PDSA as bad as RSPCA!

[rocky1 942]

my mate recently went a vets not the pdsa ,first cut on his nose ,cleaned it up few painkillers and and course anitbotics bill £160 ,few weeks later same dog cut his leg needed 4 stiches and antiubitics £200 later then £40 for a check up yesterday just 2 tell him 2 come back in 2 weeks 2 take stiches another £60 ,these private vets init for the money ,while a charity vets are not ,and when you actually get your fake bill from the pdsa their prices are miles apart,i,ve used pdsa a few times and do donate £20 every time i go , but its only for checkups and do actually pay the bill realy i,ve only ever gettin antibotics and dogs weight for wormers not £100s like these private vets,love them or hate the pdsa they do a good job,

Edited March 19, 2011 by rocky1

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

my mate recently went a vets not the pdsa ,first cut on his nose ,cleaned it up few painkillers and and course anitbotics bill £160 ,few weeks later same dog cut his leg needed 4 stiches and antiubitics £200 later then £40 for a check up yesterday just 2 tell him 2 come back in 2 weeks 2 take stiches another £60 ,these private vets init for the money ,while a charity vets are not ,and when you actually get your fake bill from the pdsa their prices are miles apart,i,ve used pdsa a few times and do donate £20 every time i go , but its only for checkups and do actually pay the bill realy i,ve only ever gettin antibotics and dogs weight for wormers not £100s like these private vets,love them or hate the pdsa they do a good job,

 

 

if you can actually get them to treat the animal then yes

[Ideation 8,216]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

 

 

some people wont listen mate like we have said would you get rid of dog or keep it and hope for best and try your hardest to get out of the situation you are in/no one seems to answer that question

[crackpot 29]

WTF!?

 

Driving a suffering dog around trying to get something for nothing ............ I'd say you don't deserve to own the dog.

 

There's no NHS for dogs, never has been, therefore it an absolute must that if you own a dog then you have a huge responsibility for it's welfare, therefore if you can't guarantee your dog any care it needs then you shouldn't have it.

 

I had to beg and borrow this time last year to pay for emergency treatment for a dog (£1300 in the end), I was close to selling my car to repay what I'd borrowed, but it was never in my mind that someone else should have to pay!

 

 

Just one word ................ SCROUNGER!

 

So you can add Strong Stuff to your list of those who are against you next time you go to see your psychiatrist!

 

 

F.ucking disgraceful.

have to agree, and then telling hannah to mind her own buisness when you expect others to mind your buisness?????

[R. Docks 154]

You have to remember that Mr Fishfish is one of lifes 'victims'.

 

It's always someone else's fault with him.

 

Like most scroungers, he thinks the world owes him a living, and that he has the right to receive financial help from the rest of us.

[danw 1,748]

 

Spot on how many could really afford children if it wasn't for family allowance/tax credits ETC good job the NHS is free

 

 

Comparing having a dog to having a kid is a ridiculous comparison to make.....i would allow 500 dogs to die a painful death to save the life of 1 child,you have to keep it realistic....dogs dont have the value of children so to compare them is pointless.

I accept people have children they need help with financially thats acceptable in most cases.....with a dog i dont think it is acceptable,simple.

 

 

My point was how many people still have kids knowing that they don't have the financial means to support them no money no job lets have a kid and let the state keep us.

[Guest thebigdog]

cant we all just get along, lmao

[Qbgrey 4,089]

anyone unemployed or claiming benefits should by law not be allowed a dog.and i no snob brought up in atrailer and worked my arse off.

[Kay 3,709]

anyone unemployed or claiming benefits should by law not be allowed a dog.and i no snob brought up in atrailer and worked my arse off.

 

I work part time so can i have 1 dog :laugh:

[iworkwhippets 12,538]

Load of bilge, im a pensioner with 3 dogs, want fer nowt, and cost me nowt to feed, they are working dogs and eat their kill, and along with my butcher who gives me a sack of meet every saturday, do very well

[rocky1 942]

anyone unemployed or claiming benefits should by law not be allowed a dog.and i no snob brought up in atrailer and worked my arse off.

thats the biggest bullshit i,ve heard on here

[Hannah4181 260]

An emotive topic for sure.

Just one thing i have found about insurance. I can absolutely guarantee the vet will put the dog through more suffering if it is insured that if it wasn't. The vet isn't there to help you, or your dog. The vet is there to help himself. Please do not ever think otherwise.

Helping your dog is ONLY a byproduct of the vet helping himself in a large proportion of cases.

 

Unless you are a good friend then things are, of course, different....JMO...JD

 

 

 

I disagree, we've had this discussion before but i think your very cynical about vets. A vet is something we all need from time to time and if your a decent person and want the best for your animals, you will find a good one and maintain a good relationship with them.

 

Being a Vet is a job, not a voluntary position! It will always be a business, doesn't mean to say it has to be a bad business.

 

 

 

And for the person asking what i would, once climbing of my horse, losing my business, having nothing left to sell blah blah blah ......... i would walk into my vets and be completely honest and tell him my situation, having the relationship i do with him, i can pretty much say 100% he would treat my dogs and allow me to pay him when i could.. . . . . . i've never not paid a bill before, and often worked 3 jobs in order to do so. Again it comes down to morals.

[Hannah4181 260]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

 

 

some people wont listen mate like we have said would you get rid of dog or keep it and hope for best and try your hardest to get out of the situation you are in/no one seems to answer that question

 

 

 

Answer what question exactly??? If i was the very lowest i could get financially would i keep my dogs?? In that situation my friends would already of stepped in and offered to take the dogs till things improved for me.

[KittleRox 2,147]

Its quite simple really,if you qualify for use of PDSA why not use it and put a half decent donation in the box if you can afford it