• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

creating a free healthcare system for animals for poor people, for or against?

Do you think it would be good to provide free animal healthcare for poor people

  • Yes, excluding expensive surgery

    Votes: 15 6.1%
  • No

    Votes: 153 61.9%
  • Yes, including surgery for all animals

    Votes: 66 26.7%
  • Yes, including surgery, but not for all animals(explain)

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • Other(explain)

    Votes: 10 4.0%

  • Total voters
    247

fireflame

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,720
First ,let us assume this does not mean it would restrict healthcare for humans, budget wise. I know for a fact many people own animals but don't get them to the vet for vaccines, nor buy medicaments, nor protection against bugs,etc.Some just don't care, which is sad, but other cannot afford and may have adopted animals that were just abandoned, or they might be homeless pêople who found a cat, dog,etc. Some groups do this with no costs but this depends on areas.

Some companies allow you to subscribe to animal insurance, but again, not everyone can afford them.

So I was thinking this could be a good idea to enable a system where vaccines and medical care for animals would be free for people with low incomes, with maybe restrictions about the numbers of animals owned.
Animals not vaccinated are more vulnerable and I think it would be a decent move to support this.

Another issue is about expensive surgery. Some animals can be saved but need expensive surgery, sometimes several thousand euros. Should this be included?for All animals or only most common ones?
 

Kuro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,505
free neutering/spaying is acceptable but I'd rather funds go towards actual people.
 

Ryaaan14

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,694
Chicago
If u find an animal u take it to a shelter. If u can not afford a pet do not have one. That’s a living thing.
 

Baconmonk

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
4,625
I don't know if we can have this conversation considering the healthcare system in the US for actual human beings.
 

Br3wnor

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,410
I love my dogs like what I assume people love children but a pet is still a pet. If someone who is poor gets a pet and they can’t afford robust medical care than I’m fine with it because if they didn’t have the animal then the pet would likely be homeless, at least they hopefully have food, shelter and love, dogs and cats are pretty hearty.

Let’s get universal healthcare world wide before we even start talking about something like this.
 

Pikelet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
481
First ,let us assume this does not mean it would restrict healthcare for humans, budget wise.
I mean sure, by saying this you're kind of presupposing in this hypothetical scenario that we have unlimited resources, and so therefore my response is that we obviously shouldn't arbitrarily withhold them.

If we were to make this a more realistic scenario where we have to make trade offs, this would be pretty low on the priority list. Even if you exclusively cared about animal welfare, there are much better ways to spend this money.
 

Samuel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
128
Owning a pet is not a right, it's a luxury. If you can't afford to care for a life, you shouldn't volunteer to do it at all. If you do, the responsiblilty to pay for all that entails falls on the individual.
 

Ryaaan14

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,694
Chicago
In a way it shouldn't be. A pet can notably improve a person's mental health and make their everyday life a bit better. Poor people are already often in a bad place, not sure if it's a good idea to try and take the last nice things away from them. That's a very American view for sure.
That’s great but it’s not about the person, it’s about the animal
 
May 25, 2018
5,037
In a way it shouldn't be. A pet can notably improve a person's mental health and make their everyday life a bit better. Poor people are already often in a bad place, not sure if it's a good idea to try and take the last nice things away from them. That's a very American view for sure.
I'm not saying it should be that way. It just is that way.
 

farmland

Member
Oct 30, 2017
302
Animals are sentient, if they're suffering they should be helped, especially if we've taken the responsibility to look after them.
 

neon_dream

Member
Dec 18, 2017
3,434
If we want good quality universal healthcare, we're going to have to raise taxes by massive amounts, not just for corporations but for everyone. That's already a difficult enough political goal.

Imagine telling people we're going to raise their taxes by a ton more so we can give free health care to everyone's pets. Fox would have nanny-state socialism jokes, insults, arguments, advertisements, and news segments for years.

Stuff like this is why the term "nanny-state" was invented.
 
Last edited:

Powdered Egg

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,103
I love my dogs like what I assume people love children but a pet is still a pet. If someone who is poor gets a pet and they can’t afford robust medical care than I’m fine with it because if they didn’t have the animal then the pet would likely be homeless, at least they hopefully have food, shelter and love, dogs and cats are pretty hearty.

Let’s get universal healthcare world wide before we even start talking about something like this.
It's not even close. Ask any pet having parent.
 

Fat4all

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,713
bork land
overpopulation is a major problem with cats and dogs, spaying and neutering should be a common and free procedure, but it does need covering financially
 

Mavis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
659
Blue Mountains
The UK has the PDSA which is a charity group that run vets for those who can't afford it. Mainly those on unemployment benefits. You can get even major surgery done for cheap or free. A lot of the vets volunteer their time.
 

Kai Dracon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,777
Rita Repulsa's Moon Palace
I chose "other" - a companion animal is a luxury in many circumstances. However:

- spaying and neutering should be subsidized, there's too much suffering for domesticated animals due to overpopulation, disease, and starvation.

- there are increasingly documented health benefits from companion animals. This is especially relevant to those in poverty, who are likely to be suffering in a variety of ways. If a physician prescribes a companion animal, I think some basic needs for it could be subsidized.
 

AGoodODST

Member
Oct 28, 2017
876
Yeah. It’s actually already a thing here for people on benefits. Don’t have a problem with it.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
No. A tremendous amount of pet procedures are elective or not medically necessary to the point that it would skew whatever sort single payer animal healthcare system we'd have. There is a level of sustaining pets lives without making them happier that I think is very skewed. I love my dog, he's a good dog, but he's my dog and you shouldn't have to subsidize my dog.

This is further complicated by the state overseeing most euthanasia programs at shelters and pounds. Making a single payer pet healthcare system would complicated things when the state regularly puts down uncared for or sick pets. How does a government system that explicit exists to keep pets alive work with the existing government system that euthanizes uncared for or sick animals?

With the exception of rabbies vaccines, spaying and neutering -- which are all things that do receive public funding in most parts of the US.
 
Last edited:

Goldenroad

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,566
It's just where do you draw the line? My fiancee and I almost went broke a couple years ago looking after our dog who had kidney disease. We were paying around $200/month for medication and special food, and $300-500 every few months for check ups and any other available treatments, including a couple $1000+ bills for some overnight stays and specialists. I would have loved for there to be some kind of financial support, but also it was our burden to bear and we don't regret any additional time that may have bought us with her, despite some really tough months trying to make ends meat. I just would worry that there would be an arbitrary line drawn if it were up to the public to have funded her treatments, and I wouldn't want it to be someone elses decision how much my dogs life was worth.
 

Trace

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,055
Canada
Fuck no. There's so many things we should be spending money on I can't even think how far down the list this would be.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,620
Government should be spaying and neutering pets for free because it's a necessary public good to safeguard the environment.

As for other forms of treatment...it would be nice if we could, but I doubt its feasible. People saying "pets are a luxury" are being kind of dumb though, a pet owned by a poor person who feeds it and loves it but can't afford surgery for it is way better off than a stray on the streets. We shouldn't be discouraging people who will feed and love animals from having them. Like most homeless people who have dogs are giving said dog a better situation than what the dog would have otherwise.
 

Cation

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
1,580
Not bad idea.

But this is what a country does when they have succeeded at everything else (which is almost impossible, actually a straight up pipe dream)
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,974
It is an interesting idea but as framed in the OP there's too many holes.

Alternative proposal: A double shelter program for the poor/homeless, and for animals, publicly funded, where individuals are tasked with keeping their pet emotionally satisfied, with healthcare for both. Pets are spayed and neutered, owners' terms of room and board are contingent on maintaining animal welfare.
 

EdgeXL

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,763
California
Adopting a pet is like adopting a child. Only do it if you can give them a good life. Poor people can give pets a good life but it requires them to make sacrifices. If they are prepared to do that then by all means. But if they are going to neglect the animal then the pets are better off not adopted.
This is why I am torn about homeless people having pets. I would hate to be the person who tells them they cannot have the love from a pet but I worry about their ability to take adequate care of the animals. In my opinion anybody who cannot absorb the cost of vet examinations, emergency Bill's and possible medications should not take on the responsibility of a pet.

I have literally seen posts on social media from people asking why they should pay $X amount to get surgery for a dog they got
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,555
Gentrified Brooklyn
What’s hilarious (and disturbing) is I see this actually working way before any real social net for humans in the US.

The US still sees poverty as a moral failing by and large, but still views animals as innocents
 

Br3wnor

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,410
It's not even close. Ask any pet having parent.
Nowhere close to comparable.
Eh we’ll see. We’re pretty obsessed with our dogs and most parent tales from people I know are horror stories so I gotta give it a go myself, I’m gonna assume it’s quite the feeling given what a nightmare having kids is on paper.

Like at the end of the day my dog is never going to disappoint me whereas my kid can grow up to be an asshole who adds nothing but stress to my life.
 

CarpeDeezNutz

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,506
Eh we’ll see. We’re pretty obsessed with our dogs and most parent tales from people I know are horror stories so I gotta give it a go myself, I’m gonna assume it’s quite the feeling given what a nightmare having kids is on paper.

Like at the end of the day my dog is never going to disappoint me whereas my kid can grow up to be an asshole who adds nothing but stress to my life.

I'm confused on which way this argument is going.

I'm not a pet person myself though.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,055
No, but with the caveat that necessary service animals like seeing eye dogs are exceptions for obvious reasons. Pets are a privilege, not a right. And even if you want the companionship pets provide but can't afford to own one, you could always volunteer at a shelter or something
 

Kyuur

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,671
I guess I'd need to check existing statistics. What amount of funding do shelters and Animal control get? Would we see more people choosing to own pets because healthcare costs wouldn't mean they couldn't afford them or do the majority of people who want pets with low income already just go for it?
 

Mest08

Member
Oct 30, 2017
899
Eh we’ll see. We’re pretty obsessed with our dogs and most parent tales from people I know are horror stories so I gotta give it a go myself, I’m gonna assume it’s quite the feeling given what a nightmare having kids is on paper.

Like at the end of the day my dog is never going to disappoint me whereas my kid can grow up to be an asshole who adds nothing but stress to my life.
I used to be an animal lover. Then I had kids. Let me tell you, the first time you see your baby is something that you'll never forget. I know kids aren't for everyone and neither are pets for that matter. But nothing comes close to the joy and love of your kids for me. Not pets, parents, siblings, wife, anything. But maybe that proves your point, lol, as a pet will love you more than anything unconditionally for the rest of it's life. But I digress and am off topic.
 

Drain You

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,452
Connecticut
No, but with the caveat that necessary service animals like seeing eye dogs are exceptions for obvious reasons. Pets are a privilege, not a right. And even if you want the companionship pets provide but can't afford to own one, you could always volunteer at a shelter or something
This is pretty much how I feel, and this is coming from a huge cat lover who had to pay for a surgery I really couldn't afford ( I know I didn't HAVE to, but you get what I mean. Pets can be expensive. The only other exception I might say is for getting an animal fixed. It really is cheap already and offering it free might just help the bigger picture anyways.
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,583
Scotland
The PDSA here provide free regular medical and emergency care for low income people's pets here.

They are saints, they saved my dogs life when I was broke. I give as much as I can to them now I'm in a better position.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,055
This is pretty much how I feel, and this is coming from a huge cat lover who had to pay for a surgery I really couldn't afford ( I know I didn't HAVE to, but you get what I mean. Pets can be expensive. The only other exception I might say is for getting an animal fixed. It really is cheap already and offering it free might just help the bigger picture anyways.
yeah, that's another fair exception. But yeah, anything else and the burden should be on the owner. Animals simply don't have the same rights as humans, and while cases of explicit and intentional abuse should obviously be punished, society does not have a responsibility to go out of its way to care for them either.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,620
Eh we’ll see. We’re pretty obsessed with our dogs and most parent tales from people I know are horror stories so I gotta give it a go myself, I’m gonna assume it’s quite the feeling given what a nightmare having kids is on paper.

Like at the end of the day my dog is never going to disappoint me whereas my kid can grow up to be an asshole who adds nothing but stress to my life.
Is this one of those 'animal life is more valuable than human life' posts? Because I hate that shit. If your kid grows to be an asshole then that is entirely or at least partially your fault.
 

Infcabbage

Member
Oct 28, 2017
538
Portland, Oregon
Pets can be extremely beneficial for people with mental illness and disability, and those people struggle enough with their own care. I consider pet care an extension of health care, for some the wellness of their pet is vital to their own well being.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,055
Pets can be extremely beneficial for people with mental illness and disability, and those people struggle enough with their own care. I consider pet care an extension of health care, for some the wellness of their pet is vital to their own well being.
I think most of us who said no would agree that service animals that are necessary to the well being of the individual are an exception since in that case it would be an extension of the individuals healthcare, and not necessarily the animal's own perse