I bag and toss my pets in the river when ever I land on hard times too.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
creating a free healthcare system for animals for poor people, for or against?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
A pet isn't a human right, there are plenty of people who wouldn't/couldn't look after one to the standard it deserves. You can't say dogs make people feel better so everyone gets one as many would end up living poor lives. People should prove they can look after themselves first and then prove it for an animal.
There are other options besides killing a pet if you find yourself in a situation where you can no longer afford their care. Like, giving them to a shelter or letting someone else adopt them. If you think your situation might be temporary you could probably even find a place that allows you to take them back if you can sort out your financial situation is an agreed upon amount of time
No shelters around my area will take in cats. Same with vets. They will just put them down. Most people only want to adopt kittens.
I've had this discussion before, usually on grounds of setting up a universal healthcare system for animals. The issue is, what animals does it cover? Only house animals? What about horses? If horses are included, then what about farm animals?
We should work on improving the quality of life in the regions the West has exploited for centuries first. The people who live there need affordable and sufficient healthcare as well - among many other things.
I think service animals for people with disabilities should be covered by healthcare but not your average pet.
I think service animals for people with disabilities should be covered by healthcare but not your average pet.
Not exactly the same, but in the UK we have the PDSA who offer free/heavily discounted vet services for low income people. They helped me out massively when I was younger.
Edit: Urgh, so many people worrying about the tiny fraction of people who might abuse the system over the majority who desperately need the help. The pearl-clutchers always come out whenever benefits a brought up.
Edit: Urgh, so many people worrying about the tiny fraction of people who might abuse the system over the majority who desperately need the help. The pearl-clutchers always come out whenever benefits a brought up.
Last edited:
Sure but I think it should be funded through a licensing system. There is far too much abuse that happens to animals and it's far too easy to just buy/adopt an animal, especially as some require very specific conditions and have needs that can be very time consuming.
Presuming there are no other concerns for which funds and resources are more urgent:
I see no issue with subsidizing spaying and neutering for pets and expanded healthcare services for service and farm animals.
I see no issue with subsidizing spaying and neutering for pets and expanded healthcare services for service and farm animals.
Instead i let it die? Because i can not afford surgery the pet might not need but food?
Yes! Dont get your own hands dirty! Let other do the killing.
Many shelters/rescues look for fosters, which means they cover all expenses for temporary care till a forever home is found.
The money is just one tiny aspect of animal welfare, and effort as well as care is needed to manage homeless animals on our streets. Shelters that are full will end in animals either dying on the street or being euthanized.
"Returning a pet because you can not afford it" would be equal to losing a spot in the shelter for another pet. Especially because those pets usually are older and problematic pets that are difficult to promote. It'd be better to support the owner and make it possible for them to put their time, energy and effort into the rest of the pets life.
People who should bring their pets to shelter are those who mistreat, do not provide adequate time and life quality andnot those who lack money.
The money is just one tiny aspect of animal welfare, and effort as well as care is needed to manage homeless animals on our streets. Shelters that are full will end in animals either dying on the street or being euthanized.
"Returning a pet because you can not afford it" would be equal to losing a spot in the shelter for another pet. Especially because those pets usually are older and problematic pets that are difficult to promote. It'd be better to support the owner and make it possible for them to put their time, energy and effort into the rest of the pets life.
People who should bring their pets to shelter are those who mistreat, do not provide adequate time and life quality andnot those who lack money.
Last edited:
Lol no it's not an animal life is more valuable than human life posts, it's I wonder how my love for my potential children is going to compare to my love for my pets post. This is entirely on me and my own issues, that's all. And I don't agree with that last point, kids can grow up in supportive environments and have siblings that become "good" human beings while their own trajectory towards adulthood goes off the rails. People can just be sociopaths through no fault of their parents, that's what scares me about having kids.
Why not just operate a joint shelter for lost animals and homeless? The animals are technically adoptable but they are available to play and interact with people in the shelter.
So can pets? Not all animals turn out nice, even if they are brought up/ trained right
The former already exists in many communities. It's a shame that people don't seem to realize that unless you live in a rural area there are options for very low cost or even free spay/neuter services.
The homeless population of San Francisco camped out near the big animal shelter and the results were not great:
The SF SPCA ended up hiring robot patrol guards to keep them away from the shelter.
The SF SPCA ended up hiring robot patrol guards to keep them away from the shelter.
human beings first
and we don't even have that, and you want it for pets? owning a pet is a luxury in itself unless it's for a medical reason
and we don't even have that, and you want it for pets? owning a pet is a luxury in itself unless it's for a medical reason
Some counties provide vouchers for spay/neuter. It's a good investment for the county to avoid more unwanted puppies in shelters.
High vet costs prevent some people from getting pets and that's a good thing. Still plenty of people who do not have the time, knowledge or money to properly take care of animals get pets when they shouldn't. "Free healthcare" for animals would just lead to more abandoned animals. Pets also aren't a human right, equal access to medical treatment for people should be, however. Let's achieve that first.
OP
OP
I believe there is always money somewhere. When you know that a minority of people owns most of the wealth in the world, I think it could be possible to treat both humans and animals better.
The reason you don't have that is in my opinion selfishness of a minority.
