The PDSA scheme should be those that find themselves in a troubled situation having had the animal first BUT I do not agree with people buying animals based on the idea they are already covered by the scheme.

I fully agree. It's there to help people and pets that find themselves in trouble thorough no fault of their own, it can happen to anyone -not to fund those buying a pet knowing in advance they can't afford to pay for vet care.

yes i know some people just want everything for nothing dont they :(

and as breeders we all make our own minds up to why someone isnt good enough for 1 of our dogs/pups but for me if someone told me they can give a dog a very good life but will have to use the pdsa if illness arisses id weigh it all up and if these people are right for that dog id let them have the dog ,
we all want whats best at the end of the day :)

blue have a good rant :) get it off your chest :) x

> I used the word state as a loose use of words to cover everything BUT it is definately funded by tax payers

How is it funded by tax payers? They are funded by public support, not the government.
And some of those eligible for treatment are on low incomes and paying tax anyway!

How is it funded by tax payers? They are funded by public support, Who ARE the tax payers of the country.  The Government are NOT the tax payer.

They are a charity, funded by donations. To suggest that this equates to being funded by the taxpayer is like suggesting that Sainsbury's is funded by the taxpayer!

The Government only has taxpayers' money for funding.

They are a charity, funded by donations and what % of the funds do you think come from Tax payers OR lets look it another way what % do you think comes from NON tax payers ( excluding retired who have paid tax but no longer)

To suggest that this equates to being funded by the taxpayer is like suggesting that Sainsbury's is funded by the taxpayer!

I have never heard such a dissimilar example in my life :-)  Sainbury is a private profit making organisation.

>what % of the funds do you think come from Tax payers OR lets look it another way what % do you think comes from NON tax payers ( excluding retired who have paid tax but no longer)

Irrelevant. This is money (already taxed or not) that is being voluntarily donated to charity.

"Taxpayers' money" refers to money received by central or local Government in the form of taxes and then spent accordingly (education, NHS, civil service, roads, refuse collection and all the other innumerable governmental and council departments).

Charitable donations are never referred to as 'taxpayers' money'.

>Sainbury is a private profit making organisation

And the PDSA is a private non-profit making organisation. They both receive money voluntarily from individuals, not from central funds.

You can't help yourself can you :-)

I was not nor have mentioned the " Taxpayers" money IE money recieved by the government. Nice try though.

I said Tax Payer..   I bet your bottom dollar it is TAX PAYING PEOPLE or those that HAVE paid taxes who donate mostly to the PDSA pot.

THe PDSA collects donations to help others , Sainsbury is a privately owned business. People pay and receive goods.

You description describes nearly everything in the country.

Twist it how you like JG ( I get so bored with it)

Instead of nit picking at peoples post why not just contribute to the discussion.  Just joined in for debate for the sake of it perhaps ?????

PS No disrespect but who are you to decide what is Irrelevant.  I close that with No ?? as I not interested in a reply or response.

>I was not nor have mentioned the " Taxpayers" money

Your statement "I realise the PDSA is not actually run buy the state it a sheme,  I used the word state as a loose use of words to cover everything BUT it is definately funded by tax payers " implies that the PDSA receives official funding. This is misleading - it doesn't.

>You description describes nearly everything in the country.

That was what you seemed to be saying.

>Instead of nit picking at peoples post why not just contribute to the discussion.

The way I did about the price reduction query for my puppy, you mean?

I'll leave you to get over your rant.

I bet your bottom dollar it is TAX PAYING PEOPLE or those that HAVE paid taxes who donate mostly to the PDSA pot.

But those tax paying people choose to donate to the PDSA and therefore choose to fund veterinary care for those who  can't afford to pay full rates for the same.

I do agree that there are people in this world who expect everything to be handed out for free but I also think that for some people a pet can often be the only reliable constant in their life and may well be the only "person" they talk to for days on end. Maybe if those people didn't have their pet, be it a dog, cat or whatever, they would be deprived of companionship and comfort. There has been a distinction made on here between people who are dog owners and people who are dog people - and sometimes it would seem that some dog people feel they are more deserving of their pets than others.

The way dogs are viewed as pets has changed greatly over the past two decades. When I was a child a lot of  homes, whatever their income band, owned a dog and very few of those dogs ever saw the inside of a veterinary practice so perhaps some people haven't ever really considered that their pets may need costly treatment in the future because they have never had cause to in the past. That may be a naive way of looking at things nowadays but it wasn't in days gone by.

This thread seems to be going way off topic and becoming argumentative in the process. Please take any arguments to the PM system and get this thread back on track or I will have to close it

Thanks

hi blue, if my dog were insurable for £10 a month I'd be thrilled. In actual fact the inquiry I made for a 12 week old Welsh Springer came back with spare change out of£30, and this is one of the healthier breeds. I'd rather salt money away for emergencies when I can than make the insurance sector richer.

Hi Jay,

Have you had a look at compare.com they are just basic policies but they are cover. I did a search on a border terrier 3 years old and got 12 under £10 come up.

I do agree with you about saving the money. IF people are prepared to save to money and put it away for that rainy day then that is equally a good options.  I don't people have insurance BUT I know I can pay my vet bills.

I always say to people if money is really really tight then they are the people who need insurance , if money is regularly surplus to bills etc the decision is up the them. I personally think that is wise.

I would just like to see people be responsible whatever they decide.

> I always say to people if money is really really tight then they are the people who need insurance if money is regularly surplus to bills etc the decision is up the them. I personally think that is wise.

That does sound wise.
I have no insurance for Buster at the momnet. I can't afford the premiums. I could switch to a cheaper insurance (I can get cover for about £12 per month from Tesco), but our vets wont deal direct with these cheaper companies, I'll still need to find the money to pay the vet & then claim back off the insurance (unlike the PetPlan policy I had where the vets would deal direct).
So at the moment if a large vet bill were to be incurred I'd find the money to pay by selling belongings, even if we had to sell the car the bill would be covered, but I can't justify the expense of nearly £40 per month (with an excess to pay of £80 anyway), to cover a large vet bill that may never happen.
Soon we will be in a position to take out a new poilicy and I will feel happier about that, but even with money being tight, the dog (or any of the pets) will never go without treatment needed, even if it means selling our belongings.

Allthough, I completely understand why you would not let your puppy go to that couple. Afterall any of you good breeders wants whats best for your little pups and you have every right to pick & choose who you deem good enough to take care of them using any criteria you want :)

Ok since my request to keep things on topic has been ignored, I'll close this now.