www.change.org/p/parliament-regulate-and-control-vet-costs-in-australia?recruiter=67292784&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
The Mrs recently took our cat to the vet after we woke up to him limping...
After being charged $480 for an inspection + some antibiotics, the vet said she didn't know what was wrong and he should spend the night for $1,351.63.
Consult VetlCU 1.00 195.00
Sedation 1.00 133.75
Hospital standard up to 12 hrs 1.00 160.00
Injectable meds per day (est) 1.00 300.00
Radiograph series 1 1.00 440.00
1,228.75 + GST
The cat was fine the next day.
I has 2 cats and a policy that we won't rush to the vets for "natural" stuff.
Zero vet cost so far - 8 years and counting.
Family member up for $1600 - dog teeth cleaning and rotten tooth removal. This was found in the dog's yearly vet check - some $400 for the 2. So they're out 2k for very little... ouch. 
Dog up the road attacked our cat in our yard on a Saturday. Sunday I was $1800 lighter but had a nice xray of the cats guts and the cat had a night in the cat hotel. I have bad memories of an ultrasound costing me $600 because it was out of hours but after some negotiations was brought back to a bargan $450. I felt like I was taken for a ride especially when my mother has spent a night in private for only a little more.
Owners of the dog did not agree they should pay but I still need to negotiate this with myself in how I feel I should best be compensated in other ways.
A friend who is a vet once explained to me that despite what you think, its not such a high paying job. I had assumed it is like Medicine, but its not apparently.
She also explained that the costs for human medicine are subsidized, and the same does not apply to animal care. All the machines, and all the treatments, that may be the same as used for humans, are not subsidized.
So, is it just a reality that health care is expensive, and that we don't realise the true costs of human health care?
I think another thing that affects the cost these days are all the possible check ups that are now possible. Would a vet from 50 years ago need to do an ultrasound? Would they even do x-rays of a cat?
My 80 year old grandfather once had an argument with a yet after he told him that his dog needed expensive surgery to remove a blockage in his (the dogs, not my grandfather's) intestine. After arguing with him and mumbling to himself about being a quack, my grandfather forced some cod liver oil into the dogs mouth, and days later the dog was as good as new. Being just a bit stubborn, my grandfather went back to tell the yet about it.
So, do you take my grandfather's option and see how that works out, or pay the money and trust in the professionals and the costs of that?
Is there any evidence of vets 'rorting' pet owners?
I work in an exclusive industry very much associated with vets. They all have amazing number of staff (usually pretty young things) shoit load of equipment, more regulations than AFL football and paperwork to go with it.
Plus having to quietly tell someone their moggy has feline aids or cancer after the little **** has ripped the vets hands to pieces. They can have it, i'am happy dealing with the the deceased ones and strangly find it a very comforting and satisfiying job.
you have gramatical nazies here as well,.... impressed
I am amazed to hear that today they do cat/dog scans, MRI's, people have the guts to submit their 13 yr old pets with harsh procedures like chemotherapy, etc all falling for the chat of a ''good'' vet.
Our former dogs (20, 30 yrs ago) lasted the same number of years as the current ones (and they used to eat our scraps rather than the ''gourmet'' pet food of today), and no visits to vets. No bone/orthopedic surgery, no psychologists, etc and no pet ''med insurance''.
As with everything, when people have more money they ''need'', its easier for the market geniuses invent some to take it out of them.
Select to expand quotenovetti said..
I am amazed to hear that today they do cat/dog scans, MRI's, people have the guts to submit their 13 yr old pets with harsh procedures like chemotherapy, etc all falling for the chat of a ''good'' vet.
Our former dogs (20, 30 yrs ago) lasted the same number of years as the current ones (and they used to eat our scraps rather than the ''gourmet'' pet food of today), and no visits to vets. No bone/orthopedic surgery, no psychologists, etc and no pet ''med insurance''.
As with everything, when people have more money they ''need'', its easier for the market geniuses invent some to take it out of them.
We've fallen into that trap to some extent, but our bills are no where near as high as some mentioned here for the same stuff, like rotten teeth. I think it has to do with when the kids leave home the pets move up a notch.
But you make a very good point with regards to how well our pets got by without all the molly coddling.
Not that I will be telling the wife any of this! 
Vets do vary. 10 to 20 years ago we had a dog with one testicle. You'd take him to the vet for an itch or a scratch, he'd attend to that, then give you a serious look over the top of his spectacles and announce that your dog only had one testicle. "yeh, yeh " you'd mumble, dog's balls and all that. He'd go on about the technicalities of the testicle and send you away to think about it for next time. I'm running out of vets. At about the age of 10, at yet another vet, he had to go under for some malignant thing, the testicle came up and I relented.
Now research shows that desexing reduces aggression in 60% of aggressive dogs. But in my sample of 1, if the dog isn't aggressive to start with, it just makes them a more pissed off and angry old bugger.
Any way he popped off a year or so later, we were cashed up and dog less for about 6 months. Two pups turned up ( never get two dogs of the same breed) and one of them has two testicles! We remembered a vet from long long ago in another suburb, we'll try him again. After the puppy shots he looks at the bitch, bring her in in about 12 weeks, "Here we go" I'm thinking as he pats the other one " Don't worry about him, he won't have pups ". I was out of there for $100. He was right, no pups. In Canberra, opposite Olims pub if you need a good vet.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Vets do vary. 10 to 20 years ago we had a dog with one testicle. You'd take him to the vet for an itch or a scratch, he'd attend to that, then give you a serious look over the top of his spectacles and announce that your dog only had one testicle. "yeh, yeh " you'd mumble, dog's balls and all that. He'd go on about the technicalities of the testicle and send you away to think about it for next time. I'm running out of vets. At about the age of 10, at yet another vet, he had to go under for some malignant thing, the testicle came up and I relented.
Now research shows that desexing reduces aggression in 60% of aggressive dogs. But in my sample of 1, if the dog isn't aggressive to start with, it just makes them a more pissed off and angry old bugger.
Any way he popped off a year or so later, we were cashed up and dog less for about 6 months. Two pups turned up ( never get two dogs of the same breed) and one of them has two testicles! We remembered a vet from long long ago in another suburb, we'll try him again. After the puppy shots he looks at the bitch, bring her in in about 12 weeks, "Here we go" I'm thinking as he pats the other one " Don't worry about him, he won't have pups ". I was out of there for $100. He was right, no pups. In Canberra, opposite Olims pub if you need a good vet.
Ian, I think in the case of reducing aggression, I think there is a window period where they need to be neutered. After that, its too late. They will be aggressive after the fact if they already are.
Generally wait for a male to reach sexual maturity (about a year) before the cut...it allows them to develop the hormone levels that make them a dog, but not develop the tendency to be ruled by their balls. Too soon and they tend to be a bit supplicant
But some dogs don't ever need the cut....others maybe earlier.
My one rule is never get a puppy without seeing nature of mother(and hopefully father)....how why?? but a lot of the nature of dogs is hereditory.
after my dog ate my new wettie, we had a nice chat. I explained that the cost of medical care in any one year would not exceed her original purchase price. As the dog was a rescue mutt, the amount of $50 was established as fair and reasonable. The dog hasn't eaten any more wetsuits, and hasn't needed a vet in 14 years....
Regulate Vet costs.... the nanny state rears it's head again. Or a 1st world problem!
Human medical procedures are not cheap either. They are heavily subsidised by taxes.
Entrance marks for veterinary science is similar to medicine, pharmacy and optometry. Most vets don't do it for the money.
The hours are long. The study is arduous and ongoing. They have to have an understanding of a couple of species of animals. If they specialise, then they risk being stuck in a dead end section of the industry.
As they are dealing with some pretty hefty drugs, dangerous equipment and nasty diseases, they are required to (quite rightly) be of good moral standing and are subject to a fair bit of regulation.
Their patients bite them, kick them, injure them, give them terminal diseases (RIP Ben Cunneen).
Most doctors would rarely see a patient die in their care. Vets see many of their patients die at their hands. Yet when they ask for payment prior to putting down your animal, or attending to their injury; then they are classed as heartless. The suicide rate amonst vets is higher than the normal population.
It is up to you as to when you choose to take your animal to the vet. Most vets will advise you of the cost before any procedures. If you cannot afford the procedure, then either take the animal home or euthanise.
As an aside, a vet friend maintained a young dog with a paralysis tick bite for 6 months - $30k was the cost. Her strong recommendation was to put the pup down - $100. It was the owner who said no.
If you cannot afford to take responsibility for an animal, then don't have one.
Select to expand quoteTonz said..
I work in an exclusive industry very much associated with vets. They all have amazing number of staff (usually pretty young things) shoit load of equipment, more regulations than AFL football and paperwork to go with it.
Plus having to quietly tell someone their moggy has feline aids or cancer after the little **** has ripped the vets hands to pieces. They can have it, i'am happy dealing with the the deceased ones and strangly find it a very comforting and satisfiying job.
you have gramatical grammatical nazies Nazis here as well,.... impressed
And spelling Nazis too.... 
oh damn I'am sunk then, many many years ago one of my primary school teachers proudly announced to the class that I was a` hopeless case, my spelling would never improve.
Congratulations Mr Watson, you were a prophet
Select to expand quoteTonz said..
oh damn I'am sunk then, many many years ago one of my primary school teachers proudly announced to the class that I was a` hopeless case, my spelling would never improve.
Congratulations Mr Watson, you were a prophet
Hopeless case or hopeless cause?
Select to expand quoteTonz said...
oh damn I'am sunk then, many many years ago one of my primary school teachers proudly announced to the class that I was a` hopeless case, my spelling would never improve.
Congratulations Mr Watson, you were a prophet
It's all good. My comment was in jest.
Welcome to the circus! :-)
I had a cat once that had an issue. The vet explained that it may be able to be rectified the cat may be able to be saved. The cat wasn't that old and the kids loved him as you would expect, they were young. The cat was most likely going die regardless.
The issue was that this was explained in front of the kids whose eyes lit up at the prospect that it would be saved. An $800.00 deposit and starting price is meaningless to four and six year old.
I did what the vet should have and ushered them to the reception area, explained to the vet that that was a ****ty thing to do with the kids present and told him to put it down. It was probably not too far off being dead anyway.
May this topic be the CATalyst for change - in owners attitudes.
Pet ownership is a choice. If you don't like costs. Don't keep a pet. It's a luxury, unless you need a working dog.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said...
May this topic be the CATalyst for change - in owners attitudes.
Pet ownership is a choice. If you don't like costs. Don't keep a pet. It's a luxury, unless you need a working dog.
Yes, a pet is a long term commitment, I agree.
However what do you suggest should be done when a vet wants to charge $1,500 - $1,700 to desex a (female) dog?
Should you just pay up because it's a luxury or do you have a calm discussion about the costs and seek another vet?
Keeping away from vets unless there's a crisis or a de-nutting or speying needed is both better on your wallet and on your pet's health. Yearly vaccinations are a rort doing more damage than good - there's a growing number of vets realising this and instead suggesting taking titer counts to see what level of protection your animal still has from initial vaccinations. Raw diets are the only way to go too, get off all that processed ****. Anyone ever wonder why there's so much cancer in pets these days?
FlySurfer, it's lucky you're cashed up...
