milk - not untrue - and have her spayed whilst she was with the kittens ?

Because she's the feckless self serving sort of trollop who would have sued me and my charity.

And I know insurance is not a cure all and shit happens and circumstances change. But at the end of the day - its your pet - your responsibility. pay in to a savings account - credit unions are fab as saving a regular amount will after time give you a certain amount you can borrow

I didnt know that a vet would ask for money up front even if you are insured.

My vet didnt. Just asked if we were and who we were with and told us to give her our policy details.

A bit worrying really given how expensive vets fees are. Surely they dont expect everyone to have thousands sitting spare in a bank account.

I'm still feeling a bit sad about the poor bitten dog who has been left untreated for weeks :(

I'd just like to say, that both my horse vet and dog vet are fabulous. It's the insurance companies that piss me off.