State of the Veterinary Profession from cofounder of VIN

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I guess you can go join an occupy movement somewhere. Being pissed off will not help the future of veterinary medicine. I think the author of the article was hoping for something a bit more substantive. Veterinary medicine is a business. We can't just sit back and expect animals to file through our doors to be presented to us.

Dang, dude, I wasn't expecting such a snotty response for what I thought was a pretty level one on my part.

I'm not angry-- if I was, I wouldn't get up Monday-Friday (and most weekends) and walk into the veterinary school I attend. The reason I asked why cutting enrollment would be so bad is because I acknowledge this AS A BUSINESS. This is a supply and demand problem, and we're not helping the veterinary economy by admitting more students.

I'd like to contribute to my profession as best as I can, and I think the first step in that is being realistic with myself and acknowledging the problems in our field. You can't fix a problem you refuse to admit exists or reject all of the solutions to.

Who said it is getting harder and harder? There are more seats each year, and the number of applicants is not increasing in proportion. The numbers would suggest its getting easier and easier to get into vet med, since it's becoming such a financially undesirably field to get into.

August West.

Members don't see this ad.
 
If only the general population was very good at managing and budgeting money, but based on the US events of the last 5 years, its pretty obvious that isn't the case.

I think people would pay the $20 a month if they could, but most people can't. There are plenty of people out there who don't pay for their car insurance that is required by law. The money simply isn't there for pet insurance to be the cure-all that you seem to think it is.

Fair enough, but I never said that pet insurance was to be a silver bullet solution. I was just trying to put forth some ideas that I have considered. Nor did I say that everyone would purchase such plans. There are people that can't afford to put food on the table. And there are people that keep the Coach designer puppy carrier stores in business. I still believe that making veterinary care more budgetable and manageable will clearly help increase revenue.
 
Last edited:
Who said it is getting harder and harder? There are more seats each year, and the number of applicants is not increasing in proportion. The numbers would suggest its getting easier and easier to get into vet med, since it's becoming such a financially undesirably field to get into.

Also, remember that a lot of applicant numbers that schools report actually include many students that applying to several schools. This is a lot due to the centralized applications now (versus the old way of mailing in paper applications to individual schools). These numbers are going to overlap and one person can only go to one school.

Say that super strong applicant applies to 4 schools. If they all accept him/her, the person gets their choice and turns down the other 3. The other schools still count that person in their admission statistics, but they now have to go down the list to the person that was their next favorite. I was told at one school I applied out-of-state that there was on average 3 people accepted before they filled 1 out-of-state spot. By that, I mean they were turned down by 2 students before the next alternate student finally paid the deposit and accepted the spot.

That's why when you see that schools are boosting enrollment numbers primarily of out-of-state spots, you realize that vet school has theoretically become easier to get into. Now they go farther down the list in their attempt to fill the spots (and as tuition goes up year after year, I do believe that there are students balking at the price and declining - especially the ones that wanted in-state and were offered out-of-state).

We take a lot of pride in the fact this program is harder to get into than medical school, etc. That we are all super qualified and that sometimes it feels like they just randomly chose people. But it's starting to seem to me that it IS becoming easier to get into vet school because we're essentially competing with fewer people for an increased number of spots.

Finally, if we're all having to take on this kind of debt, I think it's inexcusable for the schools to flood the market with graduates ensuring that only *some* of us make it. We're stuck with the knowledge/education we paid for and a hefty debt either way. And I've noticed that everyone's really good with not saying that a degree from so-and-so school is better than one from so-and-so school so we can't really fall back on the whole "Ivy League" vs. "NOT" like some degrees do. I'd really rather the schools *risk* having a slight shortage than a surplus. If post-graduation internships keep having to go up, job offers go down, average salaries stay stagnant, and tuition rises... then only the wealthiest students will be able to afford to train for the career. Or the most shortsighted one. But I guess this supports that the belief some people have that after a certain point (that maybe has already passed for some) students with sense and other/better prospects go into a different career.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Also, remember that a lot of applicant numbers that schools report actually include many students that applying to several schools. This is a lot due to the centralized applications now (versus the old way of mailing in paper applications to individual schools). These numbers are going to overlap and one person can only go to one school.

Say that super strong applicant applies to 4 schools. If they all accept him/her, the person gets their choice and turns down the other 3. The other schools still count that person in their admission statistics, but they now have to go down the list to the person that was their next favorite. I was told at one school I applied out-of-state that there was on average 3 people accepted before they filled 1 out-of-state spot. By that, I mean they were turned down by 2 students before the next alternate student finally paid the deposit and accepted the spot.

That's why when you see that schools are boosting enrollment numbers primarily of out-of-state spots, you realize that vet school has theoretically become easier to get into. Now they go farther down the list in their attempt to fill the spots (and as tuition goes up year after year, I do believe that there are students balking at the price and declining - especially the ones that wanted in-state and were offered out-of-state).

We take a lot of pride in the fact this program is harder to get into than medical school, etc. That we are all super qualified and that sometimes it feels like they just randomly chose people. But it's starting to seem to me that it IS becoming easier to get into vet school because we're essentially competing with fewer people for an increased number of spots.

Finally, if we're all having to take on this kind of debt, I think it's inexcusable for the schools to flood the market with graduates ensuring that only *some* of us make it. We're stuck with the knowledge/education we paid for and a hefty debt either way. And I've noticed that everyone's really good with not saying that a degree from so-and-so school is better than one from so-and-so school so we can't really fall back on the whole "Ivy League" vs. "NOT" like some degrees do. I'd really rather the schools *risk* having a slight shortage than a surplus. If post-graduation internships keep having to go up, job offers go down, average salaries stay stagnant, and tuition rises... then only the wealthiest students will be able to afford to train for the career. Or the most shortsighted one. But I guess this supports that the belief some people have that after a certain point (that maybe has already passed for some) students with sense and other/better prospects go into a different career.

You don't feel as if you were qualified to get into vet school?
 
Dang. That WAS a wall of text. :) You want honesty? (Am I going to be sorry I posted this? I guess I'll find out!)

I think I'm very qualified and am doing quite well in the program. But I'm also paying quite a bit for that opportunity. I do suspect that I might not have gotten in vs. the applicant pool, say, 15 years ago. Not because of anything I didn't do right (I'm smart, dangit!, haha) - but because the odds and number of seats were against me. Deserving and qualified people have always been turned down and often at no fault of their own. But that's always going to happen when there are only so many seats made available and why people have historically described competition for programs like this as "fierce" (obviously, this STILL happens to people)..

Like I think I said before, I didn't get a contract seat. Not that many years ago it would probably have been near impossible for me to get an out-of-state seat. In my case I did get a letter. That's the school I went to. :) But I was also an alternate at two other schools... and they BOTH ended up calling me. That's the high turnover to which I was referring.

Also (in defense of my classmates and me), don't forget that once you get in you have to stay in. People DO fail out. Often you will be surprised who does (and I'm not judging - I will never know what they had going on in their lives at the time). But most people hang in there - which confirms my thinking that most of us that DO apply are competent and prepared. So far I haven't heard anyone critique the difficulty of the curriculum of the schools - and remember, science and vet med is always progressing so each years new class technically has to learn more and more than the classes before.

I will also point out in some of our defense (especially us out-of-state kids). when we we applying there weren't reports of recent grads not getting job offers.

Of course, back when I was applying I was mad there weren't more veterinary schools. Shows what I knew!
 
Last edited:
A few people have already mentioned on this thread, and I think most of us have read elsewhere, that the money owners spend on their pets is discretionary. It is greatly affected by the state of the economy. I think this is obviously one of the key weaknesses of the profession and an area that we should be focused on for new ideas. How can the profession shift the general population's view that pet med isn't discretionary? Should the Humane Society make pet insurance mandatory for newly adopted pets? Should the USDA require a set number of veterinary visits for all food/farm animals (maybe they already do, I don't know enough specifics, just throwing out an idea)? Perhaps the vet profession should lobby for employer-sponsored pet insurance that is tax deductible (do we even have a government lobby)? I know my company (legal industry) just starting doing this a few years ago. Keep in mind that employer-sponsored human health insurance only began in the 40's or 50's (Wikipedia is down today so I can't check, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon).

Anyway, the fact that most owners consider pet care discretionary is a weak point in the profession and I think more effort needs to go into shifting that perception.
 
I do suspect that I might not have gotten in vs. the applicant pool, say, 15 years ago. Not because of anything I didn't do right (I'm smart, dangit!, haha) - but because the odds and number of seats were against me. Deserving and qualified people have always been turned down and often at no fault of their own. But that's always going to happen when there are only so many seats made available and why people have historically described competition for programs like this as "fierce" (obviously, this STILL happens to people)..

I often wonder about this for myself too. The first time I applied I was not ranked anywhere near high enough to even be considered for the 60 slots that were available for that years class. The second time I applied (no change in application stats except for slightly more hours from working for a year), I was still far away, but closer to the 85 spots that they increased to that year. It really makes me wonder if I wouldn't have ended up an alternate if there were still only 60 spots being offered when I finally made it.
 
Dang, dude, I wasn't expecting such a snotty response for what I thought was a pretty level one on my part.

Sure. No problem. You referred to my comments as "weak". I am merely trying to state my opinions and offer suggestions and ideas as to how veterinarians might counter challenges and help shape the future of the profession. I thought that was what the original message was about. If you find my ideas "weak", the least you can do is offer up some of your own.
 
Sure. No problem. You referred to my comments as "weak". I am merely trying to state my opinions and offer suggestions and ideas as to how veterinarians might counter challenges and help shape the future of the profession. I thought that was what the original message was about. If you find my ideas "weak", the least you can do is offer up some of your own.

"I found your earlier argument weak" is what I said... and that is no way a criticism of YOU, but rather how you made a case for something. I didn't find your explanation/reasnoning for what you were asserting to be that STRONG.

I can't comment your physical or emotional strength, and had no intention of doing so. No need to be defensive, it wasn't a personal attack.

I stated earlier that I think we need to fix the supply/demand problem, and I am wholeheartedly for curbing class size and not increasing the number of schools. That is the solution I offer. I think if it's fair to offer poorly supported arguments for faulty solutions, it's fair not to expect me to come up with equally hare-brained ones.
 
"I found your earlier argument weak" is what I said... and that is no way a criticism of YOU, but rather how you made a case for something. I didn't find your explanation/reasnoning for what you were asserting to be that STRONG.

I can't comment your physical or emotional strength, and had no intention of doing so. No need to be defensive, it wasn't a personal attack.

I stated earlier that I think we need to fix the supply/demand problem, and I am wholeheartedly for curbing class size and not increasing the number of schools. That is the solution I offer. I think if it's fair to offer poorly supported arguments for faulty solutions, it's fair not to expect me to come up with equally hare-brained ones.

The only argument I presented was based on my belief that we would be wise not to focus so much attention on the supply side of the equation without exhausting efforts to increase the demand for veterinary services. The number of animals requiring proper medical care is growing and set to increase even further over the next several decades and beyond. We are in the middle of a deep economic recession. However, I feel that efforts to make it more difficult to practice veterinary medicine and acquire a professional education would be overly- reactionary and counter-intuitive to potential demand growth trends. I mentioned pet insurance as one possible avenue we should take a hard look to improve supply-demand margins and stand by my recommendation. I feel that it might be one of the more effective means of retaining our present standards of care while increasing generated revenue by emphasizing available subsidies and making veterinary costs more manageable and budgetable to get more patients through the door. Not sure why others felt the need to criticize what I was offering. I thought this message from the VIN creator was posted on a pre-veterinary board to solicit feedback and such suggestions. Perhaps I was wrong. Personally, I would love to hear more suggestions on how we can shape the future and protect the livelihood of the veterinary medicine profession. Especially ideas that go beyond reducing the number of practitioners when we know that the demand is not only there, but will continue to grow going forward. Anyway, thanks for the civil response. I apologize if I offended you and will strive to avoid such language going forward. :)
 
The only argument I presented was based on my belief that we would be wise not to focus so much attention on the supply side of the equation without exhausting efforts to increase the demand for veterinary services. The number of animals requiring proper medical care is growing and set to increase even further over the next several decades and beyond. We are in the middle of a deep economic recession. However, I feel that efforts to make it more difficult to practice veterinary medicine and acquire a professional education would be overly- reactionary and counter-intuitive to potential demand growth trends. I mentioned pet insurance as one possible avenue we should take a hard look to improve supply-demand margins and stand by my recommendation. I feel that it might be one of the more effective means of retaining our present standards of care while increasing generated revenue by emphasizing available subsidies and making veterinary costs more manageable and budgetable to get more patients through the door. Not sure why others felt the need to criticize what I was offering. I thought this message from the VIN creator was posted on a pre-veterinary board to solicit feedback and such suggestions. Perhaps I was wrong. Personally, I would love to hear more suggestions on how we can shape the future and protect the livelihood of the veterinary medicine profession. Especially ideas that go beyond reducing the number of practitioners when we know that the demand is not only there, but will continue to grow going forward. Anyway, thanks for the civil response. I apologize if I offended you and will strive to avoid such language going forward. :)

Improving and increasing pet insurance has been brought up by several people on the VIN forums, and is not an invalid idea. However, it is approached with trepidation even from people who advocate it because no one in the veterinary community wants to go the way of human medicine/insurance (which even a lot of MD's agree is horrid). Currently the only feasible logistical suggestion for avoiding this is to keep having owners pay out of pocket and then wait for reimbursement (keeping the medical facility out of the equation), which will still prevent many from wanting or being able to afford veterinary care. Most clinics are not going to be willing to bill clients on the understanding of getting paid when the owner does, because then there is nothing stopping the owner from never paying if they get denied, or never paying and keeping the money. Most vet clinics do not have the excess funds and large amount of business to support sending clients to collections all the time with no guarantee of actually seeing that money.
 
Ino one in the veterinary community wants to go the way of human medicine/insurance (which even a lot of MD's agree is horrid).

Could you expound on which aspects of the available human medicine/insurance models concern the veterinary community the most? Thanks.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Could you expound on which aspects of the available human medicine/insurance models concern the veterinary community the most? Thanks.

This doctor does a pretty great job at summing up his frustrations with insurance companies.

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-life-of-phone-calls.html

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2009/04/insurance-company-idiocy.html

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/sunday-reruns.html

Obviously I can't speak for current practicing vets, but I sure as heck would like to avoid scenarios like the above.
 
Improving and increasing pet insurance has been brought up by several people on the VIN forums, and is not an invalid idea. However, it is approached with trepidation even from people who advocate it because no one in the veterinary community wants to go the way of human medicine/insurance (which even a lot of MD's agree is horrid). Currently the only feasible logistical suggestion for avoiding this is to keep having owners pay out of pocket and then wait for reimbursement (keeping the medical facility out of the equation), which will still prevent many from wanting or being able to afford veterinary care. Most clinics are not going to be willing to bill clients on the understanding of getting paid when the owner does, because then there is nothing stopping the owner from never paying if they get denied, or never paying and keeping the money. Most vet clinics do not have the excess funds and large amount of business to support sending clients to collections all the time with no guarantee of actually seeing that money.

My father, a physician, strongly, strongly, strongly discouraged me from going into human medicine -- because of human medical insurance. His advice, along with concerns about malpractice insurance, played a pretty sizable role in my decision to pursue veterinary medicine instead of human.
 
This doctor does a pretty great job at summing up his frustrations with insurance companies.

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-life-of-phone-calls.html

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2009/04/insurance-company-idiocy.html

http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/sunday-reruns.html

Obviously I can't speak for current practicing vets, but I sure as heck would like to avoid scenarios like the above.

Problems with the private insurance vehicles themselves, not with medical insurance models and concepts. My proposal involved wellness/preventative care packages coupled with optional insurance packages to cover larger procedures and emergency care. Something along the line of what Banfield and VCA offer. My interest is in exploring other models that involve such plans being offered directly by private practices or multi-practice partnerships. The private health insurance model that controls human medicine is a flawed approach from the get-go. And I would not want to emulate such a sieve-like infrastructure in which 30% of healthcare dollars go to overhead for veterinary medicine.
 
My father, a physician, strongly, strongly, strongly discouraged me from going into human medicine -- because of human medical insurance. His advice, along with concerns about malpractice insurance, played a pretty sizable role in my decision to pursue veterinary medicine instead of human.

I find this interesting, because when I was initially deciding between human and vet med, I had the same reaction from my mentor, a very successful entrepreneur, (I wanted to own my own vet practice) and he made a compelling argument that MD's can no longer make a buck due to insurance and cuts in medicare and that being a small business owner is almost becoming impossible with all of the new laws our current administration has put into effect. He is in his mid-60's and has many friends who are at the end of their very successful medical careers and say they are happy getting out now because they are so burned out from all the cuts. They are truly bitter. They also told him that they would not advise their own children going into human medicine. So, while things have changed drastically, I think we are also dealing with an older generation who has experienced times that we will never see again. But, it's a new 'normal'.

I bought into the hype about our healthcare system going down the tubes (which, there is a lot of truth, imo) and of course went to vet med intially and now am going into human med. I have found that the 'older' doctors were used to having unbelievable practices and now that government keeps taking huge chunks out of their revenue, they are NOT happy and ready to retire.

Very timely....watching the debate as I type and Ron Paul is talking about this EXACT same thing since he was a doctor in the 60s. Wild.
 
The number of animals requiring proper medical care is growing and set to increase even further over the next several decades and beyond.

Source? Even if this were true, it does not necessarily equate to owners taking their animals to the vet. Unfortunately, I think because of the recession, owners have figured out that they don't need to take Fluffy every year for their wellness exam, boosters for immunizations, dentals, purchasing their frontline and heartgard, because Fluffy made it through just fine last year AND they 'saved' a bunch of greenbacks in the meantime. I feel like since pet care is discretionary income for most (certainly not me, as I'll take them to the vet's even if it means not eating) and that once this new norm is set, people are not just going to go back to the 'good ole days'.

However, I feel that efforts to make it more difficult to practice veterinary medicine and acquire a professional education would be overly- reactionary and counter-intuitive to potential demand growth trends

Where is the research to support why you feel this is counter-intuitive and that we will need to graduate veterinarians at the current rate?
 
I find this interesting, because when I was initially deciding between human and vet med, I had the same reaction from my mentor, a very successful entrepreneur, (I wanted to own my own vet practice) and he made a compelling argument that MD's can no longer make a buck due to insurance and cuts in medicare and that being a small business owner is almost becoming impossible with all of the new laws our current administration has put into effect. He is in his mid-60's and has many friends who are at the end of their very successful medical careers and say they are happy getting out now because they are so burned out from all the cuts. They are truly bitter. They also told him that they would not advise their own children going into human medicine. So, while things have changed drastically, I think we are also dealing with an older generation who has experienced times that we will never see again. But, it's a new 'normal'.

I bought into the hype about our healthcare system going down the tubes (which, there is a lot of truth, imo) and of course went to vet med intially and now am going into human med. I have found that the 'older' doctors were used to having unbelievable practices and now that government keeps taking huge chunks out of their revenue, they are NOT happy and ready to retire.

Very timely....watching the debate as I type and Ron Paul is talking about this EXACT same thing since he was a doctor in the 60s. Wild.

What Dr. Paul fails to mention is that private insurance companies spend 1/3 of all health care dollars handed over to them by hard-working Americans on impressing shareholders, paying lucrative multi-million dollar salaries to executives, funding lobbyist efforts and marketing initiatives. Not on medical care. These companies only profit by rejecting needed procedures, tests and medical care by their policyholders. The for-profit health care insurance model is intrinsically-flawed. Single payer healthcare like Medicare is the only viable, sustainable approach. But I guess that might be shifting our discussion further off course.
 
One of my vet mentors was the child of a human medicine doctor and was explaining what happened to his father's practice all those years ago (referenced in earlier posts). And after seeing that happen, why he would fight against it in vet med. Basically, it's because of scenarios like this: your practice is bought, and you sign on to work for them with a 3 year contract. They tell you can practice however you want, see as many patients as you want, etc. It's wonderful, you have freedom and make a good salary. Then after the 3 years are up they renegotiate your contract. Same salary, but after that they were having to see double the number of clients a day and had to produce. I think what he was trying to explain is that it seemed like such a perfect option at the time, but lived to regret it. Same with insurance. It is out of control in human medicine.

We also need to watch out about the law-suits that are beyond replacement of property. Law classes are being trained in vet med, and they're going to go for pain and suffering. That's when malpractice insurance will start to skyrocket. Apparently there was recently a case in Texas that was awarded pain and suffering? I just remembered someone mentioning that and need to look it up to see what went on there.

Also something I found interesting... apparently some human doctors are experimenting with tiny in-house pharmacies again. I'm curious if that will be successful. :)
 
Source? Even if this were true, it does not necessarily equate to owners taking their animals to the vet. Unfortunately, I think because of the recession, owners have figured out that they don't need to take Fluffy every year for their wellness exam, boosters for immunizations, dentals, purchasing their frontline and heartgard, because Fluffy made it through just fine last year AND they 'saved' a bunch of greenbacks in the meantime. I feel like since pet care is discretionary income for most (certainly not me, as I'll take them to the vet's even if it means not eating) and that once this new norm is set, people are not just going to go back to the 'good ole days'.

'It's "reigning" cats and dogs and all other pets in this country according to the latest statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA). New figures just released from APPMA's 2005-2006 National Pet Owners Survey (NPOS) show pet ownership is currently at its highest level, with 63 percent of all U.S. households owning a pet which equates to more than 69 million households. That's up from 64 million in 2002 and 51 million in 1988 when APPMA's tracking began.

According to the 375 page survey that tracks hundreds of pet ownership trends, Americans own approximately 73 million dogs, 90 million cats, 139 million freshwater fish, 9 million saltwater fish, 16 million birds, 18 million small animals and 11 million reptiles.'

http://www.petplace.com/dogs/how-many-pets-are-in-the-us/page1.aspx

As the human population grows, the pet population will surely continue to grow. It is up to us to figure out ways to convince their owners to bring Fluffy to the clinic and make preventative care a budgetable and more affordable expense.

Where is the research to support why you feel this is counter-intuitive?

I find it counter-intuitive since their are only 80K veterinarians in this country, many of which are approaching retirement age, coupled with the growing number of pets in America that need medical care and the already extremely competitive nature of the academic path required to become a veterinarian.
 
What Dr. Paul fails to mention is that private insurance companies spend 1/3 of all health care dollars handed over to them by hard-working Americans on impressing shareholders, paying lucrative multi-million dollar salaries to executives, funding lobbyist efforts and marketing initiatives. Not on medical care. These companies only profit by rejecting needed procedures, tests and medical care by their policyholders. The for-profit health care insurance model is intrinsically-flawed. Single payer healthcare like Medicare is the only viable, sustainable approach. But I guess that might be shifting our discussion further off course.

Seriously, who cares. You obviously have never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Wait until the only time you can go get treatment is if you are seriously ill. And then....have to wait for treatment. I could give two craps how my private insurance dollars are spent as long as:

1.I have insurance that will allow me to get whatever test I want for whatever ailment I even *think* I may have and whenever I want to do it.

2. I can rely on my healthcare system still believing in preventive health (oh, like annual exams, bloodwork, dental cleanings twice a year, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) and not have to wait until I actually have colon cancer to get someone to pay attention to me.

3. I don't have to rely on the government to tell me I can only see a practitioner within a 5km radius of my residence.

4. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount (equal to the amount I pay for the ENTIRE year for my current insurance in the US) to get a ROUTINE PHYSICAL from a doctor and not the nurse's 'physical' which consists of blood pressure, temperature and pap smear (no physical exam, just the in, snip, and out for a smear).

5. I don't have my physicians walking around like zombies because they are owned by the government and just waiting to punch the clock at the end of the day.

'Free' healthcare is far from free. How would you like a 20% tax on everything from cars, food, clothing, tvs, computers, etc? It's not free, you will be taxed to death to pay for it. But, even then people will perceive it as free. And, you know what they say....you get what you pay for. You have NO idea how absolutely crappy your healthcare 'team' will become once we lose the ability to carry our own private insurance and be allowed to actually have a say in our own healthcare. As much as people complain about our healthcare system, we have the best in the world and unfortunately most won't realize it until it's too late.
 
Seriously, who cares. You obviously have never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Wait until the only time you can go get treatment is if you are seriously ill. And then....have to wait for treatment. I could give two craps how my private insurance dollars are spent as long as:

1.I have insurance that will allow me to get whatever test I want for whatever ailment I even *think* I may have and whenever I want to do it.

2. I can rely on my healthcare system still believing in preventive health (oh, like annual exams, bloodwork, dental cleanings twice a year, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) and not have to wait until I actually have colon cancer to get someone to pay attention to me.

3. I don't have to rely on the government to tell me I can only see a practitioner within a 5km radius of my residence.

4. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount (equal to the amount I pay for the ENTIRE year for my current insurance in the US) to get a ROUTINE PHYSICAL from a doctor and not the nurse's 'physical' which consists of blood pressure, temperature and pap smear (no physical exam, just the in, snip, and out for a smear).

5. I don't have my physicians walking around like zombies because they are owned by the government and just waiting to punch the clock at the end of the day.

'Free' healthcare is far from free. How would you like a 20% tax on everything from cars, food, clothing, tvs, computers, etc? It's not free, you will be taxed to death to pay for it. But, even then people will perceive it as free. And, you know what they say....you get what you pay for. You have NO idea how absolutely crappy your healthcare 'team' will become once we lose the ability to carry our own private insurance and be allowed to actually have a say in our own healthcare. As much as people complain about our healthcare system, we have the best in the world and unfortunately most won't realize it until it's too late.

I love this whole post! :thumbup:
 
As the human population grows, the pet population will surely continue to grow. It is up to us to figure out ways to convince their owners to bring Fluffy to the clinic and make preventative care a budgetable and more affordable expense.

I would rather take a pay cut than get in bed with the insurance companies and have them dictate how I will practice medicine.
 
Seriously, who cares. You obviously have never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Wait until the only time you can go get treatment is if you are seriously ill. And then....have to wait for treatment. I could give two craps how my private insurance dollars are spent as long as:

1.I have insurance that will allow me to get whatever test I want for whatever ailment I even *think* I may have and whenever I want to do it.

2. I can rely on my healthcare system still believing in preventive health (oh, like annual exams, bloodwork, dental cleanings twice a year, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) and not have to wait until I actually have colon cancer to get someone to pay attention to me.

3. I don't have to rely on the government to tell me I can only see a practitioner within a 5km radius of my residence.

4. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount (equal to the amount I pay for the ENTIRE year for my current insurance in the US) to get a ROUTINE PHYSICAL from a doctor and not the nurse's 'physical' which consists of blood pressure, temperature and pap smear (no physical exam, just the in, snip, and out for a smear).

5. I don't have my physicians walking around like zombies because they are owned by the government and just waiting to punch the clock at the end of the day.

'Free' healthcare is far from free. How would you like a 20% tax on everything from cars, food, clothing, tvs, computers, etc? It's not free, you will be taxed to death to pay for it. But, even then people will perceive it as free. And, you know what they say....you get what you pay for. You have NO idea how absolutely crappy your healthcare 'team' will become once we lose the ability to carry our own private insurance and be allowed to actually have a say in our own healthcare. As much as people complain about our healthcare system, we have the best in the world and unfortunately most won't realize it until it's too late.

Oh boy. The people who understand that the current health care insurance system is not sustainable might care. $253 billion was spent on health care in 1980. Up to $714 billion in 1990. And expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008!! That is almost a fifth of our entire GDP. Single payer health care IS NOT socialized medicine. And nobody is looking for "free healthcare". Of course we will have to pay for such care. However, we should spend the money as efficiently as possible. Private health care has exorbitant overhead and a flawed business model that relies on denying care for policyholders, whereas Medicare's overhead is under 5%. I have three human doctors in my family, including my father. And they all agree that single-payer health care is the best approach to ensuring the livelihood of their profession.

Many other doctors agree:
http://www.pnhp.org/
 
I would rather take a pay cut than get in bed with the insurance companies and have them dictate how I will practice medicine.

Not once did I suggest that we need to utilize existing insurance providers. Did you actually read what I wrote? Please do. Thanks.
 
'It's "reigning" cats and dogs and all other pets in this country according to the latest statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA). New figures just released from APPMA's 2005-2006 National Pet Owners Survey (NPOS) show pet ownership is currently at its highest level, with 63 percent of all U.S. households owning a pet which equates to more than 69 million households. That's up from 64 million in 2002 and 51 million in 1988 when APPMA's tracking began.

According to the 375 page survey that tracks hundreds of pet ownership trends, Americans own approximately 73 million dogs, 90 million cats, 139 million freshwater fish, 9 million saltwater fish, 16 million birds, 18 million small animals and 11 million reptiles.'

http://www.petplace.com/dogs/how-many-pets-are-in-the-us/page1.aspx

As the human population grows, the pet population will surely continue to grow. It is up to us to figure out ways to convince their owners to bring Fluffy to the clinic and make preventative care a budgetable and more affordable expense.



I find it counter-intuitive since their are only 80K veterinarians in this country, many of which are approaching retirement age, coupled with the growing number of pets in America that need medical care and the already extremely competitive nature of the academic path required to become a veterinarian.

I won't even comment on the APPMA and the validity of their research in performing this type of study, but not only are the statistics 6 yrs old, but the information presented says zero about the need for more vets. Just because pet ownership was at a high in the really fat times of our economy, does not equate to the need for more veterinarians. When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012. Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately.

The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate. And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets? There are not only more vet schools now than 20 years ago, but more seats at each school.

The Baby Boomers are currently retiring at 10,000 per day, going on a fixed incomes, have had to dig into their retirement funds way too early due to the economy, lost homes, gone bankrupt, had to move into restricted housing environments, etc. So no, I do not agree that pet ownership is going to rise to a point in which the concerns of over-saturation are not valid.
 
I'll admit I've only glanced through your posts. But I'm not sure I see the connection between a single-payer system in human healthcare and the insurance system in pet care.

I do not think that a single-payer human healthcare system can exist without some sort of government intervention.

So, how on earth do you propose that we come up with a single payer system for veterinary care? I certainly don't think that the government has any business (or need!) to regulate insurance or healthcare for pets, outside of the usual laws regulating public health risks. Or, would the Banfield-like system that you keep referring to operate in this fashion? I only have a passing knowledge of their healthcare plans, but the fact that I haven't seen many private practices begin utilizing their approach implies to me that it may not be profitable or desirable for your average practice.
 
$253 billion was spent on health care in 1980. Up to $714 billion in 1990. And expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008!!

And your point?

Single payer health care IS NOT socialized medicine

It's a government program, flawed as is every 'business' the government tries to run. I wouldn't trust them to balance my checkbook, let alone the budget.

I have three human doctors in my family, including my father. And they all agree that single-payer health care is the best approach to ensuring the livelihood of their profession.

Well, that explains it all now.

. And nobody is looking for "free healthcare".

Clearly you have not been spending your free time reading up on current issues.

Many other doctors agree:
http://www.pnhp.org/

Oh stop. Please.
 
August West, I agree with you that people spend a ton of money on pets so that there's potential to increase vet revenues by getting people to shift their spending on vet care instead of toys, foo foo foods (that are just repackaged versions of cheaper food a lot of the time), grooming, and other accessories/services. I do believe there is room for growth on the demand side of the equation.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that it will ever happen. It just goes against human nature. People have the tendency to be happy spending money on things they want, while they resent spending money on things they need. That is the root of a lot of financial problems in general, not just in vet med. Call me pessimistic, but I don't think any amount of marketing or the savviest business model will change that. Maybe you disagree, but if you truly have ideas about how to get around this problem, I think you may be in the wrong field... as you probably have a nobel prize worthy mind. Hell, think about how wonderful the world would be if everyone spent their money in ways that actually made sense (you know, like taking care of needs before wants)!
 
I won't even comment on the APPMA and the validity of their research in performing this type of study, but not only are the statistics 6 yrs old, but the information presented says zero about the need for more vets. Just because pet ownership was at a high in the really fat times of our economy, does not equate to the need for more veterinarians. When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012. Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately.

The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate. And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets? There are not only more vet schools now than 20 years ago, but more seats at each school.

The Baby Boomers are currently retiring at 10,000 per day, going on a fixed incomes, have had to dig into their retirement funds way too early due to the economy, lost homes, gone bankrupt, had to move into restricted housing environments, etc. So no, I do not agree that pet ownership is going to rise to a point in which the concerns of over-saturation are not valid.

I won't even comment on the APPMA and the validity of their research in performing this type of study, but not only are the statistics 6 yrs old, but the information presented says zero about the need for more vets. Just because pet ownership was at a high in the really fat times of our economy, does not equate to the need for more veterinarians. When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012. Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately.

The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate. And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets? There are not only more vet schools now than 20 years ago, but more seats at each school.

The Baby Boomers are currently retiring at 10,000 per day, going on a fixed incomes, have had to dig into their retirement funds way too early due to the economy, lost homes, gone bankrupt, had to move into restricted housing environments, etc. So no, I do not agree that pet ownership is going to rise to a point in which the concerns of over-saturation are not valid.

Thank you for the response. So many points to address, so little time. Here goes:

• The AVMA's U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook illustrates nearly identical growth trends in pet ownership as the APPMA and other similar studies conducted. And these trends are hardly seen only over short sample periods. Minor fluctuations in pet ownership are sure to surface over a span of years, particularly when the economy is depressed but the overall trend shows constant growth. In 1988, there were 51 million pet owners in the US. By 2007, there were over 71 million.

• "
Just because pet ownership was at a high in the really fat times of our economy, does not equate to the need for more veterinarians."

If the number of pets in America continues to grow to new heights. Again, this is not just a short-term growth.


• "When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012."

We are in a recession. Unemployment is troubling for all sectors and industries across the country. Of course veterinary medicine has been affected. That is why this is an especially good time to discuss ideas that address the challenges and pressures that will continue to face our profession.

• "Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately."

How is this related to the number of practicing veterinarians in the country? Would less veterinarians lead to less abandoned pets?

• The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate.

Dismal human population rate?? The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 400 million by 2050. Is that not enough growth for you??

• And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets?

US Department of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos076.htm


The job market for veterinarians is actually growing more steadily than other professions. Something like 33% growth by 2018. Many baby boomers will be closing in on retirement throughout these years as well.
 
I'll admit I've only glanced through your posts. But I'm not sure I see the connection between a single-payer system in human healthcare and the insurance system in pet care.

I do not think that a single-payer human healthcare system can exist without some sort of government intervention.

So, how on earth do you propose that we come up with a single payer system for veterinary care? I certainly don't think that the government has any business (or need!) to regulate insurance or healthcare for pets, outside of the usual laws regulating public health risks. Or, would the Banfield-like system that you keep referring to operate in this fashion? I only have a passing knowledge of their healthcare plans, but the fact that I haven't seen many private practices begin utilizing their approach implies to me that it may not be profitable or desirable for your average practice.

I was not promoting single payer health care for veterinary medicine. That was a tangential discussion prompted by the mention of Ron Paul and his ideas regarding human health care. My suggestions for increased efforts to create insurance programs and wellness plans for veterinarians were stated previously. And yes, part of my vision includes plans similar to what Banfield currently offers.
 
"Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately."

How is this related to the number of practicing veterinarians in the country? Would less veterinarians lead to less abandoned pets?


It doesn't relate to the number of practicing vets, but the owners. They're trying to say that owners won't change their mind anytime soon and decide to spend more money on their pets' health. It shows that they'd rather give their pets away than spend more money on them.
 
August West, I agree with you that people spend a ton of money on pets so that there's potential to increase vet revenues by getting people to shift their spending on vet care instead of toys, foo foo foods (that are just repackaged versions of cheaper food a lot of the time), grooming, and other accessories/services. I do believe there is room for growth on the demand side of the equation.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that it will ever happen. It just goes against human nature. People have the tendency to be happy spending money on things they want, while they resent spending money on things they need. That is the root of a lot of financial problems in general, not just in vet med. Call me pessimistic, but I don't think any amount of marketing or the savviest business model will change that. Maybe you disagree, but if you truly have ideas about how to get around this problem, I think you may be in the wrong field... as you probably have a nobel prize worthy mind. Hell, think about how wonderful the world would be if everyone spent their money in ways that actually made sense (you know, like taking care of needs before wants)!

Thank you for the response, Minnerbelle. I am definitely interested in receiving insight and feedback from others, particularly those with more experience than myself, regarding my thoughts on exploring other models that involve insurance and wellness plans being offered directly by private practices or multi-practice partnerships. Thanks. :thumbup:
 
HOWEVER, I don't agree that it will ever happen. It just goes against human nature. People have the tendency to be happy spending money on things they want, while they resent spending money on things they need.

I don't know that I agree with that. (Maybe, but....) I suspect that's more a generational and cultural value than a timeless bit of human nature. There's been a pretty steady erosion of discipline in the U.S. for .. what .. the last 75 years? No, I can't substantiate that - it's purely an opinion.

But I think values can - and do - shift. If people were raised valuing preventative health care (in people OR animals) they'd invest time and money in it.

But in the short term? I'd have to agree with you.
 
It doesn't relate to the number of practicing vets, but the owners. They're trying to say that owners won't change their mind anytime soon and decide to spend more money on their pets' health. It shows that they'd rather give their pets away than spend more money on them.

Nearly 20 percent of pet owners have insurance in England and 49 percent have insurance in Sweden. How did our counterparts in Europe figure out how convince their patients to embrace such financing vehicles?
 
Nearly 20 percent of pet owners have insurance in England and 49 percent have insurance in Sweden. How did our counterparts in Europe figure out how convince their patients to embrace such financing vehicles?


European people think different about many things because they're raised with different values. It's hard to convince people in the US to do the same things, if they don't grow up the same way. Trust me, I'm one of them. I have no clue why Americans do things a certain way sometimes..
 
Thank you for the response. So many points to address, so little time. Here goes:

Tell me about it...and I'm EST

The AVMA's U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook illustrates nearly identical growth trends in pet ownership as the APPMA and other similar studies conducted. And these trends are hardly seen only over short sample periods. Minor fluctuations in pet ownership are sure to surface over a span of years, particularly when the economy is depressed but the overall trend shows constant growth. In 1988, there were 51 million pet owners in the US. By 2007, there were over 71 million.

Again, not relevant. So, in 2007 there were 71 million pet owners. Big deal. That does not equate to more people taking their pets to the vet. Period.

• "When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012."

We are in a recession. Unemployment is troubling for all sectors and industries across the country. Of course veterinary medicine has been affected. That is why this is an especially good time to discuss ideas that address the challenges and pressures that will continue to face our profession.

And, one of those problems is over-saturation and dealing with an aging population that will not be able to own pets for various reasons. It is a great time to address the challenges. Another major problem is that our economy will never be the same and we are talking about discretionary income when it comes to taking care of our pets. Yes, vets are clearly needed, but we are talking about the number of vets, not whether we need them or not

• "Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately."

How is this related to the number of practicing veterinarians in the country? Would less veterinarians lead to less abandoned pets?

Umm, because your whole argument is more people equals more pet ownership equals more veterinarians needed. People dump their pets before they can't afford to feed their family. Not everyone is like us and sadly, pets are treated like property. It does not matter how many people you have in a country, if they cannot afford to feed and clothe their own, they are not going to keep their pet, let alone take them to a vet. Therefore, even though our population is growing, more people are getting rid of their pets for financial reasons.

• The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate.

Dismal human population rate?? The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 400 million by 2050. Is that not enough growth for you??

Yes, dismal. Look at the trend over the last 30-40 years. Btw, growth rate is different than population

• And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets?

US Department of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos076.htm


oh, surprise, another article produced by the ever-knowing government. So, employment is projected to be 'excellent' 2008-2018. Go ask a few actual veterinarians how 2009-2012 was as far as employment.Not a great start to the Dept of Labor's 10 year outlook on employment for veterinarians, is it?

The job market for veterinarians is actually growing more steadily than other professions. Something like 33% growth by 2018. Many baby boomers will be closing in on retirement throughout these years as well.

No, it does not say there will be 33% growth, but rather that they believe employment of veterinarians will increase by 33%. Big difference considering there are a lot of unemployed veterinarians. And really, who cares if it's growing more steadily than other professions if you can't find a job? Thankfully, there are people like Paul Pion who are willing to commit themselves to helping the cause and looking for solutions. You say that is what you want, yet don't see the forest through the trees in that there are simply too many veterinarians graduating each year. Why? Because higher education is one of the most successful businesses going today and they will gladly increase their seats and build new schools in order to gain the additional tuition. You don't really think they are doing it because there is a shortage of veterinarians, do you?



..
 
Last edited:
European people think different about many things because they're raised with different values. It's hard to convince people in the US to do the same things, if they don't grow up the same way. Trust me, I'm one of them. I have no clue why Americans do things a certain way sometimes..

There may be some truth to that. However, the increased market share for pet insurance in Europe is a relatively new phenomenon. For example, the pet insurance market in Britain has grown to almost £600 million in 2011, or $1.17 billion at current exchange rates, from nearly £380 million in 2006. There might be more to this progression than inherent values. And I think we will benefit to look closely at such things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-pets.4.10190607.html
 
Last edited:
Seriously, who cares. You obviously have never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Wait until the only time you can go get treatment is if you are seriously ill. And then....have to wait for treatment. I could give two craps how my private insurance dollars are spent as long as:

1.I have insurance that will allow me to get whatever test I want for whatever ailment I even *think* I may have and whenever I want to do it.

2. I can rely on my healthcare system still believing in preventive health (oh, like annual exams, bloodwork, dental cleanings twice a year, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) and not have to wait until I actually have colon cancer to get someone to pay attention to me.

3. I don't have to rely on the government to tell me I can only see a practitioner within a 5km radius of my residence.

4. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount (equal to the amount I pay for the ENTIRE year for my current insurance in the US) to get a ROUTINE PHYSICAL from a doctor and not the nurse's 'physical' which consists of blood pressure, temperature and pap smear (no physical exam, just the in, snip, and out for a smear).

5. I don't have my physicians walking around like zombies because they are owned by the government and just waiting to punch the clock at the end of the day.

'Free' healthcare is far from free. How would you like a 20% tax on everything from cars, food, clothing, tvs, computers, etc? It's not free, you will be taxed to death to pay for it. But, even then people will perceive it as free. And, you know what they say....you get what you pay for. You have NO idea how absolutely crappy your healthcare 'team' will become once we lose the ability to carry our own private insurance and be allowed to actually have a say in our own healthcare. As much as people complain about our healthcare system, we have the best in the world and unfortunately most won't realize it until it's too late.

I have lived permanently in both a country with (Canada) and without (US) socialized health care, along with temporarily in another socialized one (Finland). I cannot even fathom half the things you're arguing.

Overall: you must have seriously awesome insurance to get the amount of coverage you say you're getting for the price - are you relatively young, and have you been healthy your entire life? Because I have a couple friends with chronic diseases that would like to argue about the cost of insurance and how much it provides them.

1. You aren't a doctor. Why should they test things that aren't indicated on a whim? Yes, communicate your problems and what you think should be tested, but I see your "pro" as an awesome way of escalating costs ridiculously. I shouldn't be able to waltz in and say "test me for x" when I have no strong indications of such. See also overall statement, as this is not typical of most insurances.

2. Preventative health saves money. In my experience, when you cross the border from the US to Canada the number of public service announcements and emphasis on preventative health skyrockets. When the public foots the bill, they prefer you take the time to get that sniffle checked out before it turns into full-blown, hospitalization-requiring infection.

3. Sorry? In the US, I have restrictions for what doctors I can see, too. How is this any different?

4. Not sure of the specific situation you're complaining about... but once again, you either have quite affordable insurance or the cost you're stating is rather obscene. In any case, this is obviously a specific problem with the system you utilized, not socialized healthcare in general.

5. I don't like physicians walking around like zombies because they've spent the last X years of their lives watching extraneous paperwork pile up in cliffs around them, can't provide best practice treatment to patients because they know they'll bankrupt them (even for insured people!) and are having to work intensively with mainly profit-driven insurance companies.

Also - by what measure does the US have the best healthcare in the world? We have some of the best healthcare centers, yes. Our doctors are brilliant. But when a significant chunk of the population can't access that care due to cost (or other factors!), I sincerely question your assertion. It also doesn't jibe with the WHO rankings or any others I know of.

Not going to look it up/go intensely into taxes because I need to get back to studying biochem, but we either spend the most or close to the most per capita on healthcare around the world. Damn right I would prefer we just take it out of my weekly grocery bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Originally Posted by August West
Thank you for the response. So many points to address, so little time. Here goes:

Tell me about it...and I'm EST

• The AVMA's U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook illustrates nearly identical growth trends in pet ownership as the APPMA and other similar studies conducted. And these trends are hardly seen only over short sample periods. Minor fluctuations in pet ownership are sure to surface over a span of years, particularly when the economy is depressed but the overall trend shows constant growth. In 1988, there were 51 million pet owners in the US. By 2007, there were over 71 million.

Again, not relevant. So, in 2007 there were 71 million pet owners. Big deal. That does not equate to more people taking their pets to the vet. Period.

How is that not relevant?? There are 20 million more potential patients than there were 20 years ago. We need to figure out how to get more of them into the exam room. I have been saying that all along.

• "When you have new grads sitting on the street, clearly there is not a shortage as of 2012."

We are in a recession. Unemployment is troubling for all sectors and industries across the country. Of course veterinary medicine has been affected. That is why this is an especially good time to discuss ideas that address the challenges and pressures that will continue to face our profession.

And, one of those problems is over-saturation and dealing with an aging population that will not be able to own pets for various reasons. It is a great time to address the challenges. Another major problem is that our economy will never be the same and we are talking about discretionary income when it comes to taking care of our pets. Yes, vets are clearly needed, but we are talking about the number of vets, not whether we need them or not

If the overall population is aging, isn't the veterinary practitioner population also aging?

• "Have you been by a shelter recently? Ask them how many pets get literally dropped off at the door in the middle of the night, compared to 2005-2006. Owners are abandoning their pets now more than ever, unfortunately."

How is this related to the number of practicing veterinarians in the country? Would less veterinarians lead to less abandoned pets?

Umm, because your whole argument is more people equals more pet ownership equals more veterinarians needed. People dump their pets before they can't afford to feed their family. Not everyone is like us and sadly, pets are treated like property. It does not matter how many people you have in a country, if they cannot afford to feed and clothe their own, they are not going to keep their pet, let alone take them to a vet. Therefore, even though our population is growing, more people are getting rid of their pets for financial reasons.

I am not calling for an increase in veterinary degrees being offered. I just don't think that we need to reduce the number nor make it more difficult for students to pass their boards. That is why I offered suggestions that focused more on the demand side of the equation. Another possibility that I have considered is advocating and pressuring local governments to offer tax deductions for veterinary costs of their pets. I think the demand side of the equation offers much more potential in terms of protecting the livelihood of and shaping the future of this profession and needs to be further analyzed.

• The US human population is not only growing at a dismal 1.1%, but the death rates are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040, from about 56 million a year in 2011. Current projections show a continued increase in population but a steady decline in the population growth rate.

Dismal human population rate?? The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 400 million by 2050. Is that not enough growth for you??

Yes, dismal. Look at the trend over the last 30-40 years. Btw, growth rate is different than population

I realize the difference. Growth rate typically goes down as population size increases. We do not a dismal population growth in America. In fact, we have one that is highly concerning.

• And where are your numbers to show the replacement needs for retiring vets?

US Department of Labor
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos076.htm


oh, surprise, another article produced by the ever-knowing government. So, employment is projected to be 'excellent' 2008-2018. Go ask a few actual veterinarians how 2009-2012 was as far as employment.Not a great start to the Dept of Labor's 10 year outlook on employment for veterinarians, is it?

These are tough times. But we cannot be too reactionary. We need to look at the big picture and towards long-term industry projections if we hope to stay ahead of a changing environment.

The job market for veterinarians is actually growing more steadily than other professions. Something like 33% growth by 2018. Many baby boomers will be closing in on retirement throughout these years as well.

No, it does not say there will be 33% growth, but rather that they believe employment of veterinarians will increase by 33%. Big difference considering there are a lot of unemployed veterinarians. And really, who cares if it's growing more steadily than other professions if you can't find a job? Thankfully, there are people like Paul Pion who are willing to commit themselves to helping the cause and looking for solutions. You say that is what you want, yet don't see the forest through the trees in that there are simply too many veterinarians graduating each year. Why? Because higher education is one of the most successful businesses going today and they will gladly increase their seats to take the additional tuition. You don't really think they are doing it because there is a shortage of veterinarians, do you?

Then go try to pressure the vet schools to reduce their class sizes. I personally do not agree with such an approach. Which is why I offered alternative suggestions that I believe will be more fruitful. Do you have actual ideas for ways that veterinarians can contribute to shaping the future of the profession? I would love to hear them once you are finished criticizing mine. ;)
 
Seriously, who cares. You obviously have never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Wait until the only time you can go get treatment is if you are seriously ill. And then....have to wait for treatment. I could give two craps how my private insurance dollars are spent as long as:

1.I have insurance that will allow me to get whatever test I want for whatever ailment I even *think* I may have and whenever I want to do it.

2. I can rely on my healthcare system still believing in preventive health (oh, like annual exams, bloodwork, dental cleanings twice a year, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc) and not have to wait until I actually have colon cancer to get someone to pay attention to me.

3. I don't have to rely on the government to tell me I can only see a practitioner within a 5km radius of my residence.

4. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount (equal to the amount I pay for the ENTIRE year for my current insurance in the US) to get a ROUTINE PHYSICAL from a doctor and not the nurse's 'physical' which consists of blood pressure, temperature and pap smear (no physical exam, just the in, snip, and out for a smear).

5. I don't have my physicians walking around like zombies because they are owned by the government and just waiting to punch the clock at the end of the day.

'Free' healthcare is far from free. How would you like a 20% tax on everything from cars, food, clothing, tvs, computers, etc? It's not free, you will be taxed to death to pay for it. But, even then people will perceive it as free. And, you know what they say....you get what you pay for. You have NO idea how absolutely crappy your healthcare 'team' will become once we lose the ability to carry our own private insurance and be allowed to actually have a say in our own healthcare. As much as people complain about our healthcare system, we have the best in the world and unfortunately most won't realize it until it's too late.

Firstly Flyhi, as someone who has lived my entire life in a country with socialised healthcare, pretty much every point you make is wrong (obviously pertaining to the system I'm in). And whats more, we don't have people over here going without medical care because they can't afford it, or go bankrupt due to medical bills. Amazing!

I stated earlier that I think we need to fix the supply/demand problem, and I am wholeheartedly for curbing class size and not increasing the number of schools.

:thumbup: +1

If vets can't find jobs, there is OBVIOUSLY too great a supply for the demand. If it is a WIDESPREAD problem, both supply and demand need to be adjusted. Both sides of the equations need to be balanced - if current vets are having problems getting jobs, it is completely ridiculous to open more schools and offer more spots. I know prevets don't like lowering their chances of getting into vet school, but there is no point in going to vet school if you don't get to be a vet at the end of it.
 
oh, surprise, another article produced by the ever-knowing government. So, employment is projected to be 'excellent' 2008-2018. Go ask a few actual veterinarians how 2009-2012 was as far as employment.Not a great start to the Dept of Labor's 10 year outlook on employment for veterinarians, is it?

Eh. I suppose that all depends on how you look at it. Sure, within the field we're all wrapped up in the direction it's headed and the drop in quality-of-life associated with restricted, lower incomes that don't rise as fast as they used to (or are constrained with debt)..... but take a step back.

How many people with DVM degrees are part of the 8.5% unemployment in the U.S. right now? I'd wager that the unemployment rate in this field is dramatically lower than the overall unemployment rate in the country. So in that sense, the BLS's rosy outlook is justified if you remember that really, they just care about numbers of employed people. They don't care that vets might have to live on a tighter budget than previous years. New vets ought to care, but the BLS doesn't.

Perspective matters. If you talk to someone in an industry that has *actually* crashed - massive layoffs, huge companies going under, people not finding jobs for years - our picture doesn't look so bad. If you talk to us, when we can see the average school debt, declining office visits, loss of revenue centers (like pharmacy), longer periods of times for new graduates without jobs, stagnant salaries, etc. .... it starts to feel pretty ugly.

I do have to admit, though, that as someone who has been part of an industry that's truly going under, I roll my eyes a tiny bit every time I hear someone talk about graduate DVMs not finding jobs for *gasp* six months. I've seen educated, hard-working, skilled friends in my previous industry be stuck without jobs for two years...... And those are people with experience in the industry. I'm not trying to make light of new DVMs looking for jobs - it SUCKS when you can't find one. I'm just saying .... keep some perspective. It's neither as rosy as it used to be nor as bad as some people are making it out to be. Losing perspective will just make it harder to rationally attack the really serious problems that the industry faces .

Again, not relevant. So, in 2007 there were 71 million pet owners. Big deal. That does not equate to more people taking their pets to the vet. Period.

Exactly right. There is almost no point in talking about population and pet ownership numbers without at least giving passing attention to the age groups that are owning them, or general consumer trends with regards to clinic visits. Pet ownership could continue to climb with office visits going down, or it could decline and office visits could go up. It's a more complex picture than just assuming that increasing pet numbers means increasing office visits. With regard to age groups ... there might be increasing overall pet owners, but if most of that increase is from upper age groups, with younger age groups declining in ownership, it's probably not the positive marker that August West would like it to be. (I don't know that that's the case; I'm just saying that without more detail the pet ownership number isn't valuable, except insofar as we can say "Hey - there are that many more potential clients out there." But unfortunately, potential clients only pay potential bills, which doesn't help much.
 
Last edited:
Exactly right. There is almost no point in talking about population and pet ownership numbers without at least giving passing attention to the age groups that are owning them, or general consumer trends with regards to clinic visits. Pet ownership could continue to climb with office visits going down, or it could decline and office visits could go up. It's a more complex picture than just assuming that increasing pet numbers means increasing office visits. With regard to age groups ... there might be increasing overall pet owners, but if most of that increase is from upper age groups, with younger age groups declining in ownership, it's probably not the positive marker that August West would like it to be. (I don't know that that's the case; I'm just saying that without more detail the pet ownership number isn't valuable, except insofar as we can say "Hey - there are that many more potential clients out there." But unfortunately, potential clients only pay potential bills, which doesn't help much.

FWIW... From Pet Age magazine (2008):

"Almost two-thirds of all Americans (63 percent) own a pet but, the poll shows, certain groups are more likely to own pets. For example, pet ownership is higher among women than men (68 percent versus 57 percent). Pet ownership is higher among Gen Xers and Baby Boomers than younger and older generations (71 percent and 67 percent, respectively)."

http://www.petage.com/news020801.asp
 
I have lived permanently in both a country with (Canada) and without (US) socialized health care, along with temporarily in another socialized one (Finland). I cannot even fathom half the things you're arguing.

You don't have to believe it, nor understand it. But, it's all true

Overall: you must have seriously awesome insurance to get the amount of coverage you say you're getting for the price - are you relatively young, and have you been healthy your entire life? Because I have a couple friends with chronic diseases that would like to argue about the cost of insurance and how much it provides them.

:laugh:
Catastrophic insurance that is not only inexpensive per month, but has great negotiated rates. High deductible, but if something goes massively wrong, it is nothing in terms of the big picture. Young at heart, yes. Healthy...yes, I've taken care of myself and am adamant about my preventative care. My mom had terminal cancer and her insurance was fabulous. Can't speak for others.


1. You aren't a doctor. Why should they test things that aren't indicated on a whim? Yes, communicate your problems and what you think should be tested, but I see your "pro" as an awesome way of escalating costs ridiculously. I shouldn't be able to waltz in and say "test me for x" when I have no strong indications of such. See also overall statement, as this is not typical of most insurances.

Brilliant observation, but I AM the only one who can actually feel what is going on. It's not a whim, nor did I say there weren't strong indications. I'm not going to ask for tests to be run just because...c'mon now. If I don't 'feel right' (and I know my body very well) and I want either bloodwork done, or go to a specialist even though my PCP can't find anything, then that is exactly what I want (and am going) to do. And, that is what I recently did and found something. Had I been in your fantasy land healthcare world, I would have been dismissed and not 'allowed' to go to a specialist. Instead, I was given the number, called and made an appointment. No government red tape

2. Preventative health saves money. In my experience, when you cross the border from the US to Canada the number of public service announcements and emphasis on preventative health skyrockets. When the public foots the bill, they prefer you take the time to get that sniffle checked out before it turns into full-blown, hospitalization-requiring infection.

That was not my experience at all. The socialized country where I lived did not believe in preventative health. And, tell me this, why are the US doctor's offices at the border filled with Canadians??? Because they are not able to get the procedures they want and need. And, I actually feel that Canada has one of the better socialized models. But, you still have an exorbitant VAT to pay for it...so it's not 'free'. My brother lives in Canada, btw

3. Sorry? In the US, I have restrictions for what doctors I can see, too. How is this any different?

Sorry, I don't. And, even when I had a PPO and had an in-network list of doctors, I could go to whomever I wanted if I were willing to pay a little extra. It's also different in the fact that I was restricted by distance from my residence as to what doctor I could see in the socialized system. Pretty sure that is not what you are referring to...most restrictions are tied to the physicians that are enrolled in your provider's coverage. No? And, typically there are plenty of choices

4. Not sure of the specific situation you're complaining about... but once again, you either have quite affordable insurance or the cost you're stating is rather obscene. In any case, this is obviously a specific problem with the system you utilized, not socialized healthcare in general.

No, it's not either/or. I don't know what you consider affordable, but yes, I consider it very affordable and a great plan. And yes, the cost was obscene for what I described. They were not mutually exclusive events.

5. I don't like physicians walking around like zombies because they've spent the last X years of their lives watching extraneous paperwork pile up in cliffs around them, can't provide best practice treatment to patients because they know they'll bankrupt them (even for insured people!) and are having to work intensively with mainly profit-driven insurance companies.

Haven't experienced that. My physician charged me 40 bucks (was uninsured at the time) for the exact same thing I was going to be charged 500 GBP in the UK for.....filling out a form for a vet school physical. Yes, true story

Also - by what measure does the US have the best healthcare in the world? We have some of the best healthcare centers, yes. Our doctors are brilliant. But when a significant chunk of the population can't access that care due to cost (or other factors!), I sincerely question your assertion. It also doesn't jibe with the WHO rankings or any others I know of.

You can question all you like, but anyone here can walk into an emergency room and get treated without healthcare.

Not going to look it up/go intensely into taxes because I need to get back to studying biochem, but we either spend the most or close to the most per capita on healthcare around the world. Damn right I would prefer we just take it out of my weekly grocery bill.

Obviously you are one that feels that it's more 'free' that way. Whether you take it out of your grocery bill or raise taxes, you are still paying for it. All you are telling me is that you don't know how to budget very well
 
@sunshinevet - Aussie's have it easy, what can I say? :rolleyes: That was my experience and even the professor's at Uni were down on the system, so maybe they just really don't know how to do it over ther. If people would take the difference in taxes that we pay here compared to most socialized societies, put it in the bank and applied it towards healthcare premiums, everyone would have healthcare. A lot of the problem is lack of discipline.
 
Last edited:
You can question all you like, but anyone here can walk into an emergency room and get treated without healthcare.

How is that a metric of our overall health care system? We are an enlightened society that strive to be ethical. So, we refuse to turn down an individual in medical need at our emergency room. This is not a free service, either. The patient will be billed. And if he cannot pay the bills, his credit rating will deteriorate and the tax payer will pick up the tab one way or the other. This is why we are already paying for the uninsured.

Here is an actual ranking of the world's healthcare systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_healthcare_systems

The US falls in at #37. Just above Slovenia and Cuba. Lots of European nations near the top. And Canada is well above us as well. The ranking are based on the following methodology:


  • Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
    • Overall or average : 25%
    • Distribution or equality : 25%
  • Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
    • Overall or average : 12.5%
    • Distribution or equality : 12.5%
  • Fair financial contribution : 25%
 
Eh. I suppose that all depends on how you look at it. Sure, within the field we're all wrapped up in the direction it's headed and the drop in quality-of-life associated with restricted, lower incomes that don't rise as fast as they used to (or are constrained with debt)..... but take a step back.

How many people with DVM degrees are part of the 8.5% unemployment in the U.S. right now? I'd wager that the unemployment rate in this field is dramatically lower than the overall unemployment rate in the country. So in that sense, the BLS's rosy outlook is justified if you remember that really, they just care about numbers of employed people. They don't care that vets might have to live on a tighter budget than previous years. New vets ought to care, but the BLS doesn't.

Perspective matters. If you talk to someone in an industry that has *actually* crashed - massive layoffs, huge companies going under, people not finding jobs for years - our picture doesn't look so bad. If you talk to us, when we can see the average school debt, declining office visits, loss of revenue centers (like pharmacy), longer periods of times for new graduates without jobs, stagnant salaries, etc. .... it starts to feel pretty ugly.

I do have to admit, though, that as someone who has been part of an industry that's truly going under, I roll my eyes a tiny bit every time I hear someone talk about graduate DVMs not finding jobs for *gasp* six months. I've seen educated, hard-working, skilled friends in my previous industry be stuck without jobs for two years...... And those are people with experience in the industry. I'm not trying to make light of new DVMs looking for jobs - it SUCKS when you can't find one. I'm just saying .... keep some perspective. It's neither as rosy as it used to be nor as bad as some people are making it out to be. Losing perspective will just make it harder to rationally attack the really serious problems that the industry faces .

You make some great points and I agree that DVMs are probably much better off than many markets. I too, was in an industry that literally crashed (thus going back to school). It is not doom and gloom for vets, but I do think that some changes need to be considered. I just don't think class numbers need to be increased and I feel like it should be easier to specialize.
 
I do think that some changes need to be considered. I just don't think class numbers need to be increased and I feel like it should be easier to specialize.

I absolutely agree with every point there. Except maybe specialization ... I think I agree, but I'm still not quite off the fence. I feel like I don't know enough about how it would be implemented and what effect it would have.
 
How is that a metric of our overall health care system? We are an enlightened society that strive to be ethical. So, we refuse to turn down an individual in medical need at our emergency room. This is not a free service, either. The patient will be billed. And if he cannot pay the bills, his credit rating will deteriorate and the tax payer will pick up the tab one way or the other. This is why we are already paying for the uninsured.

Here is an actual ranking of the world's healthcare systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_healthcare_systems

The US falls in at #37. Just above Slovenia and Cuba. Lots of European nations near the top. And Canada is well above us as well. The ranking are based on the following methodology:


  • Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
    • Overall or average : 25%
    • Distribution or equality : 25%
  • Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
    • Overall or average : 12.5%
    • Distribution or equality : 12.5%
  • Fair financial contribution : 25%

Rankings/shmankings. If I get sick, there is NO WHERE ELSE I'd rather be, than right here in the US of A. I look at some of these countries 'above' us and :eek: Terrifying.

You have outlasted me only because you are on the Left Coast. I admire your tenacity, but clearly we do not agree on some things. And, that's Ok.

It sounds like you are committed to help shape the future of vet med and for that, I commend you and wish you the best.

You'll have to find someone else to :poke: cause I'm signing off. No hate mail in the middle of the night ;)
 
Top