How much is that doggie on the sofa?

[Liz P]

A friend of mine has Embrace and seems pleased with it. They are covering 90% of a $7000 bill to do bilateral hip replacement for congenital hip dysplasia. I did a quote for one of my dogs (intact, purebred, etc) with only emergency coverage (no wellness) and the quote was under $20 a month.

 

Just keep in mind that you have to come up with the cash up front and the insurance reimburses. Still worth it though. I wish I had that last year when my pup broke her leg.

[Jeri Jessee]

After spending an insane amount of money on Reno last year (and still losing him) I decided to get insurance. I have PetPlan and have been very satisfied. They cover everything except routine stuff like shots, worming, etc. You can pick the amount of coverage; I have 100% on Maggie and 80% on Spur, after a $200 deductible. Premiums are approx $30 per dog per month. It is easy to file a claim and so far they have paid off with no problems or hassle. I've used it for Maggie's elbow surgery and Spur's IBD.

 

I think when you get a pet you make a lifelong committment to their well-being (food, housing, training, exercise, companionship, medical). I would love to have third dog but I just do not have the resources (time/money) at this time to give them all what they need.

[mbc1963]

I didn't buy insurance because I did what others have done - figured that putting the money into savings was going to give me a well to draw from if I should need it. All my previous dogs have died of cancer, and I won't put a dog through the horrific treatment for that - so I guess I'm seeing that as the most likely outcome. Should the need for major surgery come up, I have money squirreled away.

 

Even so, if I had a less stable income (not rich by any means, but I am stable), I don't think that would preclude me from owning a dog.

 

MANY dogs are euthanized every day in the US. I'd say that a happy life of seven years as the pet of a homeless man on the streets is a pretty good alternative to euthanization.

 

It wasn't long ago at all that medical care was largely palliative (comfort), and human beings just lived as long as they lived before a disease or horrible accident took their lives. No one told mothers to stop having children because they didn't have hospitals and surgery and antibiotics.

 

If the pet is able to live in relative comfort for a natural length of pet life, even without extreme medical measures taken at the end of life, I'd say it's a happy pet. In fact, I'd say that the appropriateness of pet-owning has more to do with caring and activity than with what is provided financially.

 

Mary

[juliepoudrier]

If the pet is able to live in relative comfort for a natural length of pet life, even without extreme medical measures taken at the end of life, I'd say it's a happy pet. In fact, I'd say that the appropriateness of pet-owning has more to do with caring and activity than with what is provided financially.

 

Mary

I agree with this. I also want to add that the dog wandering the streets with its homeless owner is most certainly leading a better life than the many dogs I see in this part of the world that are consigned to life on the end of a chain (ignored for the most part) or stuck in a kennel at the back corner of the owner's property (again, ignored for the most part). Dogs crave our companionship, and at least the dog belonging to the homeless person has the companionship of its human, even if life isn't easy for them.

 

J.

[waffles]

I agree with this. I also want to add that the dog wandering the streets with its homeless owner is most certainly leading a better life than the many dogs I see in this part of the world that are consigned to life on the end of a chain (ignored for the most part) or stuck in a kennel at the back corner of the owner's property (again, ignored for the most part). Dogs crave our companionship, and at least the dog belonging to the homeless person has the companionship of its human, even if life isn't easy for them.

 

J.

 

I agree completely as well. Everyday I have to drive past this Great Pyrenees that is chained to a tree with a huge chain and locked in a very small dirt filled pen. It has a falling down dog house and is out there in the cold snow, pouring rain, and the 90 degree heat we have been having- never have I seen anyone do anything with the dog. It breaks my heart but there are no laws here to protect this dog (it has 'shelter' and water, that is pretty much all that is required). I feel a dog that gets exercise and companionship is a richer dog than the spoiled brats who go to daycare, eat homemade food, and have expensive groomers.

[terrecar]

Just because someone has money to spend on a dog doesn't mean they will, anyway. I'd lay a wager that many on this board have made (or will make) sacrifices for their dogs that are proportionately (given their means) greater than some wealthier pet owners. Money doesn't dictate priorities.

[Laurelin]

I probably am one of those that people would think is obsessive and excessive when it comes to what my dogs get. No dog daycare, no groomers, but I do feed raw, do a lot of training classes (that add up fast money wise). I got accused of spoiling them by the cashier at the pet store the other day just for buying them a bully stick each and a pool.

 

Anyways, I think if you can't afford the basics like food (not saying you have to buy super high quality food), and basic vet care, and things like that then I would say hold off on a pet. But I don't think you have to buy your dogs everything and send them to doggy daycare for hundreds a month to have a happy dog. I don't think you need the super most expensive dog food either.

[rushdoggie]

I also think sometimes there are treatment options that cost less. My dog was diagnosed with CHF and we treated him conservatively via meds and diet. Several of my dog friends were kind of appalled that I had not immediately taken him to a cardiologist as I live in an area where vet specialists are readily available. I looked into it and it was going to be about $1200 for an initial work up, not including meds or additional treatments. I just couldn't afford it. I researched what the routine treatments were and he was on the best medications for the disease already, and I wasn't sure what the specialist could offer in his case.

 

There are times I wonder had we done that if we could have had a little more time together, but I know it would have stretched our finances in a time where they were already pretty thin, and I did the best I could for him at the time.

[PSmitty]

and I did the best I could for him at the time.

 

And that's absolutely all anyone could ask for.

[juliepoudrier]

Several of my dog friends were kind of appalled that I had not immediately taken him to a cardiologist as I live in an area where vet specialists are readily available.

I am one who will usually opt for a conservative approach first. I think often we are steered toward the specialists simply because they're there and not always because it's the best option.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

I am one who will usually opt for a conservative approach first. I think often we are steered toward the specialists simply because they're there and not always because it's the best option.

 

J.

 

Me too. We have a range of specialists within easy reach. Last year I used the orthopaedic consultant because I judged it worthwhile and there was no other practical option, and I turned down a referral to the cardiologist because the likelihood of coming away with anything beneficial to the dog was extremely remote.

 

It was the same dog in both cases and he's still here bouncing around like a 2 year old even though he's 13 - and I'm several hundred pounds better off through saying no to a vet who wanted to refer my dog to satisfy her own curiosity as she admitted.

[juliepoudrier]

Seriously. Mine was the dog at the specialty hospital with the oncologist because her liver had said "enough" WRT chemotherapy and as a result she was feeling pretty punky. I opted to have an ultrasound done to see if the cancer had spread internally (it hadn't), but they thought they saw fluid in her pericardium and really wanted to tap it right away! And then the oncologist told me I should really go from the specialty hospital to the vet school at NC State to see a cardiologist. Never mind that we had been treating her heart condition for a couple of years and radiographs had showed things staying pretty much status quo, let alone that she had *no* symptoms that would lead anyone to believe she had fluid around her heart (and when they went to look for it again, they couldn't detect it so assumed it was an artifact). I was there because of her *cancer*! I literally had to say to the oncologist that I didn't believe her heart was her immediate problem and could we please forget about the cardiologist for the moment and concentrate on the obvious problem at hand--her poor reaction to the latest chemotherapy drug (this was pretty much are last ditch effort as far as chemo went)!

 

They have better diagnostics, which is a good thing, but sometimes I feel like they're kids with new toys and they can't help themselves but want to use them.

 

In that case, I actually went back to my regular vet, asked his opinion on just concentrating on palliative care, which he thought was perfectly acceptable for a nearly 14-y.o. dog. A few months later, she went into remission. Oh, and I think she's having some issues with arrythmia now at 15, but she's still hanging in and seems to be enjoying life!

 

And that's just one example with one dog.

J.

[Maralynn]

I also think sometimes there are treatment options that cost less. My dog was diagnosed with CHF and we treated him conservatively via meds and diet. Several of my dog friends were kind of appalled that I had not immediately taken him to a cardiologist as I live in an area where vet specialists are readily available. I looked into it and it was going to be about $1200 for an initial work up, not including meds or additional treatments. I just couldn't afford it. I researched what the routine treatments were and he was on the best medications for the disease already, and I wasn't sure what the specialist could offer in his case.

 

When my dog was diagnosed with heart issues I did pretty much this same thing. She had a yearly ultrasound to see if was progressing so meds could be added if needed. But the cost here for that was quite reasonable and I spent less than $200/year for her heart issues which included both meds and ultrasounds. The vet was a general practice vet but was quite knowledgeable about heart disease in dogs as the office did lots of ultrasound referrals and nothing more could have really been done elsewhere anyway.

[mum24dog]

They have better diagnostics, which is a good thing, but sometimes I feel like they're kids with new toys and they can't help themselves but want to use them.

 

My experience too.

 

We have 2 vet practices in our town. Mine has the bare essentials of everything they need to deal with the majority of cases that come through the door, the other seems to run every test under the sun as a matter of course. Guess which one is more expensive to visit.

 

My vets would normally go for the obvious and most common first. If that doesn't sort the problem then they discuss with the client the pros and cons of the options.

 

It was one of the younger vets who wanted to refer my dog to the cardiologist. I'm willing to bet the principal vet would have told her not to be so daft.

[Liz P]

Unfortunately, much of what we practice has to be "defensive medicine" to avoid potential lawsuits. It's always your right as an owner to decline testing.

[mum24dog]

It's always your right as an owner to decline testing.

 

Of course, but not everyone is informed or assertive enough to do that.

[gcv-border]

I think most everyone who has had pets/livestock for a number of years has come to realize that common sense should prevail. I have had experiences from both sides of the coin:

 

When my dog was younger and limped off and on, my regular vet took X-rays and diagnosed OCD in both left shoulder and right hock? (knee joint). Suggested treatment (by him) was 2 surgeries - first one joint then 6 months rehab, then the second joint followed by another 6 months of rehab. Cost would have been ~$4000 plus 12 months of rehab with associated costs plus putting my dog through 2 surgeries. Consulting a specialist 4 hours away ($300 plus one day of travel) resulted in a diagnosis of a strained ileopsoas - which mended after 3 months of rest and rehab.

 

On the other hand, I did not go to a specialist to have the latest and greatest tests (MRI and whatever) when my cat started seizing. The general vet did a complete blood panel (normal), and then suggested I take the cat for an MRI ($1100-$1200 Yikes!) to see if a cause could be determined. He admitted that the MRI may have told me nothing about the cause of the seizures or it may have indicated a brain cancer or other brain abnormality. I just couldn't see spending that type of money when the treatment would have been the same (low dose of phenobarbitol) regardless of outcome - unless the MRI showed cancer, and then I could opt for brain surgery. Seriously??

 

On the one hand, I appreciate the fact that the vet informed me of all the treament options (I always like knowing all my options), but on the other hand, I was a little ticked that he kept suggesting the MRI in subsequent visits. Even after we had discussed the pros and cons, he admitted that the end treatment would be the same and I told him that I was not going to go the MRI route since the potential for actionable information was so low.

 

Jovi

[juliepoudrier]

I once had a vet be very candid with me that the reason she ordered an ultrasound was because if my dog's problem was a splenic mass (it was not) and she missed it, she would have "failed." I don't think I know or have heard of anyone who has sued a vet for malpractice, though I imagine it happens at least on occasion (and by people who have more money than sense).

 

One of the reasons I really don't want to give up my current vet is because he is part of a large animal practice, and it seems to me that such practitioners seem to be more practical, for lack of a better term, in their approach to diagnostics because most farmers aren't going to toss a bunch of money at diagnosing a cow or a sheep. I can trust him to listen to my concerns, to understand my financial limitations, and to make suggestions based on our discussion. That doesn't mean he doesn't suggest the latest and greatest, but he is also willing to consider a more conservative appoach and doesn't try to push me toward something that may be more than I can manage.

 

It's like the US for Willow. When I first went to the oncologist, she wanted to do an ultrasound. I asked her (being newly unemployed) if the information we'd get from the US would change our treatment approach and the answer was no. So I told her I'd rather wait on that until a point where it might truly be diagnostically necessary. Later, when Willow was on a round of chemotherapy with a drug that didn't seem to be helping and she had stopped eating and was clearly feeling poorly, I then opted for the ($700) ultrasound because at that point I knew it could help me make a decision about my next course of action (that is, if the cancer had clearly spread internally, I'd have a decision to make that I wouldn't have to consider if there was no evidence of spread). That's how I prefer diagnostics to be used, and I make that clear to my vet up front.

 

I agree with Mum24Dog (Pam?) that many people don't understand enough to make informed decisions and just rely on the vet's recommendations no matter what. I had a dear friend like that--he wouldn't even ask questions because in his mind "the vet is the expert and should know to do the right thing, with no interference from me." I'm sure there are plenty of others like him (a different generation from me, which may be at the core of the issue) who nearly bankrupt themselves on procedures that may not make a heck of a lot of difference.

 

Reminds me of the time I went to the urgent care place because I had the symptoms of a sinus infection--symptoms that had become familiar over the years and were a sure indicator of said infection. The doctor didn't look at my history and do an exam and say "Yep, it's a sinus infection." Instead he ordered a CAT scan (seriously? Wonder what THAT cost the insurance company?) and then diagnosed a sinus infection....

 

J.

[mum24dog]

One of the reasons I really don't want to give up my current vet is because he is part of a large animal practice, and it seems to me that such practitioners seem to be more practical, for lack of a better term, in their approach to diagnostics because most farmers aren't going to toss a bunch of money at diagnosing a cow or a sheep. I can trust him to listen to my concerns, to understand my financial limitations, and to make suggestions based on our discussion. That doesn't mean he doesn't suggest the latest and greatest, but he is also willing to consider a more conservative appoach and doesn't try to push me toward something that may be more than I can manage.

 

Your vet sounds like mine. She's a farm and horse vet at heart, from a farming background. Touchy feely she isn't, and some don't like her because of that, but I'd rather have her honesty than a vet who pussyfoots around the truth trying not to upset me.

[Sue R]

I am grateful to my vets - they are willing to talk to me, not down to me nor over my head; they take my input seriously; they make suggestions without making me feel like I *must* do this-that-or-the-other if I am going to be responsible; they let me make the decisions based on their suggestions and what I understand and feel comfortable with; and I never feel they are misleading me, pushing me towards unnecessary or excessive treatment, or trying to make decisions for me.

 

I guess they tell me what they think and let me choose, which I most appreciate.

 

There are as many different situations as there are owners, and it is never one-size-fits-all. There are treatments I would not choose for one of my dogs, or would not put a dog through (without a really compelling reason); there are sums of money I would not feel justified in putting into a dog; and there are times I think that enough is enough.

 

Of course, it's easy for me to say what I would do until I am faced with a particular decision, and have to make a choice. There are always a lot of variables to consider, and then there's the heart's input in a decision.

[maggiesmommy]

As a shelter volunteer (and yes, I know I keep bringing it up, but it's what has formed many of my opinions) I don't think it's irresponsible to adopt a rescue dog, even if you're poor. I would much, much, MUCH rather see a dog go to a home where he'll have lots of love-- but might not have $3,000 if he needs emergency surgery-- than to end up being euthanized. When the alternative is death, ANY loving home is a good home.

I don't have good feelings about people who buy from breeders or pet stores and then surrender their pets to shelters because they "can't afford them." If I were a breeder, I would want to know that my dogs were going to families that were willing and able to provide for them.

Hard times can hit anyone, though, including people who bought from breeders during a time when they were better off. I wouldn't fault anyone who suddenly got smacked with a $6,000 vet bill, did everything they could, and still couldn't afford to care for their pet. It's a horrible thing and I wish it never happened, but I don't blame owners who are doing their best.