Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If we had the money, yes. But we don't, so no.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibeatu)
    It would be cheaper for people to have pets.
    I think animals should be given free emergency care. Then people aren't abusing full free healthcare to get a lifetime supply of dentasticks or anything, but if an animal is in a lot of pain (and its owners can't afford the high vet prices) then there should be a free government funded service where your animal can get treated.
    Surely it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that they can afford the costs of looking after an animal? It is irresponsible to take on a pet if you can't take care of it properly, and this includes paying for veterinary care.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No - I say this as a pet owner, but why should people without pets pay taxes for those who do? Though the same could be said for the "benefits" system...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's cheaper to put them down.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pizzle223)
    It's cheaper to put them down.
    It's cheap to put old people down, but we wouldn't dream of doing that. Why should it be any different for gerbils?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olympiad)
    If we had the money, yes. But we don't, so no.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well the argument could be levied that we can't afford **** healthcare like that offered by the NHS, or nonsense like jobseekers' allowance.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    no i don't have a pet why would i want to be taxed on something i dont want or have (even more than i already am)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    It's cheap to put old people down, but we wouldn't dream of doing that. Why should it be any different for gerbils?
    I'm not saying it should be any different. But I'd guess the main issue with Gov would be that it's cheaper to put them down so that would make more sense. Of course that's never going to happen so it'll have to stay with people paying themselves. Having Pet Insurance is basically like paying tax anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In an idyllic world, yes.
    In the real world, sadly no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    YES!!!!!

    Animals should be given the same rights as humans
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If it's something like a guide or hearing dog, then there could be an argument for it. Otherwise, pets are there for comfort, they can't earn money, they don't pay any taxes, therefore they shouldn't have a right to free healthcare.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hallamrulez)
    No but I think the NHS should emulate the veterinary profession. When people become too old or sick and it's no longer cost effective to treat them we should actually start considering other options. But hey, I know that view's not particularly popular, but times are hard folks and we've got to seriously consider ways of saving money.
    You do realise that when pets get "too old or sick" they put them down...

    What are you suggesting?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jabberwox)
    In an idyllic world, yes.
    In the real world, sadly no.

    In an idyllic world there would be no pets.




    (Keeping birds in cages=cruel,cats get run over and kill birds,snakes are fed mice,dogs crap on pavements and and eat dead cows,goldfish in small bowls get lonely(er,probably)

    etc etc
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Oh...ok...maybe in an idyllic world we could all keep hamsters
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    No the benefit state is purely to prevent poverty and the effects of that. Pets are at the end of the day a luxury.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    In an idyllic world there would be no pets.




    (Keeping birds in cages=cruel,cats get run over and kill birds,snakes are fed mice,dogs crap on pavements and and eat dead cows,goldfish in small bowls get lonely(er,probably)

    etc etc
    I very much doubt goldfish get 'lonely' as I don't think they have the brain capacity to grasp a concept such as loneliness.
    • TSR Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Jabberwox)
    I very much doubt goldfish get 'lonely' as I don't think they have the brain capacity to grasp a concept such as loneliness.
    Interesting fact for the day - they're much more intelligent than you think - goldfish do have a decent memory despite the urban myths. They can exhibit loneliness and also a range of other emotions, notably boredom in plain fish bowls rather than enriched tanks.

    I'm a vet student, we got lectured on this exact subject.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent.

    Does this mean i can get my neg back for realising that poor goldfish may well get lonely
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I like turtles....
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.