# Law Needed > To Regulate Pet Insurers & Veterinarians



## protectionist

Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.

Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.

Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.

And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:

1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."

2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
"...to improve animal and human health.."

3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."

By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.

Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!


----------



## dblack

Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate. 

...


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...



73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Just what we need, more whinging.

My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.



My advice.  Make pet insurance just like people insurance.  Doctors get reimbursed, not patients.  Do it by govt regulation, if necessary.  Too many dogs and cats needing a home, and too many loving people willing to provide one, to do it any other way.


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice.  Make pet insurance just like people insurance.  Doctors get reimbursed, not patients.  Do it by govt regulation, if necessary.  Too many dogs and cats needing a home, and too many loving people willing to provide one, to do it any other way.
Click to expand...


Wow. I thought the OP was a joke. But if you're serious, that makes out even funnier, if somewhat disturbing.


----------



## Politico

Really now you want Odoggycare?


----------



## TNHarley

fuckin big govt sucker
if you cant afford a pet, dont get one.
pretty fuckin simple
quit bitchin and be responsible!
givt is big enough!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice.  Make pet insurance just like people insurance.  Doctors get reimbursed, not patients.  Do it by govt regulation, if necessary.  Too many dogs and cats needing a home, and too many loving people willing to provide one, to do it any other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I thought the OP was a joke. But if you're serious, that makes out even funnier, if somewhat disturbing.
Click to expand...


Big government is never funny.


----------



## daveman

*XXXXXXXXXX*

There are more important things for Congress to do.  And I'm a pet owner.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice.  Make pet insurance just like people insurance.  Doctors get reimbursed, not patients.  Do it by govt regulation, if necessary.  Too many dogs and cats needing a home, and too many loving people willing to provide one, to do it any other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. I thought the OP was a joke. But if you're serious, that makes out even funnier, if somewhat disturbing.
Click to expand...


Nothing funny going on here, and *you're supposed to be disturbed* by what you've read. If you're not, I don't know what you could be thinking.
How on earth could someone put millions of cat and dog pets dying needlessly, into the same framework as a _"joke"_.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle-eyes rolling around in head)


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
Click to expand...


We just think you're a dumb ass.


----------



## Zoom-boing

dblack said:


> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...



Meow.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> Nothing funny going on here, and *you're supposed to be disturbed* by what you've read. If you're not, I don't know what you could be thinking.
> How on earth could someone put millions of cat and dog pets dying needlessly, into the same framework as a _"joke"_.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle-eyes rolling around in head)



Here is an opportunity for you to start a business, offering no-deductible, no out of pocket, pet insurance.

I'd be more likely to buy pet insurance if it were offered on that model. Right now, it's a rip off - so I don't buy it.

BUT, instead of bitching and demanding that big brother take care of your pet, do something constructive and offer an alternative.

Who knows, it might make you millions....


----------



## protectionist

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
Click to expand...


No you don't, unless YOU are a dumbass, with a reading comprehension of about 2%.


----------



## protectionist

Politico said:


> Really now you want Odoggycare?



That's not part of the OP is it ?  So why ask ?  Now that you have though, I'd say in addition to making pet health insurance like human health insurance "Odoggycare (and Ocattycare) wouldn't be a bad idea.  Thanks, man.


----------



## Politico

Seeing as it is about insurance and controlling how a medical professional does business yes it is.


----------



## emilynghiem

protectionist said:


> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!



OK call a caucus for pet owners. set up a policy that represents pet owners. And invest in collective insurance program that all pet owners agree to per state or region or organization. if this is done FREELY and NOT BY FORCE OF LAW, then you will set a better example than what the schmucks are arguing about with people insurance. they couldn't resolve their conflicts and what ended up passing nobody wants to pay for but its forced.\

if you can do better, you can set up a model to follow. maybe policy schools or govt/law programs should pay to do this, and train mediators/admins there to come up with solutions. so whatever you arrive at FREELY thorugh your networks or entities, then other health care groups could model programs for people likewise, without imposing conflicts.


----------



## protectionist

*XXXXXXXXXX*

As for the importance of saving the lives our pets, if you don't think it's as important as many of the silly things Congress does, maybe you shouldn't be a pet owner.


----------



## Uncensored2008

*xxxxxxxxxx*


----------



## protectionist

TNHarley said:


> fuckin big govt sucker
> if you cant afford a pet, dont get one.
> pretty fuckin simple
> quit bitchin and be responsible!
> givt is big enough!



*XXXXXXX*  We're talking about having pet insurance be the way people insurance is.  If it was that way (as it should be), then most pet owners COULD afford a pet.  GET IT ?
As for for your dumb idea of favoring a small, weak wimpy govt, I'll shred you on that in another thread, where that is the topic, not here.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice.  Make pet insurance just like people insurance.  Doctors get reimbursed, not patients.  Do it by govt regulation, if necessary.  Too many dogs and cats needing a home, and too many loving people willing to provide one, to do it any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I thought the OP was a joke. But if you're serious, that makes out even funnier, if somewhat disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government is never funny.
Click to expand...


Sounds like they've got YOU programmed.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing funny going on here, and *you're supposed to be disturbed* by what you've read. If you're not, I don't know what you could be thinking.
> How on earth could someone put millions of cat and dog pets dying needlessly, into the same framework as a _"joke"_.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle-eyes rolling around in head)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an opportunity for you to start a business, offering no-deductible, no out of pocket, pet insurance.
> 
> I'd be more likely to buy pet insurance if it were offered on that model. Right now, it's a rip off - so I don't buy it.
> 
> BUT, instead of bitching and demanding that big brother take care of your pet, do something constructive and offer an alternative.
> 
> Who knows, it might make you millions....
Click to expand...


I've already offered the alternative.  To simply have pet health insurance be handled the same way people health insurance is handled.  With care done first, and the doctor (veterinarian) reimbursed second.  Seems simple enough.    And my mission isn't to bitch. It is to promote helpful change.


----------



## protectionist

Politico said:


> Seeing as it is about insurance and controlling how a medical professional does business yes it is.



Like I said, in addition to making pet health insurance like human health insurance "Odoggycare (and Ocattycare) wouldn't be a bad idea. Some businesses need to be controlled for the PROTECTION of the American people (and our pets) .  So in that regard, I say go get'm govt. KICK ASS!


----------



## protectionist

emilynghiem said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK call a caucus for pet owners. set up a policy that represents pet owners. And invest in collective insurance program that all pet owners agree to per state or region or organization. if this is done FREELY and NOT BY FORCE OF LAW, then you will set a better example than what the schmucks are arguing about with people insurance. they couldn't resolve their conflicts and what ended up passing nobody wants to pay for but its forced.\
> 
> if you can do better, you can set up a model to follow. maybe policy schools or govt/law programs should pay to do this, and train mediators/admins there to come up with solutions. so whatever you arrive at FREELY thorugh your networks or entities, then other health care groups could model programs for people likewise, without imposing conflicts.
Click to expand...


Who's going to be IMPOSED on ?  *We pet owners* (and our pets) ? > by the veterinarian industry (led by their lobby, the AVMA), or:  *them *by us, through our elected representitives (AKA the govt).     I pick the latter.


----------



## Intense

*Moved to Pet Forum.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> I've already offered the alternative.



No you haven't, you've whined that daddy gubmint needs to take care of your every whim and want.

You've pouted and demanded - but that isn't offering anything.



> To simply have pet health insurance be handled the same way people health insurance is handled.



Then start a company and offer it that way.



> With care done first, and the doctor (veterinarian) reimbursed second.  Seems simple enough.    And my mission isn't to bitch. It is to promote helpful change.



Your mission is the extend your dependance on government.

If you want change, make a change.


----------



## Intense

*Thread Cleaned. Please try to keep it civil and on topic.*


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't dictated it, the forum has. Maybe you never read the USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations ?  Here's a sample of it for you >>  "Off-topic posts may be edited, trashed, deleted, or moved to an appropriate forum as per administrator & moderator discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub forum."  Get it ?
> 
> As for the importance of saving the lives our pets, if you don't think it's as important as many of the silly things Congress does, maybe you shouldn't be a pet owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Have you been hitting that "report post" button?
> 
> Doing so repeatedly makes you REAL popular with the mods, spunky....
Click to expand...


Yeah ?  well here's another quote for you from the USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations, since you don't seem to be too up on it >>  "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards."

Here's another >>  "Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period."

You might try just posting (within the rules), and not worry about what other posters are doing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> Yeah ?  well here's another quote for you from the USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations, since you don't seem to be too up on it >>  "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards."
> 
> Here's another >>  "Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period."
> 
> You might try just posting (within the rules), and not worry about what other posters are doing.



AOL is off that way pal...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> No you haven't, you've whined that daddy gubmint needs to take care of your every whim and want.


  What a lame post.  First you complain that I haven't offered alternative, and then in the same post, you quote the alternative that I offered.  (_"To simply have pet health insurance be handled the same way people health insurance is handled.")_
          Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)  Are you OK, dude ? I mean really.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Then start a company and offer it that way.


 Oh so that's what we should have to do ? in order to get a simple pet insurance policy operating on a normal sensible way, that doesn't cause millions of pets to suffer & die, huh ?  Are you nuts ?



> With care done first, and the doctor (veterinarian) reimbursed second.  Seems simple enough.    And my mission isn't to bitch. It is to promote helpful change.





Uncensored2008 said:


> Your mission is the extend your dependance on government.  If you want change, make a change.


  That's what we PAY elected officials to do, hadn't you heard ?  Obviously, you're a small govt freak.  Silly ideology, but you have a right to hold that opinion, but not in this thread, where it's off topic, and I'm getting tired of telling you about it. If I have to again , then yeah I will hit that report button.  Stay on topic, or find another thread.  Got it ?


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ?  well here's another quote for you from the USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations, since you don't seem to be too up on it >>  "No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards."
> 
> Here's another >>  "Members may NOT negatively impact the reputation of the same person more that 1 time in a 48 hour period."
> 
> You might try just posting (within the rules), and not worry about what other posters are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AOL is off that way pal...
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Click to expand...


Got no idea what this is supposed to mean.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> What a lame post.



What a useless troll of a poster you are. 

I assume you are about 12?



> First you complain that I haven't offered alternative, and then in the same post, you quote the alternative that I offered.  (_"To simply have pet health insurance be handled the same way people health insurance is handled.")_
> Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)  Are you OK, dude ? I mean really.



Then offer it, dumbfuck.

Instead - you demand that daddy gubmint take care of you.



> Oh so that's what we should have to do ?



Yes, that's what grown ups do.



> in order to get a simple pet insurance policy operating on a normal sensible way, that doesn't cause millions of pets to suffer & die, huh ?  Are you nuts ?



Every product or service there is, came about because someone saw a problem as an opportunity and offered a solution.



> That's what we PAY elected officials to do, hadn't you heard ?  Obviously, you're a small govt freak.  Silly ideology, but you have a right to hold that opinion, but not in this thread, where it's off topic, and I'm getting tired of telling you about it. If I have to again , then yeah I will hit that report button.  Stay on topic, or find another thread.  Got it ?



Obviously you are a child, looking for hand outs.

Fuck off now.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> Got no idea what this is supposed to mean.



It means that you're on the wrong board, shit fer brains.


----------



## Zoom-boing

protectionist said:


> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. *You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.*
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!




My vet will work out a payment plan if I don't have the cash on hand. Many will, just ask.

I can use a credit card to cover the vet cost then pay off your credit card.

Many vets (including mine) offer a credit card from them that, as long as you make monthly payments, you will not be charged interest.

Pet owners should put aside an amount every week/month/year for their pet's medical needs and for emergencies so when they need something expensive, the money is on hand to pay for it.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> What a useless troll of a poster you are. I assume you are about 12?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the way you talk, it hardly matters to me what you assume, but I'll let you know I'm 67, and I wonder if I should even bother talking to you AT ALL*.
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then offer it, dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah ?  And what if I don't want to "offer it", huh ?  So you think every time the American people get crapped on by a business sector and their running dog lobbyists, we should all go out and open a business, huh ?  I can see the Reaganists have got you programmed all the way.  Don't like the way we do govt here in the US ?  Guess what, Reagan clone (or is it clown?) > you have alternatives.  You could move. Let's see. How about Egypt ? Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like our govt either.  You might fit right in there, you think ?  Then there's always Syria.  Heard they've come up with a shortage of people there lately.  Or maybe you could do Palestine ?  There's a small govt for ya, huh ?  Bon Voyage!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got no idea what this is supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means that you're on the wrong board, shit fer brains.
Click to expand...


Obviously, this forum is highly tolerant of idiots who, incapable of expressing intelligent thought, instead resort to the barbarian level of hurling obscenities. 

You can do that all day.  But all you do is show everybody how little you have to say.  As for the board, any board is the right board for me, and from what I see so far here, it looks like any board is the wrong board for you, until you grow up, and at least get past the little boy bad word stage.     

BTW, Libertarians are nothing but Republicans who want to do drugs.


----------



## protectionist

Zoom-boing said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. *You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.*
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My vet will work out a payment plan if I don't have the cash on hand. Many will, just ask.
> 
> I can use a credit card to cover the vet cost then pay off your credit card.
> 
> Many vets (including mine) offer a credit card from them that, as long as you make monthly payments, you will not be charged interest.
> 
> Pet owners should put aside an amount every week/month/year for their pet's medical needs and for emergencies so when they need something expensive, the money is on hand to pay for it.
Click to expand...


I have gotten some payment slack from my vet too.  Also, I should note that the PetFirst insurance company offers a scenario in which if your vet allows a payment plan, you can then fax the invoice to PetFirst, and they will immediately reimburse you for the whole amount.  The you pay the vet in full, and make payments to PetFirst.  

Another one is the insurance that the ASPCA recently started.  On their claim form (you can see it online), there are 2 boxes.  One is to check for pet owner reimburse. Other is for veterinarian reimburse (same as people insurance).  Only problem is with this one, the vet has to OK it, and they generally don't (unless you can talk them into it)..

Best thing still would be for the whole industry to just do as people health insurance does.
The old story here.  If they choose to let us take the fall, we kick their ass with regulation.  If they ask for it - they get it.

Good suggestions you offer though. Thanks.


----------



## Zoom-boing

protectionist said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. *You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.*
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My vet will work out a payment plan if I don't have the cash on hand. Many will, just ask.
> 
> I can use a credit card to cover the vet cost then pay off your credit card.
> 
> Many vets (including mine) offer a credit card from them that, as long as you make monthly payments, you will not be charged interest.
> 
> Pet owners should put aside an amount every week/month/year for their pet's medical needs and for emergencies so when they need something expensive, the money is on hand to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have gotten some payment slack from my vet too.  Also, I should note that the PetFirst insurance company offers a scenario in which if your vet allows a payment plan, you can then fax the invoice to PetFirst, and they will immediately reimburse you for the whole amount.  The you pay the vet in full, and make payments to PetFirst.
> 
> Another one is the insurance that the ASPCA recently started.  On their claim form (you can see it online), there are 2 boxes.  One is to check for pet owner reimburse. Other is for veterinarian reimburse (same as people insurance).  Only problem is with this one, the vet has to OK it, and they generally don't (unless you can talk them into it)..
> 
> Best thing still would be for the whole industry to just do as people health insurance does.
> The old story here.  If they choose to let us take the fall, we kick their ass with regulation.  If they ask for it - they get it.
> 
> Good suggestions you offer though. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not in favor of the government running health exchanges for people so I'd be against it for pets as well.

Oh, if the pet insurance will only reimburse the owner and not the vet, the owner could charge the expense on a credit card then pay if off when they get the insurance check.


----------



## tinydancer

Pet insurance is awesome.

I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.

Not understanding these responses at all.


----------



## tinydancer

protectionist said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't, you've whined that daddy gubmint needs to take care of your every whim and want.
> 
> 
> 
> What a lame post.  First you complain that I haven't offered alternative, and then in the same post, you quote the alternative that I offered.  (_"To simply have pet health insurance be handled the same way people health insurance is handled.")_
> Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)  Are you OK, dude ? I mean really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then start a company and offer it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so that's what we should have to do ? in order to get a simple pet insurance policy operating on a normal sensible way, that doesn't cause millions of pets to suffer & die, huh ?  Are you nuts ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With care done first, and the doctor (veterinarian) reimbursed second.  Seems simple enough.    And my mission isn't to bitch. It is to promote helpful change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your mission is the extend your dependance on government.  If you want change, make a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what we PAY elected officials to do, hadn't you heard ?  Obviously, you're a small govt freak.  Silly ideology, but you have a right to hold that opinion, but not in this thread, where it's off topic, and I'm getting tired of telling you about it. If I have to again , then yeah I will hit that report button.  Stay on topic, or find another thread.  Got it ?
Click to expand...


Cool avie by the way.


----------



## tinydancer

Look guys when I became a catahoula breeder it made total sense that I bought pet insurance.

My insurance plan was private. Not sure where you are getting the whole "government thingy" As a breeder I thought it was wise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

tinydancer said:


> Look guys when I became a catahoula breeder it made total sense that I bought pet insurance.
> 
> My insurance plan was private. Not sure where you are getting the whole "government thingy" As a breeder I thought it was wise.



The new little guy is another Obamunist moron wanting the government to do everything for him, including insuring his pets.

A no cash out of pocket plan makes sense, and would probably sell. But instead of demanding that Dear Leader give this to him, he can crow up and start the business himself.


----------



## protectionist

Zoom-boing said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> My vet will work out a payment plan if I don't have the cash on hand. Many will, just ask.
> 
> I can use a credit card to cover the vet cost then pay off your credit card.
> 
> Many vets (including mine) offer a credit card from them that, as long as you make monthly payments, you will not be charged interest.
> 
> Pet owners should put aside an amount every week/month/year for their pet's medical needs and for emergencies so when they need something expensive, the money is on hand to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have gotten some payment slack from my vet too.  Also, I should note that the PetFirst insurance company offers a scenario in which if your vet allows a payment plan, you can then fax the invoice to PetFirst, and they will immediately reimburse you for the whole amount.  The you pay the vet in full, and make payments to PetFirst.
> 
> Another one is the insurance that the ASPCA recently started.  On their claim form (you can see it online), there are 2 boxes.  One is to check for pet owner reimburse. Other is for veterinarian reimburse (same as people insurance).  Only problem is with this one, the vet has to OK it, and they generally don't (unless you can talk them into it)..
> 
> Best thing still would be for the whole industry to just do as people health insurance does.
> The old story here.  If they choose to let us take the fall, we kick their ass with regulation.  If they ask for it - they get it.
> 
> Good suggestions you offer though. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not in favor of the government running health exchanges for people so I'd be against it for pets as well.
> 
> Oh, if the pet insurance will only reimburse the owner and not the vet, the owner could charge the expense on a credit card then pay if off when they get the insurance check.
Click to expand...


Sure, for credit card holders that's feasible.  But lots of people don't have a credit card and can't get one.  In fact, most people have bad credit (at least as defined by the credit reporting agencies - white collar hitmen)  Not a single person I know is capable of getting a credit card.  This all is why 1% of pet owners have pet insurance.


----------



## protectionist

tinydancer said:


> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.



What's so hard to understand.  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of dollars) to pay up front for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?


----------



## protectionist

tinydancer said:


> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.



What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
Click to expand...


Yep. That's the way it works. if you don't have the money for food, your pet starves too.


----------



## protectionist

tinydancer said:


> Look guys when I became a catahoula breeder it made total sense that I bought pet insurance.
> 
> My insurance plan was private. Not sure where you are getting the whole "government thingy" As a breeder I thought it was wise.



As with any govt regulation, it only comes when private companies refuse to act responsibly, and thereby HARM the public.  If that were not the case, nobody would be talking about govt here.  I'm still working on getting the private sector to shape though, starting with the AVMA, and am waiting for a call back from them.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the way it works. if you don't have the money for food, your pet starves too.
Click to expand...


We all KNOW the way it works.  Fixing it, is the topic under consideration.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look guys when I became a catahoula breeder it made total sense that I bought pet insurance.
> 
> My insurance plan was private. Not sure where you are getting the whole "government thingy" As a breeder I thought it was wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new little guy is another Obamunist moron wanting the government to do everything for him, including insuring his pets.
> 
> A no cash out of pocket plan makes sense, and would probably sell. But instead of demanding that Dear Leader give this to him, he can crow up and start the business himself.
Click to expand...


*FALSE!*  Taking a reading comprehension course might be useful before entering this forum.  The OP suggests that pet health insurance be done as people health insurance is done. * Care is given first*  Then, doctor is reimbursed.  Notice, no mention of Obama or govt.  GOT IT NOW ?  All this other stuff you're bringing up is nothing but ramifications of your *OFF TOPIC* fixation with Reaganism.


----------



## syrenn

I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them. 

there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved.... 

unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
Click to expand...


and tell me..... what makes you think the pet will live even after the thousands of dollars you spend? 

got it?


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the way it works. if you don't have the money for food, your pet starves too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all KNOW the way it works.  Fixing it, is the topic under consideration.
Click to expand...


Hmm... well, I guess what you aren't comprehending here is that many of us don't see anything to 'fix'. You're bumping up against one of the realities of life - you have to take care of your pets. Some people bump against this same reality when it comes to taking care of themselves and cry foul - which is why we have the stupid policies we do regarding health insurance for humans, but that's no reason to extend the stupidity in to other areas.

If you think it is a good thing to do regardless, than I have to ask you - why not do this for every other situation we find ourselves in where we have to face unpleasant reality when we can't afford what we want? Should the government make sure we never have to suffer? Should the state feed and cloth us? Should it provide us with everything we need? Where are we going with this ultimately?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so hard to understand.  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of dollars) to pay up front for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
Click to expand...


Life sucks, doesn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look guys when I became a catahoula breeder it made total sense that I bought pet insurance.
> 
> My insurance plan was private. Not sure where you are getting the whole "government thingy" As a breeder I thought it was wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new little guy is another Obamunist moron wanting the government to do everything for him, including insuring his pets.
> 
> A no cash out of pocket plan makes sense, and would probably sell. But instead of demanding that Dear Leader give this to him, he can crow up and start the business himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *FALSE!*  Taking a reading comprehension course might be useful before entering this forum.  The OP suggests that pet health insurance be done as people health insurance is done. * Care is given first*  Then, doctor is reimbursed.  Notice, no mention of Obama or govt.  GOT IT NOW ?  All this other stuff you're bringing up is nothing but ramifications of your *OFF TOPIC* fixation with Reaganism.
Click to expand...



That is not how health insurance works, that is how hospitals work. Insurance is designed to repay you for your expenses, even if you are talking about health insurance.

It isn't your fault though, no one ever taught you how to think.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.



THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and tell me..... what makes you think the pet will live even after the thousands of dollars you spend?
> 
> got it?
Click to expand...


The diagnosis of the veterinarian + the experience that other pets survived with the surgery, and others without it, didn't.  That's pretty much what all surgeries are based on.  Got it ?


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance. ...
Click to expand...


Maybe you should catch up on the news. The reason people keep yammering about government is because it's become centrally involved in 'people insurance' - so if you want pet insurance to follow that lead, you're invoking the specter of government.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the way it works. if you don't have the money for food, your pet starves too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all KNOW the way it works.  Fixing it, is the topic under consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... well, I guess what you aren't comprehending here is that many of us don't see anything to 'fix'. You're bumping up against one of the realities of life - you have to take care of your pets. Some people bump against this same reality when it comes to taking care of themselves and cry foul - which is why we have the stupid policies we do regarding health insurance for humans, but that's no reason to extend the stupidity in to other areas.
> 
> If you think it is a good thing to do regardless, than I have to ask you - why not do this for every other situation we find ourselves in where we have to face unpleasant reality when we can't afford what we want? Should the government make sure we never have to suffer? Should the state feed and cloth us? Should it provide us with everything we need? Where are we going with this ultimately?
Click to expand...


Another weird post among others like it in this thread.

1.  You don't see anything to fix.  SO you think it's OK for your pet to die, simply so that your vet could be paid upfront, instead of waiting a week or 2 for the insurance reimbursement to come in (as it is with people health insurance) ?   Pheeeww! (high-pitched whistle)

2.  What's wrong with taking care of your pet, the same way you take care of yourself.  with health insurance that allows the care to come first,?  (THEN the payment to the vet from the insurance)

3.  With pet insurance done like people insurance we CAN afford what we want.  No need to talk about what we can't afford.

4.  Yes, of course, the govt should make sure we never have to suffer (American citizens that is).  That's what we created it for.  Of course it should provide us with everything we NEED, but now you're going OFF TOPIC and into another thread. * This thread is about the way veterinarians get paid - by us upfront, or by pet insurance a week later.* (and the millions of pets who are dying because it not being done the latter way).


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pet insurance is awesome.
> 
> I made sure I took it out when I became a breeder.
> 
> Not understanding these responses at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so hard to understand.  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of dollars) to pay up front for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


That's why we speak out to change it to how it won't suck.  And sometimes (not always) it takes a little govt action to make those changes.


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> 4.  Yes, of course, the govt should make sure we never have to suffer (American citizens that is).  That's what we created it for.  Of course it should provide us with everything we NEED, but now you're going OFF TOPIC and into another thread.



That's what I figured. No, we didn't create government to provide us with everything we need. We created it to protect our freedom and make it possible for us to pursue our own wants and needs.



> * This thread is about the way veterinarians get paid - by us upfront, or by pet insurance a week later.* (and the millions of pets who are dying because it not being done the latter way).



Frankly, I find your preoccupation with pet welfare a good deal more strange than the responses in this thread.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new little guy is another Obamunist moron wanting the government to do everything for him, including insuring his pets.
> 
> A no cash out of pocket plan makes sense, and would probably sell. But instead of demanding that Dear Leader give this to him, he can crow up and start the business himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE!*  Taking a reading comprehension course might be useful before entering this forum.  The OP suggests that pet health insurance be done as people health insurance is done. * Care is given first*  Then, doctor is reimbursed.  Notice, no mention of Obama or govt.  GOT IT NOW ?  All this other stuff you're bringing up is nothing but ramifications of your *OFF TOPIC* fixation with Reaganism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how health insurance works, that is how hospitals work. Insurance is designed to repay you for your expenses, even if you are talking about health insurance.
> 
> It isn't your fault though, no one ever taught you how to think.
Click to expand...


*FALSE!* again.  That IS how health insurance works.  You get care,and the insurance pays the doctor, the hospital, the nurse, or whoever.  The one person who does NOT get paid is YOU.  Got it now ?  And your snide remarks only make you look even more stupid than your idiotic post.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should catch up on the news. The reason people keep yammering about government is because it's become centrally involved in 'people insurance' - so if you want pet insurance to follow that lead, you're invoking the specter of government.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should catch up on this thread.  Like the quote you quoted for this very post of yours.  Here it is again, since once doesn't seem to be quite enough.

_"THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  *The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance*"_ (insofar as the health workers being reimbursed, not us) THIS is the only "lead" I'M talking about, and it has nothing to do with govt.


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> _"THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  *The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance*"_



Does that include being heavily regulated and subsidized by government? Because that's how 'people insurance' works, so government is very much a part of the discussion.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Yes, of course, the govt should make sure we never have to suffer (American citizens that is).  That's what we created it for.  Of course it should provide us with everything we NEED, but now you're going OFF TOPIC and into another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I figured. No, we didn't create government to provide us with everything we need. We created it to protect our freedom and make it possible for us to pursue our own wants and needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * This thread is about the way veterinarians get paid - by us upfront, or by pet insurance a week later.* (and the millions of pets who are dying because it not being done the latter way).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, I find your preoccupation with pet welfare a good deal more strange than the responses in this thread.
Click to expand...


1.  "pursue our....needs"  Sounds a lot like "provide us with everything we NEED" (if/whenever we fall short of providing ourselves with those needs).  Sounds like you agree with me.  And before you say no you don't, think about what you might do if you get into a car accident, and you are paralyzed from the neck down, and then requires personal & medical care 24/7, for the rest of your life  (and of course your illustrious HMO drops you like a hot potato)

2.  Frankly,  I find your lack of concern for pet welfare and pet owner welfare, a good deal more strange than many things I've seen in ANY thread.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  *The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance*"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include being heavily regulated and subsidized by government? Because that's how 'people insurance' works, so government is very much a part of the discussion.
Click to expand...


It includes what I told you 15 times already, what it includes >>  *for veterinarians to be reimbursed by pet insurers (instead of pet owners), thereby allowing the medical care to proceed immediately, and to proceed at all.*  I've repeatedly said this is the primary point of the discussion, of the OP, and everything I've said since, so why do you keep blabbing about the govt ?   It may be that the AVMA will change it's pet insurance policy and verterinarians may well follow that, and govt, may well never enter the picture.
Did you read the OP ?  If not, read it.

If you (and others in this thread) have some kind of negative obsession with govt involvement, how about taking it to another thread, and get off my ass, because I just want to discuss releasing pet owners from having to pay veterinarians up front, and letting pet insurance reimburse them, that's all.  Get it ?


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
Click to expand...


what part are YOU not understanding.... there already IS pet insurance out there to purchase? Ever try using that computer of yours to do something other then bitch and moan? 

here are the top ten...  

10 Best Pet Insurance Companies | Consumer's Advocate


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's hard to understand ?  *If you don't have the money* (thousands of $$) to pay upfront for surgery, your pet dies.  Got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and tell me..... what makes you think the pet will live even after the thousands of dollars you spend?
> 
> got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The diagnosis of the veterinarian + the experience that other pets survived with the surgery, and others without it, didn't.  That's pretty much what all surgeries are based on.  Got it ?
Click to expand...


Again, not all pets survive...even after many surgeries and thousands of dollars spent....based on veterinarian advice..... they STILL may die. 

got it yet?


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE!*  Taking a reading comprehension course might be useful before entering this forum.  The OP suggests that pet health insurance be done as people health insurance is done. * Care is given first*  Then, doctor is reimbursed.  Notice, no mention of Obama or govt.  GOT IT NOW ?  All this other stuff you're bringing up is nothing but ramifications of your *OFF TOPIC* fixation with Reaganism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how health insurance works, that is how hospitals work. Insurance is designed to repay you for your expenses, even if you are talking about health insurance.
> 
> It isn't your fault though, no one ever taught you how to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *FALSE!* again.  That IS how health insurance works.  You get care,and the insurance pays the doctor, the hospital, the nurse, or whoever.  The one person who does NOT get paid is YOU.  Got it now ?  And your snide remarks only make you look even more stupid than your idiotic post.
Click to expand...



 

really? 

i guess you really do no nothing about how heath insurance works....  

This is how it works.... your doctors office calls the insurance company for pre approval of payment before they lift a finger....  You just don't get to walk in and have any surgery you want. 

That is the doctor making sure he is getting his money before you get your treatment.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what part are YOU not understanding.... there already IS pet insurance out there to purchase? Ever try using that computer of yours to do something other then bitch and moan?
> 
> here are the top ten...
> 
> 10 Best Pet Insurance Companies | Consumer's Advocate
Click to expand...


What part of the OP are YOU not understanding. try reading it, then come back and talk, OK ?


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and tell me..... what makes you think the pet will live even after the thousands of dollars you spend?
> 
> got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diagnosis of the veterinarian + the experience that other pets survived with the surgery, and others without it, didn't.  That's pretty much what all surgeries are based on.  Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not all pets survive...even after many surgeries and thousands of dollars spent....based on veterinarian advice..... they STILL may die.
> 
> got it yet?
Click to expand...


I've had it all along.  You are the one that seems to be having difficulty. Have you even read the OP ?  Do you know what this thread is about ? If so, why are you telling me there is pet insurance available ?


----------



## Sunshine

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
Click to expand...


Veterinarians are mercenary.  If you can't afford a pet, don't get one.   I will not spend thousands on a sick animal.  It is a pet.  Not a child.  I will have my cat put down if she gets sick enough to cost me a small fortune.


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part are YOU not understanding.... there already IS pet insurance out there to purchase? Ever try using that computer of yours to do something other then bitch and moan?
> 
> here are the top ten...
> 
> 10 Best Pet Insurance Companies | Consumer's Advocate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the OP are YOU not understanding. try reading it, then come back and talk, OK ?
Click to expand...



LOL....  

you just keep beating that dumb drum dont you....


Pet Credit Card - Veterinary Payment Options | CareCredit


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how health insurance works, that is how hospitals work. Insurance is designed to repay you for your expenses, even if you are talking about health insurance.
> 
> It isn't your fault though, no one ever taught you how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE!* again.  That IS how health insurance works.  You get care,and the insurance pays the doctor, the hospital, the nurse, or whoever.  The one person who does NOT get paid is YOU.  Got it now ?  And your snide remarks only make you look even more stupid than your idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> i guess you really do no nothing about how heath insurance works....  This is how it works.... your doctors office calls the insurance company for pre approval of payment before they lift a finger....  You just don't get to walk in and have any surgery you want.
> That is the doctor making sure he is getting his money before you get your treatment.
Click to expand...


And maybe you'd care to tell us how that differs in any way from what I've said.  You think I don't know that  the doctors office calls the insurance company for pre-approval of payment before they lift a finger ?  Of course. That's understood. So what ? That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.  I've been saying that the way veterinarians should work is to (like people health insurance) have the care done first (of course this is dependent on checking the insurance), and then the vet gets reimbursed after the job is done, INSTEAD OF the pet owner who has pet insurance, having to pay upfront before any care is given to the pet.  Got it now ?  Pheeeeew! (high-pitched whistle)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
Click to expand...


  You arethe one that wants a law, that makes this about the government.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same about pets as i do about children.... don't have them if you cant afford to care for them.
> 
> there ARE pet insurance plans out there now.... why on earth does the government need to be involved....
> 
> unless this is just a double entendre about obamacare you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You arethe one that wants a law, that makes this about the government.
Click to expand...


Let's put this in its proper time frame.

1.  I want the AVMA to change its policy of pet insurance reimbursement to pet owners (rather than veterinarians).

2.  I want veterianarians to OK reimbursment TO THEM from pet insurers.

3.  IF these did not come about over some length of time, and it appeared they could not , THEN yes, I would favor the govt stepping in and requiring it as a regulation.  So what ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance.  Because when it comes to health insurance, we cannot _"feel the same about pets"_ as we do for children, because they're not treated the same.  Children can have needed surgeries to save their lives, with us paying for these surgeries out of our pockets. Pets can't.  A bit weird that this far into the thread, I have to keep repeating this, only to have people instead talking about Obamacare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You arethe one that wants a law, that makes this about the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put this in its proper time frame.
> 
> 1.  I want the AVMA to change its policy of pet insurance reimbursement to pet owners (rather than veterinarians).
> 
> 2.  I want veterianarians to OK reimbursment TO THEM from pet insurers.
> 
> 3.  IF these did not come about over some length of time, and it appeared they could not , THEN yes, I would favor the govt stepping in and requiring it as a regulation.  So what ?
Click to expand...


That is a wonderful idea, lets put this in perspective.


The AMA doesn't have a policy on pet insurance. Super Ultra Fail
They do. Fail
You want the government involved to fix things that are not a problem.Super Fail
You started this thread by making it about the government, and then complained when people objected to the government being involved in something that is none of the government's business. Massively stupid fail
Want some more perspective, just ask.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You arethe one that wants a law, that makes this about the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this in its proper time frame.
> 
> 1.  I want the AVMA to change its policy of pet insurance reimbursement to pet owners (rather than veterinarians).
> 
> 2.  I want veterianarians to OK reimbursment TO THEM from pet insurers.
> 
> 3.  IF these did not come about over some length of time, and it appeared they could not , THEN yes, I would favor the govt stepping in and requiring it as a regulation.  So what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a wonderful idea, lets put this in perspective.
> 
> 
> The AMA doesn't have a policy on pet insurance. Super Ultra Fail
> They do. Fail
> You want the government involved to fix things that are not a problem.Super Fail
> You started this thread by making it about the government, and then complained when people objected to the government being involved in something that is none of the government's business. Massively stupid fail
> Want some more perspective, just ask.
Click to expand...


1.  I'll ask you to exercise some halfway decent reading comprehension.  I said nothing about the AMA, so why are you talking about them ? (other than your _"Super Ultra Fail"_ to address what I said about the AVMA (American *Veterinary *Medical Association)

2.  They do, do they ?  Well, you find me some veterinarians in the north Tampa, Florida area who "do", and I'll be very grateful to you. But up to now you haven't done that,  right ?  Right, QW ?  Right ?  Right ?  LOL.

3..  You call millions of cats and dogs suffering and dying needlessly _"not a problem"_ ?  I call it a problem.  If/whenever it might become clear that the AVMA and the veterinarians and pet insurers are not going to change their requirements for pet owners to pay up front before any surgery could proceed, then yes, WE the people will step in with OUR govt to protect ourselves and our pets.  And I can assure you that a bunch of ragtag, anti-govt crazies are not going to stand in the way.
*
4..  PROTECTION of the American people (that includes our pets)* is not only OUR govt's business, it is OUR govt's # 1 priority, 24/7.  

5..  Want some more perspective, just ask.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> Maybe you should catch up on this thread.  Like the quote you quoted for this very post of yours.  Here it is again, since once doesn't seem to be quite enough.
> 
> _"THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  *The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance*"_ (insofar as the health workers being reimbursed, not us) THIS is the only "lead" I'M talking about, and it has nothing to do with govt.



Nice try at moving the goal posts, spunky - now that you've been crushed in the debate. 

But YOU came in here demanding a law (that would be government, for the democrats on the thread...) that forced pet insurance to follow the model you desire. 

I fairly politically suggested that you take a market approach instead, and you came unglued...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this in its proper time frame.
> 
> 1.  I want the AVMA to change its policy of pet insurance reimbursement to pet owners (rather than veterinarians).
> 
> 2.  I want veterianarians to OK reimbursment TO THEM from pet insurers.
> 
> 3.  IF these did not come about over some length of time, and it appeared they could not , THEN yes, I would favor the govt stepping in and requiring it as a regulation.  So what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a wonderful idea, lets put this in perspective.
> 
> 
> The AMA doesn't have a policy on pet insurance. Super Ultra Fail
> They do. Fail
> You want the government involved to fix things that are not a problem.Super Fail
> You started this thread by making it about the government, and then complained when people objected to the government being involved in something that is none of the government's business. Massively stupid fail
> Want some more perspective, just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I'll ask you to exercise some halfway decent reading comprehension.  I said nothing about the AMA, so why are you talking about them ? (other than your _"Super Ultra Fail"_ to address what I said about the AVMA (American *Veterinary *Medical Association)
> 
> 2.  They do, do they ?  Well, you find me some veterinarians in the north Tampa, Florida area who "do", and I'll be very grateful to you. But up to now you haven't done that,  right ?  Right, QW ?  Right ?  Right ?  LOL.
> 
> 3..  You call millions of cats and dogs suffering and dying needlessly _"not a problem"_ ?  I call it a problem.  If/whenever it might become clear that the AVMA and the veterinarians and pet insurers are not going to change their requirements for pet owners to pay up front before any surgery could proceed, then yes, WE the people will step in with OUR govt to protect ourselves and our pets.  And I can assure you that a bunch of ragtag, anti-govt crazies are not going to stand in the way.
> *
> 4..  PROTECTION of the American people (that includes our pets)* is not only OUR govt's business, it is OUR govt's # 1 priority, 24/7.
> 
> 5..  Want some more perspective, just ask.
Click to expand...




You don't know the difference between the AVMA and the AMA, and you think that makes me stupid. Super ultra stupid mega fail.
Why should I make your life easier? The ASPCA has a locator for vets that take insurance for the incompetent people that can't use a phone, or the internet. Mega fail
I call whining about the government not making it harder on people not a problem. Mega ultra fail
The government does not exist to protect anyone, just ask them. Ultra stupid mega ultra fail
Can't even ask for perspective, beyond fail.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a wonderful idea, lets put this in perspective.
> 
> 
> The AMA doesn't have a policy on pet insurance. Super Ultra Fail
> They do. Fail
> You want the government involved to fix things that are not a problem.Super Fail
> You started this thread by making it about the government, and then complained when people objected to the government being involved in something that is none of the government's business. Massively stupid fail
> Want some more perspective, just ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I'll ask you to exercise some halfway decent reading comprehension.  I said nothing about the AMA, so why are you talking about them ? (other than your _"Super Ultra Fail"_ to address what I said about the AVMA (American *Veterinary *Medical Association)
> 
> 2.  They do, do they ?  Well, you find me some veterinarians in the north Tampa, Florida area who "do", and I'll be very grateful to you. But up to now you haven't done that,  right ?  Right, QW ?  Right ?  Right ?  LOL.
> 
> 3..  You call millions of cats and dogs suffering and dying needlessly _"not a problem"_ ?  I call it a problem.  If/whenever it might become clear that the AVMA and the veterinarians and pet insurers are not going to change their requirements for pet owners to pay up front before any surgery could proceed, then yes, WE the people will step in with OUR govt to protect ourselves and our pets.  And I can assure you that a bunch of ragtag, anti-govt crazies are not going to stand in the way.
> *
> 4..  PROTECTION of the American people (that includes our pets)* is not only OUR govt's business, it is OUR govt's # 1 priority, 24/7.
> 
> 5..  Want some more perspective, just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between the AVMA and the AMA, and you think that makes me stupid. Super ultra stupid mega fail.
> Why should I make your life easier? The ASPCA has a locator service for vets that take insurance for the incompetent people that can't use a phone, or the intern. Mega fail
> I call whining about the government not making it harder on people not a problem. Mega ultra fail
> The government does not exist to protect anyone, just ask them. Ultra stupid mega ultra fail
> Can't even ask for perspective, beyond fail.
Click to expand...


1.  HA HA HA.  Whatever gave you the idea I don't know the difference between the AMA (American Medical Assn) and the AVMA (American Veterinarian Medical Assn) ?   Oh, this is going beyond foolish and into the realm of bizzare, now. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

2.  SO now you talk about the ASPCA having what ? > a _"locator service for vets that take insurance for the incompetent people that can't use a phone, or the intern"_  What on earth (even if its true) does that have to do with anything I'm talking about ?  I notice you have a habit of throwing these weird, irrelevant things into the discussion.  Strange.  
   Well, getting back to the actual discussion, I spoke to the ASPCA a few days ago, and the new pet insurance they just came out with is just like all the others>  Pet owners pay up front and get reimbursed later, IF they have the thousands of $$$ to do that.  And as I explained in Post #    , they also have 2 boxes to check to delineate between pet owner reimbursement or veterinarian reimbursement, BUT, as  I previously stated, the vet reimbursement choice is entirely dependent upon the veterinarian giving his/her OK, heavily influenced by the policy of the AVMA, which is still against that.

3.  Your third statement doesn't make enough sense (or ANY send) to allow for a response.

4.  You have a very distorted conception of the purpose of govt. As I said* the # 1 priority of govt is the PROTECTION of the public. * (police, courts, prisons, laws, regulatory agencies, etc)  Maybe somewhere along this discussion you'll reveal to us the real dog you have in this fight.  Own a business ? Have lots of stocks ? Maybe you're even deeply involved in one that kills people in order to boost profits (ex. Merck with Vioxx), and you view the protection that the govt provides as an obstacle.  That would make sense.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should catch up on this thread.  Like the quote you quoted for this very post of yours.  Here it is again, since once doesn't seem to be quite enough.
> 
> _"THE GOVERNMENT is NOT the primary point of this thread, So why does everyone keep yammering about it ?  *The primary point is for pet insurance to simply be like people insurance*"_ (insofar as the health workers being reimbursed, not us) THIS is the only "lead" I'M talking about, and it has nothing to do with govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try at moving the goal posts, spunky - now that you've been crushed in the debate.
> 
> But YOU came in here demanding a law (that would be government, for the democrats on the thread...) that forced pet insurance to follow the model you desire.
> 
> I fairly politically suggested that you take a market approach instead, and you came unglued...
Click to expand...


Just can't seem to quite get a location on those goalposts, can you ?  Well, Mr, Hate the Government, I hope this doesn't make you sick, but OF COURSE I demand a law that would force pet insurance industry to reimburse animal doctors, just as people insurance reimburses people doctors.  OF COURSE I demand that.  So should everybody else, and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree, if they simply were more aware of the issue.  But then they are not anti-govt zealots, out on the lunatic fringe, to the point of endangering lives of people and pets alike, just to enrich themselves or preserve their stock portfolios, or whatever other loon perspective they have.

So I should take a "market approach" should I ? HA HA HA.  Well I took a "market approach" when I owned my own business for 12 years , and did quite well with that.  But the trouble with market approaches are they are good for ONE thing > marketing a product.  But we're not talking about marketing a product, now are we ?  No, we're talking about trying to get your pet into surgery to save his life, are you still having trouble getting that ?  Pheeeeeeww!!  (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

  PS - maybe you'd like to take a "market approach" (letting things take their course and doing nothing to interfere), when a HURRICANE comes along ?  The people in New Orleans found out how good that is a few years ago with Hurricane Katrina.  Market approach.  Gag!!!


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!



If you can't afford a pet then don't have one.  It's that simple.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> 1.  HA HA HA.  Whatever gave you the idea I don't know the difference between the AMA (American Medical Assn) and the AVMA (American Veterinarian Medical Assn) ?   Oh, this is going beyond foolish and into the realm of bizzare, now. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)



The fact that you want the AMA to change its policies regarding how veterinarians accept payment was my first clue. 

What makes you think you know the difference?



protectionist said:


> 2.  SO now you talk about the ASPCA having what ? > a _"locator service for vets that take insurance for the incompetent people that can't use a phone, or the intern"_  What on earth (even if its true) does that have to do with anything I'm talking about ?  I notice you have a habit of throwing these weird, irrelevant things into the discussion.  Strange.
> Well, getting back to the actual discussion, I spoke to the ASPCA a few days ago, and the new pet insurance they just came out with is just like all the others>  Pet owners pay up front and get reimbursed later, IF they have the thousands of $$$ to do that.  And as I explained in Post #    , they also have 2 boxes to check to delineate between pet owner reimbursement or veterinarian reimbursement, BUT, as  I previously stated, the vet reimbursement choice is entirely dependent upon the veterinarian giving his/her OK, heavily influenced by the policy of the AVMA, which is still against that.



That is how human health insurance works, what's your point?

That's right, your point is that you are stupid.



protectionist said:


> 3.  Your third statement doesn't make enough sense (or ANY send) to allow for a response.



It doesn't make sense because you can't think clearly.

You actually believe the government has to fix things, even if they actually work.



protectionist said:


> 4.  You have a very distorted conception of the purpose of govt. As I said* the # 1 priority of govt is the PROTECTION of the public. * (police, courts, prisons, laws, regulatory agencies, etc)  Maybe somewhere along this discussion you'll reveal to us the real dog you have in this fight.  Own a business ? Have lots of stocks ? Maybe you're even deeply involved in one that kills people in order to boost profits (ex. Merck with Vioxx), and you view the protection that the govt provides as an obstacle.  That would make sense.



You can say it one million times, it won't change the fact that the government is not proactive, they are reactive. They have to react, they have no way to predict the future. Until they do their number one job will not be to protect people, it will be to provide an unneeded, and useless, product to people by stealing their money, and giving them nothing in return.


----------



## earlycuyler

Quantum Windbag said:


> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.



What?wait, that's to simple. May ap we should fight about it some to be sure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

earlycuyler said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what we need, more whinging.
> 
> My advice, if you can't afford to pay the bills, don't get a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?wait, that's to simple. May ap we should fight about it some to be sure.
Click to expand...


He tried.


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford a pet then don't have one.  It's that simple.
Click to expand...


And as I said before twice, we CAN afford, if they did what I said in the OP.  Quite simple. If you read the thread, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.


----------



## protectionist

=


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  HA HA HA.  Whatever gave you the idea I don't know the difference between the AMA (American Medical Assn) and the AVMA (American Veterinarian Medical Assn) ?   Oh, this is going beyond foolish and into the realm of bizzare, now. Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you want the AMA to change its policies regarding how veterinarians accept payment was my first clue.
> 
> What makes you think you know the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  SO now you talk about the ASPCA having what ? > a _"locator service for vets that take insurance for the incompetent people that can't use a phone, or the intern"_  What on earth (even if its true) does that have to do with anything I'm talking about ?  I notice you have a habit of throwing these weird, irrelevant things into the discussion.  Strange.
> Well, getting back to the actual discussion, I spoke to the ASPCA a few days ago, and the new pet insurance they just came out with is just like all the others>  Pet owners pay up front and get reimbursed later, IF they have the thousands of $$$ to do that.  And as I explained in Post #    , they also have 2 boxes to check to delineate between pet owner reimbursement or veterinarian reimbursement, BUT, as  I previously stated, the vet reimbursement choice is entirely dependent upon the veterinarian giving his/her OK, heavily influenced by the policy of the AVMA, which is still against that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is how human health insurance works, what's your point?
> 
> That's right, your point is that you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your third statement doesn't make enough sense (or ANY send) to allow for a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make sense because you can't think clearly.
> 
> You actually believe the government has to fix things, even if they actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  You have a very distorted conception of the purpose of govt. As I said* the # 1 priority of govt is the PROTECTION of the public. * (police, courts, prisons, laws, regulatory agencies, etc)  Maybe somewhere along this discussion you'll reveal to us the real dog you have in this fight.  Own a business ? Have lots of stocks ? Maybe you're even deeply involved in one that kills people in order to boost profits (ex. Merck with Vioxx), and you view the protection that the govt provides as an obstacle.  That would make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say it one million times, it won't change the fact that the government is not proactive, they are reactive. They have to react, they have no way to predict the future. Until they do their number one job will not be to protect people, it will be to provide an unneeded, and useless, product to people by stealing their money, and giving them nothing in return.
Click to expand...


1.  This is an INFERIOR forum.  First of all, the posters I'm hearing from a bunch of idiots., Secondly, the reply boxes are all screwed up with too much in them, and everything all jumbled up together. If you saw a normal forum, you'd know what I mean.  

2.  Hard to believe you're still talking to me about the AMA. Are you retarded ?  Read Post # 78 AGAIN  >>  _"I said nothing about the AMA, so why are you talking about them ? (other than your "Super Ultra Fail" to address what I said about the AVMA (American *Veterinary *Medical Association)"_

3.  No, it doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.

4.  I believe the govt should fix things that DON'T work properly, like pet owners having to fork over thousands of dollars to veterianrians, before any care will be given to their pets.  How many times does it take for this to register with you ?

5.  Your anti-govt perspective is quite unimpressive.  It's stupid, biased (for whatever your reason), and utter NONSENSE. OK, we got it. You don't like the govt. 10-4.  Message received. Now if I give you a dollar, will you go away ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford a pet then don't have one.  It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I said before twice, we CAN afford, if they did what I said in the OP.  Quite simple. If you read the thread, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...


You keep repeating yourself because you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> 1.  This is an INFERIOR forum.  First of all, the posters I'm hearing from a bunch of idiots., Secondly, the reply boxes are all screwed up with too much in them, and everything all jumbled up together. If you saw a normal forum, you'd know what I mean.



Inferior to what?

It is amazing that so many people come here, say this place is inferior, yet stay. Could it be that they are all full of shit? My guess is that your version of intelligence works best on places like Democratic Underground, not places where people actually think.


----------



## MikeK

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Why?  

It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing. 

If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.

There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MikeK said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
Click to expand...


The "arrangement" he is talking about exists because the government invented Medicare and Medicaid.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  This is an INFERIOR forum.  First of all, the posters I'm hearing from a bunch of idiots., Secondly, the reply boxes are all screwed up with too much in them, and everything all jumbled up together. If you saw a normal forum, you'd know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior to what?
> 
> It is amazing that so many people come here, say this place is inferior, yet stay. Could it be that they are all full of shit? My guess is that your version of intelligence works best on places like Democratic Underground, not places where people actually think.
Click to expand...


Inferior to Liberal Forum, Political Forum, Conservative Forum, and Political Fray.  VERY inferior to them.  As for Democratic Underground, what's that ?  A forum for Democrats ?  If so, I wouldn't fit in there, since I'm opposed to just about every position they have.

I'm a staunch Conservative - but a REAL Conservative.  Like the guy in my avatar, not a Reaganist like the younger people who never lived when REAL Conservatism flourished, before Reagan came along and changed the whole mindset of conservatism into something opposite of what it really is.   If you're young (under 40), you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, and you maybe never will.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "arrangement" he is talking about exists because the government invented Medicare and Medicaid.
Click to expand...


1.  The "arrangement"  I'm wanting to have, DOES NOT EXIST anywhere that I know of.  (pet owners not having to pay up front).

2.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Medicaid or Medicare.


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
Click to expand...


Good Post!  I was wondering how long it would take before some normal-minded person would come along here and post (92 posts), in the midst of this junk heap of anti-govt flamebaiters, barging in here and throwing tantrums about the idea of govt doing its job.
  My guess is most of these windbags are delinquent businesses themselves, wishing to get away with various types of profitable-to-them malicious activity, at the expense of the public, and not be held accountable for it.  What other dog would they have in the fight ? And when I asked them about that, you could hear a pin drop.


----------



## protectionist

Intense said:


> *Thread Cleaned. Please try to keep it civil and on topic.*



It hasn't been civil, or on topic.  In most forums, about 50 posts would have been deleted from this thread.


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a pet owner ? If so, you need to know about this. Currently, veterinarian costs are sky high. To save your dog or cat's life, he/she may need a surgery costing thousands of dollars. You have it on hand to pay the veterinarian upfront ? Under the current "system" if you don't, your pet dies. Simple as that.
> 
> Sound shocking ? It is indeed. So what remedy might it be to have pet insurance ? Generally, none whatsoever. That's because, universally, veterinarians require YOU to pay up front, BEFORE any surgery is done, and then you get reimbursed AFTER (2 weeks maybe) the surgery.
> 
> Isn't that great and dandy ? And for the great majority of us who don't have thousands of $$$ ready to hand over the counter, we get told the best thing might be to euthanize (kill) you cat or dog. You may not like this, but it is exactly the way they are doing it.
> 
> And the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association is no better than the pet insurers. Their policy on Pet Insurance is in contradiction to some of their alleged fundamental policies. These are:
> 
> 1. (under Pet Insurance)>> "Reimburse the animal owner,..., for fees previously paid to the veterinarian."
> 
> 2. (Under Mission Statement) >>
> "...to improve animal and human health.."
> 
> 3. (under Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics, V. Influences on Judgement) >> "The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client,.."
> 
> By having their #8 in their Pet Insurance section, their policy is to allow millions of pets to suffer & die needlessly, just to slightly convenience the veterinarian. The great majority of pet owners can't afford to pay thousands of $$ for surgeries up front, and vets thereby suggest that the animals be euthanized. This is hypocritical and preposterous.
> 
> Congress! Your approval ratings are at all time lows. Finally you can do something to HELP (remember that concept?) the American people. ACT!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford a pet then don't have one.  It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I said before twice, we CAN afford, if they did what I said in the OP.  Quite simple. If you read the thread, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you are talking about.

Veterinarians are not obligated to take payment plans.  Many vets offer a no interest payment option through a company called care credit where you can have up to 18 months to pay off your bill. 

If you have pet insurance then you can put the balance on a credit card and when you get reimbursed in a couple weeks you pay off the card with no interest.

There is no government intervention needed.  If you have piss poor credit and can't afford your pets then give them to someone who can.


----------



## syrenn

MikeK said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
Click to expand...



pet medical credit cards......

nothing up front....monthly payments.


----------



## AquaAthena

syrenn said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
Click to expand...


Yes, precisely...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  This is an INFERIOR forum.  First of all, the posters I'm hearing from a bunch of idiots., Secondly, the reply boxes are all screwed up with too much in them, and everything all jumbled up together. If you saw a normal forum, you'd know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior to what?
> 
> It is amazing that so many people come here, say this place is inferior, yet stay. Could it be that they are all full of shit? My guess is that your version of intelligence works best on places like Democratic Underground, not places where people actually think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inferior to Liberal Forum, Political Forum, Conservative Forum, and Political Fray.  VERY inferior to them.  As for Democratic Underground, what's that ?  A forum for Democrats ?  If so, I wouldn't fit in there, since I'm opposed to just about every position they have.
> 
> I'm a staunch Conservative - but a REAL Conservative.  Like the guy in my avatar, not a Reaganist like the younger people who never lived when REAL Conservatism flourished, before Reagan came along and changed the whole mindset of conservatism into something opposite of what it really is.   If you're young (under 40), you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, and you maybe never will.
Click to expand...


Yet you are here arguing about how great all those places are, and you expect me to believe that makes me stupid.

See the problem?

Unless you are 200 years old you were not alive when real conservatism flourished, what makes you think you can define it on the basis that I am not that old, and admit it?


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford a pet then don't have one.  It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as I said before twice, we CAN afford, if they did what I said in the OP.  Quite simple. If you read the thread, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Veterinarians are not obligated to take payment plans.  Many vets offer a no interest payment option through a company called care credit where you can have up to 18 months to pay off your bill.
> 
> If you have pet insurance then you can put the balance on a credit card and when you get reimbursed in a couple weeks you pay off the card with no interest.
> 
> There is no government intervention needed.  If you have piss poor credit and can't afford your pets then give them to someone who can.
Click to expand...


Your last sentence is talking to then majority (tens of millions) of pet owners.  YOU have idea what YOU are talking about.


----------



## protectionist

AquaAthena said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, precisely...
Click to expand...


Forget credit cards.  Most people don't qualify for them, and the credit reporting agencies (whit collar hitmen) are a joke.  They report bad credit on anyone, no matter what, as long as they're paid to do it.  Right and wrong isn't even considered.  The whole "credit"
entity in America is a sham.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior to what?
> 
> It is amazing that so many people come here, say this place is inferior, yet stay. Could it be that they are all full of shit? My guess is that your version of intelligence works best on places like Democratic Underground, not places where people actually think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior to Liberal Forum, Political Forum, Conservative Forum, and Political Fray.  VERY inferior to them.  As for Democratic Underground, what's that ?  A forum for Democrats ?  If so, I wouldn't fit in there, since I'm opposed to just about every position they have.
> 
> I'm a staunch Conservative - but a REAL Conservative.  Like the guy in my avatar, not a Reaganist like the younger people who never lived when REAL Conservatism flourished, before Reagan came along and changed the whole mindset of conservatism into something opposite of what it really is.   If you're young (under 40), you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, and you maybe never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you are here arguing about how great all those places are, and you expect me to believe that makes me stupid.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Unless you are 200 years old you were not alive when real conservatism flourished, what makes you think you can define it on the basis that I am not that old, and admit it?
Click to expand...


As usual, your words are gobbledegook, and I can't figure out what you're talking about (maybe I'm lucky).   "places" ???  What "places" ?

Your last sentence is *FALSE*.

I WAS alive when REAL Conservatism flourished. In the 1950's, when Eisenhower chased millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954.  Millions more fled on their own, as Ike's INS agents went house-to-house in southwestern states, hunting them down.  (only to have the Psuedo-conservative Reagan give them amnesty 32 years later).
  And I was alive in the 1940's right after Ike grinded his way across Germany to Berlin, and victory in World War II, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe.  And the Psuedo-Conservative Reagan ?  He was in Hollywood making movies about it.
   And decades before Reagan came out with his movie-star tax (28%), designed just to beneft HIM and his movie star buddies, Eisenhower had tax rates on the rich of 91-92%, to support a strong military. a big strong national defense (FBI, CIA, INS, etc), only to have Reagan's low taxes favor a small. weak govt with the smallest air force and navy we've had since before World War II.
  These are 3 of the things that define it.  In general, Ike's idea of a BIG, strong govt, with a BIG strong national defense is what REAL Conservatism is all about.  This small, weak, low tax govt you like (Reaganism), is just the opposite. It's what our enemies like.  With them, your idea has it's supporters, make no mistake. >  Iran, North Korea, organized crime, Mexico, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just think you're a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
Click to expand...


Already been discussed.  Refuted.


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been discussed.  Refuted.
Click to expand...


yes, by you. The only one who seems to NOT get it.


----------



## syrenn

AquaAthena said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> It seems to me he's simply advocating for the same arrangement between veterinarians and pet insurers as exists between human medical insurers and MDs.  He's not asking for something for nothing.
> 
> If someone loves their pet enough to pay an insurance premium to protect it why should they be required to pay in advance for an expensive procedure?   Some people are not always in a position to do that, which means their beloved pet will suffer or die even though they are paying a monthly insurance premium to prevent that.
> 
> There seems to be an element of apathetic cruelty lurking behind the absence of legislative attention to this problem.  It ignores the fact that some people love their pets as much as they would love a human relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, precisely...
Click to expand...



The OP seems to think no one else has pets or knows how to take care of them. Considering how you spoil your baby...and how i spoil mine.... he is rather laughable. 

(6 more ounces and they get to go back. So maybe two more weeks.  )


----------



## Quantum Windbag

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior to Liberal Forum, Political Forum, Conservative Forum, and Political Fray.  VERY inferior to them.  As for Democratic Underground, what's that ?  A forum for Democrats ?  If so, I wouldn't fit in there, since I'm opposed to just about every position they have.
> 
> I'm a staunch Conservative - but a REAL Conservative.  Like the guy in my avatar, not a Reaganist like the younger people who never lived when REAL Conservatism flourished, before Reagan came along and changed the whole mindset of conservatism into something opposite of what it really is.   If you're young (under 40), you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, and you maybe never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you are here arguing about how great all those places are, and you expect me to believe that makes me stupid.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Unless you are 200 years old you were not alive when real conservatism flourished, what makes you think you can define it on the basis that I am not that old, and admit it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, your words are gobbledegook, and I can't figure out what you're talking about (maybe I'm lucky).   "places" ???  What "places" ?
> 
> Your last sentence is *FALSE*.
> 
> I WAS alive when REAL Conservatism flourished. In the 1950's, when Eisenhower chased millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954.  Millions more fled on their own, as Ike's INS agents went house-to-house in southwestern states, hunting them down.  (only to have the Psuedo-conservative Reagan give them amnesty 32 years later).
> And I was alive in the 1940's right after Ike grinded his way across Germany to Berlin, and victory in World War II, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe.  And the Psuedo-Conservative Reagan ?  He was in Hollywood making movies about it.
> And decades before Reagan came out with his movie-star tax (28%), designed just to beneft HIM and his movie star buddies, Eisenhower had tax rates on the rich of 91-92%, to support a strong military. a big strong national defense (FBI, CIA, INS, etc), only to have Reagan's low taxes favor a small. weak govt with the smallest air force and navy we've had since before World War II.
> These are 3 of the things that define it.  In general, Ike's idea of a BIG, strong govt, with a BIG strong national defense is what REAL Conservatism is all about.  This small, weak, low tax govt you like (Reaganism), is just the opposite. It's what our enemies like.  With them, your idea has it's supporters, make no mistake. >  Iran, North Korea, organized crime, Mexico, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.
Click to expand...


Oh, you think being conservative means you are a racist douchebag. Sorry if I treated you like you could actually think.


----------



## protectionist

Quantum Windbag said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you are here arguing about how great all those places are, and you expect me to believe that makes me stupid.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Unless you are 200 years old you were not alive when real conservatism flourished, what makes you think you can define it on the basis that I am not that old, and admit it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your words are gobbledegook, and I can't figure out what you're talking about (maybe I'm lucky).   "places" ???  What "places" ?
> 
> Your last sentence is *FALSE*.
> 
> I WAS alive when REAL Conservatism flourished. In the 1950's, when Eisenhower chased millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954.  Millions more fled on their own, as Ike's INS agents went house-to-house in southwestern states, hunting them down.  (only to have the Psuedo-conservative Reagan give them amnesty 32 years later).
> And I was alive in the 1940's right after Ike grinded his way across Germany to Berlin, and victory in World War II, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe.  And the Psuedo-Conservative Reagan ?  He was in Hollywood making movies about it.
> And decades before Reagan came out with his movie-star tax (28%), designed just to beneft HIM and his movie star buddies, Eisenhower had tax rates on the rich of 91-92%, to support a strong military. a big strong national defense (FBI, CIA, INS, etc), only to have Reagan's low taxes favor a small. weak govt with the smallest air force and navy we've had since before World War II.
> These are 3 of the things that define it.  In general, Ike's idea of a BIG, strong govt, with a BIG strong national defense is what REAL Conservatism is all about.  This small, weak, low tax govt you like (Reaganism), is just the opposite. It's what our enemies like.  With them, your idea has it's supporters, make no mistake. >  Iran, North Korea, organized crime, Mexico, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think being conservative means you are a racist douchebag. Sorry if I treated you like you could actually think.
Click to expand...


So you can't define racist either, huh ?   Why am I not surprised ?


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, precisely...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The OP seems to think no one else has pets or knows how to take care of them. Considering how you spoil your baby...and how i spoil mine.... he is rather laughable.
> 
> (6 more ounces and they get to go back. So maybe two more weeks.  )
Click to expand...


Fools are known to laugh a lot.  No one bothers to ask them what they're laughing at.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pet medical credit cards......
> 
> nothing up front....monthly payments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already been discussed.  Refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, by you. The only one who seems to NOT get it.
Click to expand...


*FALSE!*  MikeK agreed with me in Post # 92.


----------



## protectionist

Sunshine said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly this calls for a federal pet insurance mandate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 73 views.  ONE reply.  If there a problem in this forum ?  People don't seem to be too talkative.  Surely some must have pets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Veterinarians are mercenary.  If you can't afford a pet, don't get one.   I will not spend thousands on a sick animal.  It is a pet.  Not a child.  I will have my cat put down if she gets sick enough to cost me a small fortune.
Click to expand...


If you choose a small (how small ?) fortune over "your" cat, then maybe you should concentrate on just having small fortunes, and not cats.  And anyone who doesn't regard a cat or dog as their child, shouldn't have one. I feel sorry for your cat.


----------



## syrenn




----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> *FALSE!*  MikeK agreed with me in Post # 92.



I'm sure Rdean will agree with you as well, fakeyjake.


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I said before twice, we CAN afford, if they did what I said in the OP.  Quite simple. If you read the thread, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Veterinarians are not obligated to take payment plans.  Many vets offer a no interest payment option through a company called care credit where you can have up to 18 months to pay off your bill.
> 
> If you have pet insurance then you can put the balance on a credit card and when you get reimbursed in a couple weeks you pay off the card with no interest.
> 
> There is no government intervention needed.  If you have piss poor credit and can't afford your pets then give them to someone who can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last sentence is talking to then majority (tens of millions) of pet owners.  YOU have idea what YOU are talking about.
Click to expand...


Having a pet is not a right now is it?

Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.

If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.

We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.


----------



## dblack

protectionist said:


> ... anyone who doesn't regard a cat or dog as their child, shouldn't have one. I feel sorry for your cat.



I feel sorry for anyone who regards their cat or dog as a child. I love animals. I love my dog. But I also have children and it's a grotesque comparison


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE!*  MikeK agreed with me in Post # 92.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rdean will agree with you as well, fakeyjake.
Click to expand...


Don't know who that is.  Care even less.


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Veterinarians are not obligated to take payment plans.  Many vets offer a no interest payment option through a company called care credit where you can have up to 18 months to pay off your bill.
> 
> If you have pet insurance then you can put the balance on a credit card and when you get reimbursed in a couple weeks you pay off the card with no interest.
> 
> There is no government intervention needed.  If you have piss poor credit and can't afford your pets then give them to someone who can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence is talking to then majority (tens of millions) of pet owners.  YOU have idea what YOU are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a pet is not a right now is it?
> 
> Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.
> 
> If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.
> 
> We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.
Click to expand...


If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie.  vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for.  How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).

Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy.  You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ?   If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.

As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.


----------



## protectionist

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... anyone who doesn't regard a cat or dog as their child, shouldn't have one. I feel sorry for your cat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone who regards their cat or dog as a child. I love animals. I love my dog. But I also have children and it's a grotesque comparison
Click to expand...


It's not a comparison, except where you made it into one.

Enough time spent on this now.  Need to get back to my Islam bashing threads.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> Don't know who that is.  Care even less.



Of course Jake...

Deany-weenie is another wild eyed leftist - just like you.


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence is talking to then majority (tens of millions) of pet owners.  YOU have idea what YOU are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a pet is not a right now is it?
> 
> Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.
> 
> If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.
> 
> We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie.  vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for.  How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).
> 
> Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy.  You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ?   If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.
> 
> As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.
Click to expand...


So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.

Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?

Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know who that is.  Care even less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jake...
> 
> Deany-weenie is another wild eyed leftist - just like you.
Click to expand...


I am not a leftist.  I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty.  You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.  

See my other OPs in this forum.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a pet is not a right now is it?
> 
> Tell you what when you get a new pet open up a savings account and put money away every week for vet bills.
> 
> If you're not willing to act responsibly then you shouldn't have a pet. Period.
> 
> We should pass a law to do something about irresponsible people not veterinarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie.  vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for.  How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).
> 
> Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy.  You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ?   If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.
> 
> As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.
> 
> Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?
> 
> Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.
Click to expand...


1.  You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal.  It's not. It's extremely abnormal.  It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done.  Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe)  Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.

2.  For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does.  You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
Extra costs my ass.

3.  I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
There is a thing called a "market price".  This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike.  And this is the price that every business sells its items at.  So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had an ounce of decency (or responsibility), you wouldn't dream of accepting anything other than having pet insurance work same as human insurance > ie.  vets are reimbursed after pets are cared for.  How much money pet owners have on hand is irrelevant, (as long as they pay their monthly insurance bills).
> 
> Weird how you can even begin to accept the pet owner pay up front lunacy.  You aren't connected to the veterinarian industry by any chance are you ?   If not, no excuse for taking such a ridiculous position.
> 
> As for whether having a pet is a right or not, I can't see any connection between that and what this discussion is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.
> 
> Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?
> 
> Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal.  It's not. It's extremely abnormal.  It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done.  Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe)  Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.
Click to expand...


Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers.  I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.



> 2.  For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does.  You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
> Extra costs my ass.



No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.



> 3.  I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
> There is a thing called a "market price".  This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike.  And this is the price that every business sells its items at.  So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.



If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.

I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about.  You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.

I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want pet insurance to be run like human insurance.
> 
> Therefore you want veterinary prices to skyrocket and you would force small veterinary hospitals to hire additional staff to handle claims and billing insurance companies right?
> 
> Then you would piss and moan about the vet raising his fees to cover the extra costs you would force on him because you don't know how to handle your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal.  It's not. It's extremely abnormal.  It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done.  Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe)  Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers.  I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  For your edification, veterinarians have to process insurance claims no matter whether they get reimbursed or the pet owner does.  You think the insurance company is just going to take the word of the pet owners without any verifications from the veterinarians ?
> Extra costs my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
> There is a thing called a "market price".  This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike.  And this is the price that every business sells its items at.  So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.
> 
> It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.
> 
> I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about.  You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.
> 
> I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances
Click to expand...


1.  I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case.  How stupid.  

2.  Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)

3.  HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ?  Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?  

4.  I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances.  My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.

5.  The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> _"I still don't know"_


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  You act like insurance companies reimbursing patients was normal.  It's not. It's extremely abnormal.  It's contradictory to how human health insurance is done.  Do you go around bitching that human insurance is done wrong, and should be done like veterinary insurance, so prices could be less ? (so you believe)  Do you have posts in this forum prior to this date, that say that ? If so, let's see them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers.  I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.
> 
> 
> 
> No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I taught microeconomics in college, but one does not need to be a microeconomics teacher to know that business owners cannot raise their prices whenever they so choose.
> There is a thing called a "market price".  This is the highest price that a business can charge for something without going so high that sales begin to fall off to the point that the income is less than before that price hike.  And this is the price that every business sells its items at.  So business really cannot raise prices, and to say that they can is one of the most common fallacies, that businesses and their running dog politicians toss around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.
> 
> It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.
> 
> I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about.  You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.
> 
> I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case.  How stupid.
> 
> 2.  Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)
> 
> 3.  HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ?  Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?
> 
> 4.  I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances.  My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.
> 
> 5.  The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> _"I still don't know"_
Click to expand...


You're just another chronic whiner.


----------



## protectionist

Spiderman said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pets are not humans. And Yes I do believe that human insurance is done wrong because it removes market pressure from medical service providers.  I would much rather see people filing their own claims so hospitals didn't have to hire hundreds of people just to deal with insurance companies. If we did that we would see the cost of medicine go down.
> 
> 
> 
> No you have to fill out the claim forms so you get reimbursed. All you have to do is include a copy of your records of the treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you demand extra services then you will see prices go up.
> 
> It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that.
> 
> I still don't know what you're pissing and moaning about.  You knew the way pet insurance worked when you signed up for it if you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed up.
> 
> I find it funny that you taught economics yet you can't even manage your own finances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case.  How stupid.
> 
> 2.  Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)
> 
> 3.  HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ?  Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?
> 
> 4.  I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances.  My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.
> 
> 5.  The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> _"I still don't know"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just another chronic whiner.
Click to expand...


So what's YOUR excuse for taking a position against 99% of pet owners.  Are you a veterinarian ?  Member of AVMA ?  What's YOUR dog in this fight ?  Hmmm ?


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> I am not a leftist.



BWAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and if we like our insurance, we can keep it.....



> I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty.  You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> See my other OPs in this forum.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html



I see what you post here, and you are a big government lefty.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Yeah, and if we like our insurance, we can keep it.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a staunch conservative, opposed to immigration, Islamization, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, and in favor of tough law enforcement and the death penalty.  You come jumping in here not knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> See my other OPs in this forum.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-united-states-1950-2012-a.html#post8086824
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...blic-schools-and-textbooks-major-players.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you post here, and you are a big government lefty.
Click to expand...


You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative.  You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is.  Here's a tip for you.  The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich.  He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico.  He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later.  You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative.



FakeyJake, even for you, that's an astoundingly retarded claim.

You claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican." We all know that you're no Republican at all, and are another Obamunist troll promoting leftism.

BUT if your claim was true, it would still be stupid. Ike was a Republic of sorts, of course he flirted with running as a democrat and went with the GOP simply because of the open slot in the party. Ike wanted to be president and will willing to run under either party.

There was nothing that even hinted at "conservative" with Ike. He was a big government liberal - no, he wasn't a leftist like today's dims - but he was a lot closer to FDR than to a true conservative.

Of course Reagan was conservative - which is why you hate him. He ended your beloved USSR, and you'll NEVER forgive him for that. He moved to a more market based economy, where you seek government control of the means of production.



> You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is.  Here's a tip for you.  The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich.



Ah, so a "conservative" is someone who seeks government control of the means of production, confiscatory taxation, and severe restrictions on personal liberty?

So you would be about as "conservative" as this guy, then?









> He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico.  He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later.  You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.



We get it, you are a big government lefty.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a Reaganist, not a Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FakeyJake, even for you, that's an astoundingly retarded claim.
> 
> You claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican." We all know that you're no Republican at all, and are another Obamunist troll promoting leftism.
> 
> BUT if your claim was true, it would still be stupid. Ike was a Republic of sorts, of course he flirted with running as a democrat and went with the GOP simply because of the open slot in the party. Ike wanted to be president and will willing to run under either party.
> 
> There was nothing that even hinted at "conservative" with Ike. He was a big government liberal - no, he wasn't a leftist like today's dims - but he was a lot closer to FDR than to a true conservative.
> 
> Of course Reagan was conservative - which is why you hate him. He ended your beloved USSR, and you'll NEVER forgive him for that. He moved to a more market based economy, where you seek government control of the means of production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't even know what a Conservative is.  Here's a tip for you.  The guy in my avatar is the most Conservative president we've had in the US in the last 100 years , and he was a BIG GOVT Conservative,with a 91-92% tax on the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so a "conservative" is someone who seeks government control of the means of production, confiscatory taxation, and severe restrictions on personal liberty?
> 
> So you would be about as "conservative" as this guy, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He built the US interstate highway system with BIG GOVT tax $$, expanded the federal prison system, and presided over many other infrastructure/public safety and Conservative causes, like Operation Wetback in 1954, running millions of illegal alien invaders back to Mexico.  He also was the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe in World War II, while your hero Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it, and giving amnesty to illegal aliens years later.  You don't even know what a Conservative or a lefty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We get it, you are a big government lefty.
Click to expand...


I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not.  I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.

HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal.  You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism.  It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are.  In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would  be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,

  You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.

Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.

And Reagan ended the USSR did he ?  *HA HA HA HA!!*

EARTH TO UNCENSORED:  No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death.  Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!

So you say Ike wasn't a conservative.  HA HA.  That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is.  You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right.  The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes.  You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had.  You want to keep taxes on the rich down ?  Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who.  Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons.  Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons.  The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low.  Oh yes, La Raza loves you.  LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you.  As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.  

  You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been.  I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.

Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant.  I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation.  I owned my own business for 12 years.  That's not what conservatism is about .

*Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life*, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims,  looney tune liberals, et al.

Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is.  You think it's the movie star tax.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)


----------



## dblack

poop


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not.  I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.
> 
> HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal.  You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism.  It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are.  In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would  be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,
> 
> You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.
> 
> Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.
> 
> And Reagan ended the USSR did he ?  *HA HA HA HA!!*
> 
> EARTH TO UNCENSORED:  No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death.  Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!
> 
> So you say Ike wasn't a conservative.  HA HA.  That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is.  You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right.  The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes.  You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had.  You want to keep taxes on the rich down ?  Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who.  Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons.  Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons.  The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low.  Oh yes, La Raza loves you.  LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you.  As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.
> 
> You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been.  I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.
> 
> Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant.  I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation.  I owned my own business for 12 years.  That's not what conservatism is about .
> 
> *Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life*, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims,  looney tune liberals, et al.
> 
> Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is.  You think it's the movie star tax.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)



You are an ignorant and uneducated baboon, Jake.

You have zero grasp of basic economics, and less grasp of political systems.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to be a Republican. I'm not.  I'm a registered Independent, and I generally don't vote, since the Republicans are a basket case on economics, and the Democrats are a train wreck on immigration, Muslims, affirmative action, gun control, death penalty, abortion, etc.
> 
> HA HA. You say Ike was a big govt. liberal.  You are so ignorant about what conservatism is that you don't even know that the size of govt has nothing to do with conservatism.  It only has to do with Reaganism, which is what you are.  In fact, if the size of govt had anything to do with conservatism, then like with Ike, it would  be the BIG STRONG govt fueled by high taxes on the rich, and capable of supporting a strong national defense (the military) and homeland security (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, ICE, etc) that would be the conservative one, not the small, weak one that you favor, with not enough taxation and revenue to support the agencies, building the Mexican border fence, creating more immigrations courts & jails, bolstering the FBI, CIA, ICE, etc,
> 
> You're just another young Reaganist, too young to remember the REAL conservative days before Reagan came along and fouled everytuing up, and starting harping about small govt > only to relieve his big movie star income of its taxation burden. All this small govt stuff was just a ploy to please Reagan and his movie star buddies, and you fall for it.
> 
> Reagan was only a "conservative" according to the distorted definition of one that HE created, for HIS benefit.
> 
> And Reagan ended the USSR did he ?  *HA HA HA HA!!*
> 
> EARTH TO UNCENSORED:  No American ended the USSR, except all those who engineered the space and military races with the USSR for 40 years, causing the USSR to spend itself to death.  Reagan just happened to be there when it fell, and he let his backers rant about him being involved in it, and thereby let himself take the credit for it. What a joke!
> 
> So you say Ike wasn't a conservative.  HA HA.  That's because you're one of these (I'll guess young > under 40) PSUEDO-conservatives who isn't old enough to remember REAL conservatism, and thereby even know what it is.  You think it has to do with the size of govt, and you haven;t even got THAT right.  The bigger and stronger the govt, the more able it is to fight immigration, Muslim loonies, affirmative action, excessive welfare dispursement, and other liberal causes.  You and your movie star tax boys (who think you're conservatives) are the best friends the liberals ever had.  You want to keep taxes on the rich down ?  Who does that favor ? I'll tell you who.  Criminals who get let out of prison too early because of not enough funds to build enough prisons.  Criminals who succeed in crime because of not enough cops on the street, because of you and all your cut spending loons.  The immigration lobby who love you for your help at keeping the number of ICE and CBP officers low.  Oh yes, La Raza loves you.  LULAC, MALDEF, MECHA. They all love you.  As does the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.
> 
> You guys who call yourselves "conservatives" are the farthest thing from a REAL conservative there ever has been.  I don't know who's worse. The liberals or you.
> 
> Govt control of the means of production is irrelevant.  I support capitalism with a reasonable degree of regulation.  I owned my own business for 12 years.  That's not what conservatism is about .
> 
> *Conservatism is CONSERVING our American way of life*, against the changes to it threatened by immigrants, looney tune Muslims,  looney tune liberals, et al.
> 
> Forget it man. You're probably too young, and too steeped in this Reaganist RE-DEFINITION of conservatism, to ever know what conservaitism is.  You think it's the movie star tax.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant and uneducated baboon, Jake.
> 
> You have zero grasp of basic economics, and less grasp of political systems.
Click to expand...


1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty.  You seem to be very ignorant.  

2.  I don't care about political systems.  That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.

3.  I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about.  Seen a shrink lately ?


----------



## Spiderman

protectionist said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm really tired of this thread, and I'm even more tired of all the idiots coming in here and arguing against what is an open & shut case.  How stupid.
> 
> 2.  Maybe if you had a degree in economics or at least took a microecomonics 101 course, you'd know that business owners CANNOT raise prices (unless they enjoy losing money)
> 
> 3.  HA HA. When did I ever say I signed up for pet insurance ?  Dreaming out loud a little bit today ?
> 
> 4.  I also didn't say I couldn't manage my finances.  My finances (and those of the 99% of pet owners who aren't buying pet insurance ) are just fine relative to a pet insurance system set up correctly.
> 
> 5.  The one thing you said that was correct was when you said >> _"I still don't know"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just another chronic whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's YOUR excuse for taking a position against 99% of pet owners.  Are you a veterinarian ?  Member of AVMA ?  What's YOUR dog in this fight ?  Hmmm ?
Click to expand...


I'm not taking a position against or for anyone.

I'm of the mind that if you have a pet you can't afford that it's not the vet's fault.

If one signs up for pet insurance knowing it's policies then he has no right to whine about it. Instead one should plan for it.  You know as a pet owner that sooner or later there will be a big vet bill. And seriously if you can't front a payment for the time it takes to get reimbursed from the insurance co it's your own fault.

We certainly don't need more government intervention.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> 1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty.  You seem to be very ignorant.



I am a current University economics instructor, and I call bullshit. You clearly have no grasp of basic principles, didn't have a clue what Say's law is, nor how basic market functions operate.

I'd guess that you read a Krugman column on ThinkProgress and decided to bullshit. I doubt you know who Keynes was, much less what turns are or why they have failed to support Keynesian theories on modification of the business cycle. 

I KNOW that you have no clue who Hayek, Von Mises, or Rothbard were.  You picked a seriously bad topic to bullshit on... 



> 2.  I don't care about political systems.  That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.
> 
> 3.  I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about.  Seen a shrink lately ?



Yeah, you're not a JakeStarkey sock - sure...


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I am a former college economics teacher, and I could teach you plenty.  You seem to be very ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a current University economics instructor, and I call bullshit. You clearly have no grasp of basic principles, didn't have a clue what Say's law is, nor how basic market functions operate.
> 
> I'd guess that you read a Krugman column on ThinkProgress and decided to bullshit. I doubt you know who Keynes was, much less what turns are or why they have failed to support Keynesian theories on modification of the business cycle.
> 
> I KNOW that you have no clue who Hayek, Von Mises, or Rothbard were.  You picked a seriously bad topic to bullshit on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I don't care about political systems.  That's YOUR hang-up, not mine.
> 
> 3.  I have no idea who this "Jake" person is you keep babbling about.  Seen a shrink lately ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're not a JakeStarkey sock - sure...
Click to expand...


I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ?  And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers >  Hmmmm ?  Those are also part of the big scam (and you fall for it).  Well, I don't teach Microeconomoics 101 any more (and haven't in decades), but lots of other people do.  I suggest you go take a course in it.

I might be offended by what you say about my economics expertise, if I thought you had the slightest idea about economics.  Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.

As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................http://www.politicalforum.com/member.php?u=54036


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ?



So then, you are dispensing with the fraud of teaching, or even having a fundamental grasp of economics, then?

I find it particularly amusing that you specified "micro-economics," which crosses over into finance. This is amusing since you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the elements of cost. While the above statement is ignorant in general, it is absurd from one who claims knowledge in financial studies. You lack even a semblance of grasp of what overhead is and how it is applied to product costing.



> And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers >  Hmmmm ?



I think what?

Since you invented a fiction of expertise in economics, I should be unsurprised that you would fabricate claims of what I think...



> Those are also part of the big scam (and you fall for it).  Well, I don't teach Microeconomoics 101 any more (and haven't in decades), but lots of other people do.  I suggest you go take a course in it.



Nor did you ever, nor could you pass a class in economics (101 would be a survey level course and would not segregate micro from macro, you ignorant baboon.)



> I might be offended by what you say about my economics expertise, if I thought you had the slightest idea about economics.



Bluster as you please, you are as transparent as gossamer, though think otherwise.

Sadly for you, there are a great deal of individuals in this forum who are well versed in economics. Why so many of us have gravitated to this forum is a mystery - or perhaps we stay because people here are knowledgeable. 

But you are not knowledgeable; bluff and bluster will not aid you.



> Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.



LOL

You don't even know what was behind the economic models championed by Reagan. 

The depth of your ignorance is astounding, the clearness of your fraud is blinding.



> As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................View Profile: protectionist - Political Forum



It would be hard to believe that two utter frauds could lie about being Republicans - but I suppose anything is possible.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you also think tax hikes on the rich and minimum wage increases can be passed on to consumers in higher prices, right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, you are dispensing with the fraud of teaching, or even having a fundamental grasp of economics, then?
> 
> I find it particularly amusing that you specified "micro-economics," which crosses over into finance. This is amusing since you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the elements of cost. While the above statement is ignorant in general, it is absurd from one who claims knowledge in financial studies. You lack even a semblance of grasp of what overhead is and how it is applied to product costing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you also think they can be compensated for by laying off workers >  Hmmmm ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what?
> 
> Since you invented a fiction of expertise in economics, I should be unsurprised that you would fabricate claims of what I think...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did you ever, nor could you pass a class in economics (101 would be a survey level course and would not segregate micro from macro, you ignorant baboon.)
> 
> 
> 
> Bluster as you please, you are as transparent as gossamer, though think otherwise.
> 
> Sadly for you, there are a great deal of individuals in this forum who are well versed in economics. Why so many of us have gravitated to this forum is a mystery - or perhaps we stay because people here are knowledgeable.
> 
> But you are not knowledgeable; bluff and bluster will not aid you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is , it looks like you're just another young (under 40) Reaganist, hoodwinked by Reagan's small govt, movie star tax, poppycock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You don't even know what was behind the economic models championed by Reagan.
> 
> The depth of your ignorance is astounding, the clearness of your fraud is blinding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for this Jake person, THIS is what I've been doing during the time period that you thought I was him >> Political Forum.......................View Profile: protectionist - Political Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be hard to believe that two utter frauds could lie about being Republicans - but I suppose anything is possible.
Click to expand...


"Crosses over ?"  I don't recall ever talking about any economics other than MICROeconomics.  The macroeconomics was all YOUR yammering.

So you DO think prices can be raised and "passed on to the consumer huh ?  And you DO think workers can be laid off also to compensate for a raise in costs.  Exactly as I said.  You're clueless, and just another victim of the Reaganist propaganda mill - more commonly known as what passes for conservatism nowadays (but doesn't really even come close)

  And millions of 18 year old college freshman all over the world, know what you are oblivious to >  That when the firm raises its price above the "market price" (ie. the HIGHEST price that can be charged without sales dropping such that income becomes less than before), SALES DROP.  And the higher the price is raised, the more sales drop, and the more money is LOST.
LESSON 2  >  This is graphically shown as a moderately flattened bell-shaped curve, with prices going up on the X axis, and business income going up (and then down) on the Y axis. (Market price -ie the ONLY price you sell at- at the top of the curve)

As for the laying off of workers, which you have also fallen for the very common ploy, no sucker.  Workers can't be cut loose either.  Same principle as prices.  If you let them go, again, your sales fall, causing you to LOSE money.  That's why you had a certain # of employees to begin with.
  Example:  My ex-wife had a boutique in a mall.  She had 10 employees. So you think if her taxes went up or the minimum wage went up, she could lay off some workers to compensate for the higher costs ?  HA HA HA.  What do you think the number 10 represented to her ?  Her lucky number ?  Why 10 rather than 9 ? (especially when 9 would be cheaper) You think maybe she just liked that number 10 ?  Maybe she just liked round numbers, huh ?

Or maybe you'd guess she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give another person a job, huh ?  It's because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than 9, you dolt!  And ONLY because of that.  So to release even one person, means LOSING SALES and LOSING MONEY.  Get it ?  Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)

Yeah, I know what was behind the "economic models" as you call them, championed by Reagan. >>  A very high individual income (movie stars are among the highest), and at 70% (the individual tax before Reagan took office), he didn't want to pay that much tax.  The whole economic yakety yak was never anything more than him wanting to pay less tax.  I hope you didn't fall for all the trickle down nonsense, too.   

PS - if you ever decide to open a business, take that microeconomics course first, or at least don't forget these 2 lessons I just gave you now.

BTW, this thread is about pet owners and pet insurance, not economics, so you've been   all along here.  So now, either get on topic, or get lost.


----------



## Uncensored2008

protectionist said:


> "Crosses over ?"  I don't recall ever talking about any economics other than MICROeconomics.  The macroeconomics was all YOUR yammering.



Doubling down on stupid, huh?

I said the cross over is from microeconomics into finance. Not only do you lack any knowledge of economics, you lack basic reading comprehension.



> So you DO think prices can be raised and "passed on to the consumer huh ?  And you DO think workers can be laid off also to compensate for a raise in costs.  Exactly as I said.  You're clueless, and just another victim of the Reaganist propaganda mill - more commonly known as what passes for conservatism nowadays (but doesn't really even come close)



You can spew Marxist rhetoric, but you lack the foundational knowledge to discuss the issue intelligently.

IF you had even a survey level course in economics you would grasp that business MUST absorb costs in order to survive. One that fails to absorb costs must go bankrupt. Taxes are an element of cost. BECAUSE you have zero knowledge of microeconomics, you do not know the terms "EBIT" and "EBITDA." 

These are income statement items, Earnings Before Taxes and Interest. (Depreciation and Amortization.) No investor (a person interested in microeconomics) is ignorant of these terms - you are - but no one knowledgeable is.

Taxes affect the bottom line and MUST be absorbed into the cost of the product, or the business goes out of business. Taxes are passed on to the consumer in the cost of the product 100% of the time - MUST be passed on. 

Marxist morons like you think that business owners are like Scrooge McDuck, swimming in a pool filled with gold coins and jewels. And if you put high taxes on them, they'll just toss a few coins from that pool and it will have no effect.

This is because you are ignorant and uneducated. I'm guessing you were a postal carrier or maybe a DMV clerk? Part of a government union where there was no need to produce anything , right?



> And millions of 18 year old college freshman all over the world, know what you are oblivious to >  That when the firm raises its price above the "market price" (ie. the HIGHEST price that can be charged without sales dropping such that income becomes less than before), SALES DROP.  And the higher the price is raised, the more sales drop, and the more money is LOST.



Again sparky, you spent your life in a government union, shielded from the need to produce a product that people were willing to pay for. Raising taxes was what the union bosses always advocated - since it would pad your pocket at the expense of others.

But what you lack the IQ points to grasp, is that a raise in taxes, increases costs across the board.

Look, you probably didn't finish high school, you have zero grasp of finance or economics, so let me try to make this really simple.

Joe has a business printing business cards. Now you think Joe makes up a number and starts selling cards. But unlike you, Joe went to college and took economics, finance, and accounting classes. (also SCM, 6 Sigma, and marketing.)

So what Joe REALLY does is create a "Cost Breakdown."  He starts with his infrastructure, the building, machinery and equipment, utilities are all calculated. Then Joe accounts for materials. Ink, card stock, silk, and other consumables. Then Joe calculates labor - including taxes paid for labor.

But he doesn't stop there, because unlike you, Joe is smart. Joe adds in his fee - how much he wants to EARN for the product. Let's say he puts 6% in. But he isn't done, now he adds in taxes and license fees. NOW he divides it all up, and this is the cost per card that he MUST charge to stay in business.

Notice that the MARGIN (a microeconomics term that you've never been exposed to before) is embedded in the product price structure. So if everything goes perfect, no scrap or problems with equipment, Joe will earn his 6%



> LESSON 2  >  This is graphically shown as a moderately flattened bell-shaped curve, with prices going up on the X axis, and business income going up (and then down) on the Y axis. (Market price -ie the ONLY price you sell at- at the top of the curve)
> 
> As for the laying off of workers, which you have also fallen for the very common ploy, no sucker.  Workers can't be cut loose either.  Same principle as prices.  If you let them go, again, your sales fall, causing you to LOSE money.  That's why you had a certain # of employees to begin with.



Again, I've said nothing of laying off workers.

Because you don't have any knowledge of economics - you fail to grasp that labor is a commodity. A business is not welfare - though the Post Office or DMV that you worked for were.



> Example:  My ex-wife had a boutique in a mall.  She had 10 employees. So you think if her taxes went up or the minimum wage went up, she could lay off some workers to compensate for the higher costs ?  HA HA HA.  What do you think the number 10 represented to her ?  Her lucky number ?  Why 10 rather than 9 ? (especially when 9 would be cheaper) You think maybe she just liked that number 10 ?  Maybe she just liked round numbers, huh ?



Employing a straw man is the act of a weak mind.



> Or maybe you'd guess she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give another person a job, huh ?  It's because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than 9, you dolt!  And ONLY because of that.  So to release even one person, means LOSING SALES and LOSING MONEY.  Get it ?  Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)
> 
> Yeah, I know what was behind the "economic models" as you call them, championed by Reagan. >>  A very high individual income (movie stars are among the highest), and at 70% (the individual tax before Reagan took office), he didn't want to pay that much tax.  The whole economic yakety yak was never anything more than him wanting to pay less tax.  I hope you didn't fall for all the trickle down nonsense, too.
> 
> PS - if you ever decide to open a business, take that microeconomics course first, or at least don't forget these 2 lessons I just gave you now.
> 
> BTW, this thread is about pet owners and pet insurance, not economics, so you've been   all along here.  So now, either get on topic, or get lost.



Finished tilting at windmills, spunky?

You are an ignorant baboon who believes that your career of collecting welfare from some government make-work job gives you insight into how real life works.

You've exposed yourself as an utter fraud without education or knowledge, who must engage in logical fallacy to even approach an argument. I said not one word of laying anyone off. Taxes drive prices up - period.


----------



## syrenn

i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Crosses over ?"  I don't recall ever talking about any economics other than MICROeconomics.  The macroeconomics was all YOUR yammering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubling down on stupid, huh?
> 
> I said the cross over is from microeconomics into finance. Not only do you lack any knowledge of economics, you lack basic reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you DO think prices can be raised and "passed on to the consumer huh ?  And you DO think workers can be laid off also to compensate for a raise in costs.  Exactly as I said.  You're clueless, and just another victim of the Reaganist propaganda mill - more commonly known as what passes for conservatism nowadays (but doesn't really even come close)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spew Marxist rhetoric, but you lack the foundational knowledge to discuss the issue intelligently.
> 
> IF you had even a survey level course in economics you would grasp that business MUST absorb costs in order to survive. One that fails to absorb costs must go bankrupt. Taxes are an element of cost. BECAUSE you have zero knowledge of microeconomics, you do not know the terms "EBIT" and "EBITDA."
> 
> These are income statement items, Earnings Before Taxes and Interest. (Depreciation and Amortization.) No investor (a person interested in microeconomics) is ignorant of these terms - you are - but no one knowledgeable is.
> 
> Taxes affect the bottom line and MUST be absorbed into the cost of the product, or the business goes out of business. Taxes are passed on to the consumer in the cost of the product 100% of the time - MUST be passed on.
> 
> Marxist morons like you think that business owners are like Scrooge McDuck, swimming in a pool filled with gold coins and jewels. And if you put high taxes on them, they'll just toss a few coins from that pool and it will have no effect.
> 
> This is because you are ignorant and uneducated. I'm guessing you were a postal carrier or maybe a DMV clerk? Part of a government union where there was no need to produce anything , right?
> 
> 
> 
> Again sparky, you spent your life in a government union, shielded from the need to produce a product that people were willing to pay for. Raising taxes was what the union bosses always advocated - since it would pad your pocket at the expense of others.
> 
> But what you lack the IQ points to grasp, is that a raise in taxes, increases costs across the board.
> 
> Look, you probably didn't finish high school, you have zero grasp of finance or economics, so let me try to make this really simple.
> 
> Joe has a business printing business cards. Now you think Joe makes up a number and starts selling cards. But unlike you, Joe went to college and took economics, finance, and accounting classes. (also SCM, 6 Sigma, and marketing.)
> 
> So what Joe REALLY does is create a "Cost Breakdown."  He starts with his infrastructure, the building, machinery and equipment, utilities are all calculated. Then Joe accounts for materials. Ink, card stock, silk, and other consumables. Then Joe calculates labor - including taxes paid for labor.
> 
> But he doesn't stop there, because unlike you, Joe is smart. Joe adds in his fee - how much he wants to EARN for the product. Let's say he puts 6% in. But he isn't done, now he adds in taxes and license fees. NOW he divides it all up, and this is the cost per card that he MUST charge to stay in business.
> 
> Notice that the MARGIN (a microeconomics term that you've never been exposed to before) is embedded in the product price structure. So if everything goes perfect, no scrap or problems with equipment, Joe will earn his 6%
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've said nothing of laying off workers.
> 
> Because you don't have any knowledge of economics - you fail to grasp that labor is a commodity. A business is not welfare - though the Post Office or DMV that you worked for were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example:  My ex-wife had a boutique in a mall.  She had 10 employees. So you think if her taxes went up or the minimum wage went up, she could lay off some workers to compensate for the higher costs ?  HA HA HA.  What do you think the number 10 represented to her ?  Her lucky number ?  Why 10 rather than 9 ? (especially when 9 would be cheaper) You think maybe she just liked that number 10 ?  Maybe she just liked round numbers, huh ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employing a straw man is the act of a weak mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you'd guess she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give another person a job, huh ?  It's because she MADE MORE MONEY with 10 than 9, you dolt!  And ONLY because of that.  So to release even one person, means LOSING SALES and LOSING MONEY.  Get it ?  Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)
> 
> Yeah, I know what was behind the "economic models" as you call them, championed by Reagan. >>  A very high individual income (movie stars are among the highest), and at 70% (the individual tax before Reagan took office), he didn't want to pay that much tax.  The whole economic yakety yak was never anything more than him wanting to pay less tax.  I hope you didn't fall for all the trickle down nonsense, too.
> 
> PS - if you ever decide to open a business, take that microeconomics course first, or at least don't forget these 2 lessons I just gave you now.
> 
> BTW, this thread is about pet owners and pet insurance, not economics, so you've been   all along here.  So now, either get on topic, or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finished tilting at windmills, spunky?
> 
> You are an ignorant baboon who believes that your career of collecting welfare from some government make-work job gives you insight into how real life works.
> 
> You've exposed yourself as an utter fraud without education or knowledge, who must engage in logical fallacy to even approach an argument. I said not one word of laying anyone off. Taxes drive prices up - period.
Click to expand...


You can talk until you're blue in the face but *the mere fact that you admitted that you think a firm should raise its prices to compensate for some new cost, shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. * And don't tell me you didn't admit it,  You just now said >>  _"Taxes drive prices up - period."_  Pheeeeww!!   No they don't, fool. And raising prices above your market price (because of taxes or any other reason) is the # 1 reason why uneducated airhead business owners go out of business all the time.  #1 mistake.  You CANNOT raise prices above your market price.    Good grief man.  Do I have to draw a bell-shaped curve for you, to have you understand what thousands of 18 year old economics students know perfectly well ?  Sheeeesh!!

 Dude, you've exposed yourself as an utter fraud without education or knowledge, who must engage in logical fallacy to even approach an argument.

 Better not open a business until you get that microeconomics course under your belt.


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!



Useful post if you're just as much of a fool as he is.


----------



## Coyote

syrenn said:


> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!



Badaboop!


----------



## syrenn

protectionist said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Useful post if you're just as much of a fool as he is.
Click to expand...



considering your op, and your instance that government needs to step in and DO something... i would say you are the fool here. 

you have been blown out of the water on several things and you are hanging on like a bull dog to a bone. 

so again.... bazinga and snap. Take your pick.


----------



## syrenn

Coyote said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Badaboop!
Click to expand...


thathatha that's all folks.....


----------



## protectionist

syrenn said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Useful post if you're just as much of a fool as he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> considering your op, and your instance that government needs to step in and DO something... i would say you are the fool here.
> 
> you have been blown out of the water on several things and you are hanging on like a bull dog to a bone.
> 
> so again.... bazinga and snap. Take your pick.
Click to expand...


Silly talk. I have not been blown out of anything.  My OP was 100% CORRECT.  When I wrote it, AND NOW.

As for your dumb thanks-useful post to uncensored2008, the only thing "useful about that was to show that you're just as ignorant of microeconomics as he is (when he stupidly admitted that he thinks a firm should raise its prices to compensate for some new cost, showing that he (and you) have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## percysunshine

syrenn said:


> i am not sure if bazinga or snap works best.... maybe both!



Snap. Without question. Lower cost..


----------

