Yearly Cat Booster Jabs - do you?

BizzyBek

For or against one thing to bear in mind is the flu vaccines like the human equivalent don't immunise against all flu types so even if you are fully vac'd and your cat falls ill with flu don't beat yourself about it!

harryharp

Darleene wrote: »

Nonsense! They should have their life companions removed from their care if they are no longer able to pay. Eh, Harry?

I was not suggesting anything of the kind, simply that I didn't know how it would work if vets reduced their bills, and that the funding would have to come from somewhere. If, as you say, OAPs are genuinely no longer able to pay, then I am sure they will be able to get help from the PDSA- that is what it is there for.

I at least hope I am making my point without sarcasm and putting words into people's mouths.

MrsE_2

harryharp wrote: »

I was not suggesting anything of the kind, simply that I didn't know how it would work if vets reduced their bills, and that the funding would have to come from somewhere. If, as you say, OAPs are genuinely no longer able to pay, then I am sure they will be able to get help from the PDSA- that is what it is there for.

I at least hope I am making my point without sarcasm and putting words into people's mouths.

I think vets could offer a small discount to OAPs & recover it on everyone else (I wouldn't mind).

The animal charities could stop giving free treatment to the unemployed (they can get a job or get a pet when they are back at work) & just offer their free services to the OAPS & the disabled, the other people they usually help, perhaps they could run a not-for-profit clinic.

lowis

The animal charities could stop giving free treatment to the unemployed (they can get a job or get a pet when they are back at work)

some unemployed people are in genuine dire straits, and are unable to find employment after being gainfully employed for many years. my friends father has worked all of his life and was recently made redundant at the age of 58, he is having a lot of difficulty finding work. it would so sad if genuine unemployed people had to give up their pets because the animal charities refused to help them.

simontheiceman

MrsE wrote: »

I think vets could offer a small discount to OAPs & recover it on everyone else (I wouldn't mind).

The animal charities could stop giving free treatment to the unemployed (they can get a job or get a pet when they are back at work) & just offer their free services to the OAPS & the disabled, the other people they usually help, perhaps they could run a not-for-profit clinic.

This is all very interesting but I'm afraid not-in-the-real-world.

Point 1:"Not for profit clinics". The PDSA has been trying to divest itself of its own-run hospitals and make them become Pet-Aid practices as independent private businesses, but no-one wants to run them. This is primarily because the money given by the PDSA to Pet-Aid practices barely covers the costs of treatment. These hospitals would struggle to attract the "better" clients who would effectively subsidise the Pet-Aid element.

Point 2: OAPs who are truly "hard-up" can access Pet-Aid services across the country where the PDSA runs hospitals or PDSA Pet-Aid practices. These are available to all on housing benefit or Council tax benefit. This is the best route for OAPs who are "hard-up". The benefits used are means-tested and therefore this is fair, as someone else has done the calculation. Why should you get a discount just for being 60+? If anything the remaining group of pensioners should get their act together and ensure they have the means to cover their expenses.

Point 3: Having a pet is NOT an essential, it is a luxury.

Point 4: Most "regular" clients would be utterly disgusted if they thought they were having to subsidise someone elses treatment. Insured clients would have to pay this from their own pocket - I think not somehow.

Point 5: Most vets are very in tune with real needs and occasionally do "pro-bono" work where a true case of need has arisen.

Point 6: With profit returns barely scraping 10% of actual received income this business is more of a hobby than a way of making cash - Many on this site are wishing to become debt free, but when those debts approach £1M this is a VERY distant dream. For instance - my car is now 7 years old and has done well over 100,000 miles (hardly a Lambo). I am constantly irritated by all the "people on benifits(sic)", who drive almost new 4x4s and BMWs, if you think not then take a good look around - there are many of them.

Point 7: The big push to buy your drugs on the internet will inevitably lead to increased service costs at your vet - a real case of: be careful what you wish for. This is what the Competition Comission wanted when it deregulated the sale of Veterinary drugs - it actually said that our fees were far lower than equivalent professions and that we should increase those service fees and decrease the drug fees.

Point 8: A vet consultation fee in Spain can be E45 or more - dont for one minute think you are hard done to living in the UK

Conclusion - fees are unlikely to go down and will more likely go up: live with it.

Notsosharp

My personal conclusion is that you are probably all a load of snobs who don't really know how to live in the real world....sorry but you really have made me angry.

In reality people who cannot afford it get pets without thinking about it but then again some people run up massive debts who cannot afford it, unfortunately I fit into both these categories but I am trying my best to rectify it and I highly resent being judged for the mistakes I have made in the past.

My animals are given a lot of love, care and attention as is my child, it just so happens that I cannot give them the best ALL of the time. If I had the money I would have no hesitation in doing so but I don't. The animals are insured BTW and are neutered so I am not TOTALLY irresponsible, the fact that the Cats Protection give out vouchers for neutering but not vaccinations speaks pretty plainly to me where thier priorities lie. I have taken animals into my home and they have a good home here despite what everyone is trying to insunuate but I have made sure that no more animals are produced who would not be wanted. I have insurance because I realised after a scare that I would not be able to afford vets fees so I made sure I could and as far as I am concerned I have done my best as far as thats concerned. I think as my cats go out they are far more likely to be hit by a car or something else then they are to get cat flu etc......and like someone else said there are different types of cat flu, not all of them can be vaccinated against.

And I am not complaining about vets fees either, thats really not my bug bear.....they are probably a damn sight cheaper than people think, its just that it seems a lot because we are so used to not having to pay for our own healthcare.

And people who cannot afford children.....accidents happen, contraception fails etc...would you suggest compulsory sterilisation for all people whose incomes are under a certain amount?

And Phoebs, at least have the common courtesy to remember who you are having a go at, to pretend to not remember my name is pathetic really.

MrsE_2

simontheiceman wrote: »

Conclusion - fees are unlikely to go down and will more likely go up: live with it.

If that is directed at me, its hardly relevant as I was suggesting a small rise to "regular" customers in order to offer OAPs a small discount.
I assure you I'm a long way from drawing my pension.

For the record I would rather get my pet meds from the vet because IF hes ill, I want them there & then & not posted & I do value the vets care & expertise above money.

Phoebs

Notsosharp wrote: »

...


The animals are insured BTW and are neutered so I am not TOTALLY irresponsible...

And Phoebs, at least have the common courtesy to remember who you are having a go at, to pretend to not remember my name is pathetic really.

well, I couldn't win with you could I, if I'd spelt your name wrong you'd have had a go at me for that, at least I was prepared to be wrong with the spelling. You are being nothing but insulting to people. We are all entitled our opinions, there is no need to get antsy and petty with people.

btw, have you checked your insurance ts & cs????? if you don't vaccinate, it is likely that your policy is invalid, most would be - wouldn't want you spending money on your beloved pets.

MrsE_2

Notsosharp wrote: »

My animals are given a lot of love, care and attention as is my child, it just so happens that I cannot give them the best ALL of the time. If I had the money I would have no hesitation in doing so but I don't. The animals are insured BTW and are neutered so I am not TOTALLY irresponsible, the fact that the Cats Protection give out vouchers for neutering but not vaccinations speaks pretty plainly to me where thier priorities lie. I have taken animals into my home and they have a good home here despite what everyone is trying to insunuate but I have made sure that no more animals are produced who would not be wanted. I have insurance because I realised after a scare that I would not be able to afford vets fees so I made sure I could and as far as I am concerned I have done my best as far as thats concerned. I think as my cats go out they are far more likely to be hit by a car or something else then they are to get cat flu etc......and like someone else said there are different types of cat flu, not all of them can be vaccinated against.

The CPL are a small charity with very limited resources, they cannot afford to provide free or vouchered vaccinations for people on benefits.
The best they can do is to try & stem the flow of unwanted cats who are born in abundance to people who cannot be bothered to (or won't spare the money to) get their cats netured.

harryharp

MrsE wrote: »

If that is directed at me, its hardly relevant as I was suggesting a small rise to "regular" customers in order to offer OAPs a small discount.

I personally wouldn't mind subsidising other more needy customers either, though I suspect human nature being what it is, the majority of people would really balk at this, and I therefore can't see it working in practice I'm afraid.