Pets at the Vets

pug_in_a_bed

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

In this case, if the other dog could be identified, I'd be after the owner to pay for the damage THEIR dog did!

I couldn't catch them, believe me i tried. I started running after them, but i had to turn back, she was in such a bad way. It makes me furious just thinking about it.

Debt_Free_Chick

pug_in_a_bed wrote:

I couldn't catch them, believe me i tried. I started running after them, but i had to turn back, she was in such a bad way. It makes me furious just thinking about it.

Yes, I can understand your anger. I too would be furious. I didn't mean to suggest that you had not done all you could, but wanted other MSErs to be aware that if their animal is attacked by another, then the owner of the offending animal is liable for any treatment needed by the injured party.

I think the vet referred to this in a previous post re third-party costs. It's worth checking your home insurance as this might be covered there. I have third-party costs covered by a separate insurance that I get included in my membership of the BASC, which covers my gundog for his "dirty deeds" .... which I sincerely hope I shall never have to use. Above all, he is trained to be under control at all times

pug_in_a_bed

Dont' fret - I certainly didn't take it that way

garrapata

My dog is 4 and is insured through M&S with life cover and no excess (I think the difference was just a tenner with or without excess).

Just last month, he had a problem in his knee and with the X-rays, visit to
specialist and medicines, we would have spent more than double the money (of the premium)... which they refunded in full fairly quickly.
So it's proving to be a good investment so far.

mad_cash_cow

Debt_Free_Chick quote

"wanted other MSErs to be aware that if their animal is attacked by another, then the owner of the offending animal is liable for any treatment needed by the injured party."


As I understand the law, the owner is responsible for the actions of a dog, but not for those of a cat.

If I may use this forum to air a pet (pun intended) gripe of mine, there are far too many dogs left to wander by roads without leads. These often have their owners nearby, but not in conrol of them. These owners may well claim to be devoted to their dogs, and say that they are too well trained to stray. Dogs are animals, and may respond to fear or distraction by displaying atypical behavior eg bolting into the road.

I strongly believe that the loss of freedom caused by having a lead attached is far outwieghed by the potential for the suffering the pet will experience if it is the victim of a road traffic accident (whether or not the ensuing vets fees/cost of purchasing a replacement are covered by insurance). I also think that these owners need to be alerted to the fact that they are responsible (financially) for the damage to cars and other victims of crashes caused by their straying pet.



The Cow now dismounts pet hobby-horse!!

Haynonnie

Norma the vet is right. The days of vets being grateful for rusty NHS cast-off equipment is long gone and everything is state of the art, designed for animals not humans (BIG difference ) and horrendously expensive, especially new drugs which have to meet ridiculously strict standards these days and cost £millions to develop. As a former vet nurse I know how important insurance can be. I was also the one who filled in the claim forms for clients and I got to know which insurance companies were worth the premiums.

Watch out for dodgy companies who seem cheaper but charge premiums on a 4-weekly rather than monthly (ie calendar month) basis - ie you can end up paying 13 times a year instead of 12 and suddenly they're no longer cheaper.

Most of the supermarket policies are cheaper but watch out as most will not renew cover for any condition claimed for in the last year (but they will of course keep very quiet about it - read your renewal form very carefully).

The more expensive policies will tend to offer "cover for life" which means that as long as you keep up your premiums then any condition will continue to be covered for as long as necessary (up to your yearly limit of course) even if it means your pet is on, say, expensive heart pills for the rest of its life (but you will still have to pay the excess once a year).

PetPlan has always been the best at paying out, but yes also the most expensive cover. IMHO you get what you pay for though. They also cover for complementary treatment eg acupuncture or homeopathy, if you're into that sort of thing. The peace of mind I get from having my 3 dogs insured is enormous as I consider my dogs to be my most precious and valuable possessions. The big one is on an unlimited vets fees policy which means that should something really awful happen like a nasty accident or really malignant (but treatable) cancer then she can have the best of the best treatment at whatever specialist centre is most suitable and for however long is necessary.

I think vets sometimes get slammed unfairly for their fees. All those years training, the cost of premises, trained staff, out of hours provision, good equipment, shelves stocked with expensive drugs etc etc. Compare vets fees with plumbers' exhorbitant fees for a start! And how much does it cost to have eye surgery or whatever done privately on yourself??!! Vets charge a very fair price for an extraordinary service, I reckon.

IvanOpinion

Haynonnie wrote:

I think vets sometimes get slammed unfairly for their fees. All those years training, the cost of premises, trained staff, out of hours provision, good equipment, shelves stocked with expensive drugs etc etc. Compare vets fees with plumbers' exhorbitant fees for a start! And how much does it cost to have eye surgery or whatever done privately on yourself??!! Vets charge a very fair price for an extraordinary service, I reckon.

There are a couple of things that have amazed me about vet fees. Firstly is the large difference between different surgeries with some surgeries costing almost double the cost of others. For example, based on a couple of surgeries within 20 miles of our house the cost for standard set of innoculation injections (allegedly the same products) can vary from £17 to £35.

The second thing is the inflated price of 'animal' medicines versus their 'human' equivalent. Fortunately my vet will always tell me the name and dosage of the human equivalent (if there is one) which can be substantially less than she charges.

ivan

Jodie_2-2

Loved this bit at the bottom of your post!

All my views are my wifes views and she has given me permission to hold them.

And thanks to everyone whose commented on this subject I have found it a really interesting read ...

I myself was lucky enough to share the life of Jenni a black and white border collie for 10 years - in that time apart from small visits like a Dew claw accident (about £35 a time trip) she only had two "expensive" visits one to remove fatty lumps (we thought they might be something worse) at £250 and then the final operation of mammary tumors which was £400.

So for event the cheapest policy at £12 per month I would have paid out £1440 over her short life which would have left me out of pocket.

I think the best idea is a Vet piggy bank as I too also suspect if you are paying yourself the pet and you gets the best deal(ie no "extra" tests).

I love my vets they have been very good to us both but from stories I have heard you have to hang onto a good one.

One last tip - try to see the same vet each time - they remember the animal and they know what they have tried and why it also helps build a bond between them.

I know have a new puppy (Blue merle Border collie) and she is already costing me a fortune (bad worms and itchy skin). Like children no two are the same but we love em to bits

Good health to you and yours ....

Former_MSE_Andrea

Previous Poll Topic: Poll Started: 20 September 2005 We’re a nation of animal lovers but vet bills can be huge. So do moggy and fido have their own policy or are you a pay-as-you-go pet owner?

D. No, my pets aren't insured. 46.1% - (666 Votes)
E. I don't have a pet. 25.1% - (362 Votes)
B. Yes, I shopped around on the internet. 17.5% - (253 Votes)
F. Yes, other method. 3.9% - (57 Votes)
A. Yes, I just filled in the leaflet I found at the vets. 3.7% - (54 Votes)
C. Yes, I used a comparison service. 3.4% - (50 Votes)

Total Votes: 1442

BargainHunterCat

mad_cash_cow wrote:

I also think that these owners need to be alerted to the fact that they are responsible (financially) for the damage to cars and other victims of crashes caused by their straying pet.

Sadly this is not strictly true as I discovered working in motor claims for an insurance company. The owner of the dog must be proved negligent in order to make any claim against them and the fact that the dog is not on a lead may not be sufficient in itself.
If after an accident, the owner argued that the dog is well trained and never usually acts like this i.e. that this was an unforseen event, then they cannot be considered negligent as they had no way of knowing that the dog would suddely behave in this "unusual" way. From my experience, more often than not it is near impossible to make a claim against a dog owner's insurance!
Good for dog owners, but bad for drivers!