So every pet owner without at least $10k set aside for pet emergency care is a bad owner. That describes 99% of pet owners.

I agree people should plan for more pet-related costs than they do, but, as technology progresses, there doesn't seem to be a ceiling on the amount you _could_ spend to save a pet.

In my case, we have always taken in rescue animals. So the choice is between leaving the pet at shelter or a life in a good home with some limited options when it comes to end-of-life care. I think the latter option is more humane.

There are pretty decent pet insurance policies responsible pet owners could purchase and pay a monthly premium on. I've used it for my past two dogs and it has been painless and easy to use when I needed to.

So it isn't a big $10K+ or bust argument. But the sad fact of the matter is very few pet owners assume ownership while planning for the potential bad days and the extra financial burden and responsibility that they should feel when they take on pet ownership.

I come at it from the angle that taking in a horse will costs you inordinate amounts of money upfront, and people are generally ok with it, and won't be crying to get a poney when they're already struggling to pay a mortgage.

If in practice owning a dog or cat will also cost 10k at times, it's only reasonable to take the same approach and consider owning a them as a pretty high luxury, until the costs effectively come down.

Or every pet owner gets to your level of dedication and will assist their pet and the vet when tough times come and hard decisions need to be made. I personally wouldn't have the guts so I'll stick with my goldfishes.

I agree that people shouldn't adopt a pet unless they have stable finances which are enough to pay for pet insurance and/or unexpected vet bills.

Sometimes people's finances change though, and then (assuming it wasn't serious money mismanagement) I think it's cruel to say they should give up their pet.

Pet insurance should be front-loaded, so you have to pay a lot the first few months, but if you stop paying you get to keep the insurance at least for a while.

I had insurance for years and it did me no good, they refused to cover a single dollar of expenses even though I had the best most comprehensive policy I could find. This has been my experience with insurance in general. Even in cases where you read the fine print and have all your paperwork in order, they just deny all claims period. Collecting on insurance requires being ready to go to court.

Pet insurance is basically the opposite. Most people get it when their pet is young and the premiums for young pets are reasonable and low. Then, as the pet ages, the premiums go up and up.

And once you have any vet record of anything other than a routine wellness check, you're basically locked into your policy because if you try and switch providers, you'll run into pre-existing condition limitations, which are quite difficult to understand or predict. This is also difficult because not only will your insurance go up simply for your pet getting older, the pet insurance companies are constantly going through rate changes, as they adjust risk profiles for breeds or adjust to vet care inflation. Depending on what state you live in, these rate adjustments could be completely uncapped.

Even if you don't switch, many insurance providers won't write new policies for pets over certain age thresholds.

We already have a crisis of homeless/stray animals out there. I can't imagine how much worse it would get if we only allowed the 1% of the population with $10,000 or more to spare in case the pet needs surgery to own pets. Also suicides will go up. Pets are an important source of companionship and oxytocin/closeness for people who live alone.

This is a good point. Perhaps the direction should be more about subsiding pet care cost and moving towards fonancial support as part of the humans' medical insurance ?

Basically pet ownership would require either 10k on the side or registration and justification to get proper insurance.

Personally, like it has in the human medical world, I think pet insurance is increasing vet costs too. Used one clinic for years and they had reasonable (if slightly high due to being a 24 hour facility) costs. On year they suddenly start advertising pet insurance, and "for some reason" every service "covered" by the insurance went up in price.

Medical insurance distorts the market by disconnecting the payer from the costs. It will do the same in veterinary medicine if it hasn't already.

Or we accept that sometimes pets die and that if the operation costs 10000 then fit owner can still decide for the pet to die.

That goes for fish, dogs or tarantulas.

We're back to the article situation though, the with owners being bitter and unsupportive and the vets in depression and suicidal.

Compared to animals in the wild, or animals we raise for food, our pets have it pretty good, even if we have to put them to sleep rather than pay an expensive vet bill. A painless death at the vet seems like nothing comparatively.

For pets, "means to deal with emergency situations" includes euthanasia if the procedures required for a cure are too expensive.

There doesn't exist a duty to spend unreasonably large quantities of resources on saving any particular animal's life, so not being able to afford that doesn't make someone unfit to own a pet. If a pet has cancer, it's okay to perform a complex surgery that could save it, but it's also okay to let it die.

That’s nuts. My dog is awesome, but I’m not dropping $10k on the guy.

Animals aren’t humans. We do the best we can.