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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Why do you say that. What leads you to think that we, as supporters, think his ceiling is 10-12. That's a ridiculous assumption on your part. The Seahawks won the SB with Darnold passing for 25 TD's, 14 Ints with a 99.1 rating for the season.  The Panthers with Young were at 23 TD's, 11 Ints and a 78.8 rating for the season. Not that far off. The problem with all the Young discourse around here is the assumption that the QB is the sole determining factor for a teams success. That just isn't true and it's certainly not how Morgan and Tilis are building the Panthers. 
    • Do we pay based on how many wins or how many games Bryce led us to wins? We've spent quite a bit on defense this year and hopefully they're much improved. If the Panthers do get to 10 wins, but Bryce has another year like last year where he showed up big in a couple, was present in a few, and forgettable in most, do we still pay him 50m per year?  I keep bringing it up because I think it's relevant, but Bryce was outplayed by a 6m per year backup last year. I don't see how it's possible to pay a top tier QB contract to someone who's putting up backup QB production. 
    • I understand tempering expectations, but there are some issues with his points. Walker was a 3 year starter, but Green Bay let him walk and no other team was quick to snatch him up. That says something. Freeling will compete to start. With Hunter, we rotate our linemen and even 5th round pick Cam Jackson played some meaningful snaps last year. Both Brown III and Wharton have underwhelmed since we picked them up. Hunter is a run plugger that we have needed. Hunter will play early, even if he isn't the "starter." Brazzell was described as one of Canales' favorite prospects in the draft and he has a speed element we have been missing. I think Canales is going to have plays drawn up with Brazzell on the field just out of pure excitement. It will be up to Brazzell to prove he can handle it, though. If he can, he will play. As far as our secondary picks, yeah they have to earn their stripes and Evero tends to lean on veterans. So they might take time, but if they can show they can play, they will see the field. Smith-Wade and Ransom did. Sam Hecht simply has to show he can handle the mental side of the NFL game. If he can, he is in a direct competition with Fortner, who's also relatively young, but also on his 3rd NFL team and doesn't have the power profile of Hecht.  I can appreciate that Gantt wants to pour cold water on what was perceived as an impactful draft, but facts are facts.
×
×
  • Create New...