Because Veterinarians Are Money Grubbers—Right?

How often are YOU accused of being greedy?

The advertisement for a new partnership between a non-profit group and Petplan insurance reads, “Every 6 Seconds a Pet Parent Gets a Vet Bill for More Than $1,000.* Bow-Ouch!”

The asterisk references the figure as being based upon claims filed with the insurer. Too bad it doesn’t reference the number of pet lives saved or extended due to competent veterinary care.

Don’t you just love such implications? Your practice fees are some ominous, unpredictable financial ax ready to drop across the neck of the most well-meaning and loving pet owners. Of course you’re a greedy doctor; why else would you be so crass as to demand payment for your services for a calling as high and noble as veterinary medicine? Goodness knows, if the wand could be waved and positions swapped, no client would think of charging a hapless pet owner and suffering animal like they are now, much less at the level “you people,” do.

Once again, other industries are climbing up the ladder of success by stepping on veterinary medicine’s head. The insurer implies you cost too much and no fees incurred could possibly be in the owner’s control or that they should be saving for such occasions because that is the responsible thing animal owners should do.

The non-profit partner trumpets the plan and infers their own association is somehow better, more compassionate, and more legitimate than those in the veterinary profession now. Step right up and by simply purchasing a policy, you will partially fund their association and provide “free veterinary care to pets in underserved communities.”

Most pets will never have $1,000 spent on their veterinary care their entire life. In fact, if the ownerless animal estimates are near correct, most pets will never cross a veterinarian’s doorstep.

And those underserved communities? By whose standard? Does this mean communities lacking veterinary services entirely but willing to pay if they are available or those populated by irresponsible pet owners who just don’t want to pay appropriate fees? If the vet’s-too-expensive-free-is-better argument is truly just economics then when “free” services are not available for those unwilling to pay, do they still maintain their pets to the same standards and begrudgingly pay for it elsewhere? No. The animals will do without until “free,” arrives.