Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Are all veterinarians this greedy ?


Paa Langfart
 Share

Recommended Posts

Took my cat in for a routine vaccine today.  One shot.  Bill came to $46.  
They charge $19 for the appointment, $7.00 to dispose of the needle ( supposedly a biohazard) and $20 for the actual shot.  All performed by a vet helper.  And from what I hear talking with other folks in my area other vets are charging similar prices.  Really pricing folks out of being able to afford to have a pet let alone more than one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah they are and I say that with a dear family friend thats a vet

We recently went through a patch with a vet oncologist.  Talk about greedy...  They regularly leveraged the soft pressure of "Well I cant tell you what to do but I wouldnt spare any expense if it was my dog" when talking about a $10k radiation treatment for our beagle.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2025 at 11:28 AM, Paa Langfart said:

Took my cat in for a routine vaccine today.  One shot.  Bill came to $46.  
They charge $19 for the appointment, $7.00 to dispose of the needle ( supposedly a biohazard) and $20 for the actual shot.  All performed by a vet helper.  And from what I hear talking with other folks in my area other vets are charging similar prices.  Really pricing folks out of being able to afford to have a pet let alone more than one.  

like any profession, a lot of them are very greedy and balloon up bills.  My buddy is a vet.   When he was first starting out he had BIG issues with the vet he was employed with because he was expected to drive up bills.    He now owns his own practice driven by that very reason.  Good man that wants to sleep good at night....doing what he set out to do at a young age (with the same reason in mind, to help animals and people).  But per him, a HUGE % of small animal vets are just gouging the f out of people. 

like most things, I want the most mom and pop variety I can find.  The bigger practice, like most businesses, it more likely is owned and operated to make as much money as possible at the end of the day. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CRA said:

like any profession, a lot of them are very greedy and balloon up bills.  My buddy is a vet.   When he was first starting out he had BIG issues with the vet he was employed with because he was expected to drive up bills.    He now owns his own practice driven by that very reason.  Good man that wants to sleep good at night....doing what he set out to do at a young age (with the same reason in mind, to help animals and people).  But per him, a HUGE % of small animal vets are just gouging the f out of people. 

like most things, I want the most mom and pop variety I can find.  The bigger practice, like most businesses, it more likely is owned and operated to make as much money as possible at the end of the day. 

Like a lot of things in today's economy, market concentration is a huge issue in the vet space. Mars (yeah, the chocolate company) owns roughly half of them with their control of Banfield and VCA as well as numerous smaller chains. Oh, and all that Royal Canin food the vets are prescribing and recommending? Yeah, that's owned by Mars too. Don't even get me started on the racket that is "prescription" dog food and how incredibly uneducated the average vet is on basic pet nutrition. Back to the actual clinics... private equity ghouls who care about literally nothing but profit own another 30%. Now you're down to roughly 20-25% of clinics that aren't under the thumb of Mars or private equity.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Started going to stand for animals. An annual check up with a few shots should not be almost 400 dollars. Use to go to Wilkinson animal hospital and bounced the fug out when they got bought by someone else 

Edited by toldozer
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Posts

    • https://wfnz.com/schedule/the-clubhouse-with-kyle-bailey/ Starts around 1100 I am not sure how connected Al Wallace is but he thinks bryce is going to get paid (50+) and it may happen within the first 4 games of this season.   He thinks the offense looked good last season.  Not really sure what the hell he was watching.
    • Waiting to see how the OT situation plays out is probably going to be a big part of the calculus.
    • If you draft players who can push the starters in competitions, then you have depth.  Gantt's focus is Week 1, 2026.  That is never my view.  if your focus is on talent alone, and if you do not consider the salary cap, then this is accurate.  If a player making $25m per season can be traded or not renewed because you have a player on a rookie contract who can do the job almost as well--before the maturation and experience occurs, then you may take a small step back for a moment so that you can leap forward later.  About Walker--LTs have done pretty well in Green Bay's system.  He is a good pass protector, and so is Freeling. About DT--they are often rotational.  Hunter will still play and he will improve with experience.  The WR field is not that crowded.  If you have 5 different WRs who can play, they usually do.  Hecht might have the best opportunity to take a starting job, and he is a fifth rounder.   So you look at the cap and the idea is to start as many on rookie contracts as possible.  Does that mean to start rookies day 1.  Nope.  
×
×
  • Create New...