£12.50 Charge For Perscription From Vet

Kerriebaby

DKLS wrote: »

IMO opinion if you cannot afford the vets services when required, should you really have a pet.

absolutely could not agree more

( braver than me for saying it! )

MrsE_2

DKLS wrote: »

And after all they are they are running a business, and unfortunately for Vets their customer base are prone to being very emotional about their pets.

IMO opinion if you cannot afford the vets services when required, should you really have a pet.

I don't know if thats aimed at me, but I will point out that I never complained about paying £120, I complained about the shoddy way I was treated & I would expect my £120 to buy me 5 minutes peace in the treatment room to say my goodbyes.
I'm actually surprised the cleaner wasn't embarrassed to disturb me with my sobbing over Ted who was laid out on the table.

MrsE_2

tankgirl1 wrote: »

MrsE I'm sorry you had a bad experience at such a traumatic time

Re the fleas, it happens often. In fact one of my kitties was killed in an RTA yesterday, and on the way to the vets fleas started crawling off her - she was frontlined regularly, and I never saw one on her when she was alive. Its bizarre, but it's not your fault.

The nurse was probably just trying to help in honesty, by explaining what was happening. It may not have been that easy to spray Ted if he was longhaired - it would have the same effect (of fleas crawling off him), and you really have to saturate the fur for it to work on a longhaired animal. Perhaps the nurse just noticed the problem before you arrived, and didn't have time to spray him, dry him, and comb him out. I am sure that she was just trying to reassure you not to be alarmed if you saw them moving on his coat.

I'm really sorry for your loss. Ted sounds like he was a lovely boy, and I know how heartbreaking it is. I hope you don't mind me trying to perhaps show why the nurse acted as she did - I have done the same thing as her in the past, and I think I am a very conscientious nurse.

Sorry for your loss.

I didn't have any problem in the nurse saying it (I'm not one of these people who think their pet can't get fleas).

I just would have thought a squirt of some flea killer do at least they weren't moving

We brought him in, in the evening & picked him up about 2.30 pm the next day, would a squirt of flea killer not have worked between the morning & the afternoon

Thank you for your post.

MrsE_2

Kerriebaby wrote: »

doesnt matter what flooring you have, fleas will always find a way!, I have wooden floors too, the fleas make their homes in the gooves in the floors/on your curtains, even in your clothing!

I'm not stupid, my point was with all my hard surfaces it made treating Ted & having a flea free home much easier.

Damn site easier to throughly treat a wooden floored room with minimal soft stuff than a carpeted house with a velour sofa.

lowis

absolutely could not agree more

( braver than me for saying it! ).

out of interest, do you think this should also apply to people who have children they can ill afford to raise properly?

back to pets...you can safeguard against non-routine expenses with pet insurance. i am amazed at the amount of people who do not have it. my recent bill for treating my cat for cancer came to around £12,000 - an amount most people would struggle to pay.

i think though, before you judge people, you have to remember that people's circumstances change and that when they initially got their pet they may have been in a better financial situation.

orlao

DKLS wrote: »

IMO opinion if you cannot afford the vets services when required, should you really have a pet.

A bit unfair?

I haven't heard anyone on this thread say they can't afford the vets bills....but it is a moneysaving site and speaking for myself here;) I shop around and price compare for every other service I need, fuel, insurance etc.


That doesn't mean cheapest is best but good value is important.

missbargain

Yes, some people obviously can't, or won't read.

Noone was complaing about not being able to afford the treatment. I really believe that no sane person would take on a pet if they could not afford it at the time of taking it on (but, as someone pointed out, circumstances do change). Lots of people were complaining about hugely inflated prices and widely differing quotes from practice to practice for the same treatment or medicine.
And it does not mean that more expenisive is always the better. It all depends on a vet, some cheaper may be better than more expensive ones, and vice versa. And while we can all go and find another vet (which some of us have done), it is not convenient for many people for different reasons (time and distance spring to mind), so they have to bear the rip off prices of their local vet.
I like supporting local, but local is NOT always better. I won't support any business, including vets, just because they are local, they have to deserve it, too.

Kerriebaby

MrsE wrote: »

I'm not stupid, my point was with all my hard surfaces it made treating Ted & having a flea free home much easier.

Damn site easier to throughly treat a wooden floored room with minimal soft stuff than a carpeted house with a velour sofa.

I wasnt saying it to be nasty to you, and quite taken aback that you think that I did. I was simply stating that IME this is what I have found.

I did not say you were stupid and neither did I imply that

Kerriebaby

lowis wrote: »

out of interest, do you think this should also apply to people who have children they can ill afford to raise properly?

back to pets...you can safeguard against non-routine expenses with pet insurance. i am amazed at the amount of people who do not have it. my recent bill for treating my cat for cancer came to around £12,000 - an amount most people would struggle to pay.

i think though, before you judge people, you have to remember that people's circumstances change and that when they initially got their pet they may have been in a better financial situation.

I was merely stating my opinon, is that not what forums are for?

Do I think this should apply to children? A atd different, dont you think..kids get NHS etc, animals dont.

Yes peoples circs change, thats why insurance should be in place. I couldnt afford to have my dogs or cat made better if the cost was more than £500, hence they all have insurance. They also have an account where the money for their food/insurance/boosters/meds go into, so if we are struggling, they are still fine.

~Chameleon~

lowis wrote: »

i have no problem with vet bills if they are justified (modern surgery, caring and thorough staff etc), what i have a problem with is the few greedy vets who play on people's emotions. how can one vet charge £575 and another vet charge £300 for the same operation, whne their surgeries are just a mile apart?

It's not so clear cut to compare two different practices and what they charge based simply on their location and close proximity to each other.

One practice may be run as a sole owner/partnership, employing just a couple of nurses and a receptionist. They may be using older equipment which is perfectly adequate for routine ops and refer anything more complicated to a specialist vet/hospital.

On the otherhand the practice down the road might be a 'state of the art' veterinary hospital employing a team of highly skilled surgeons and nursing staff. Who do you think is going to charge more?

We are fortunate enough to be able to choose which practices we use and some people may well base that on cost alone whilst others might prefer to use a practice with more facilities and expertise on hand.

That is your choice obviously and is absolutely fine, but what I do object to is the manner in which some people are slating vets/practices for having higher charges than a neighbouring practice and also accusing them of "ripping us off" whilst not making an informed judgement or indicating the types of practices they are comparing.

You cannot compare apples with oranges