The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

should we have to pay for vet bills?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 46157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Why should we have to pay for vet bills when we are just helping are pets and caring for them. Some of us don't have the money to pay for the bills, and vets make you pay up front. In my opinion I don't think we should have to pay as we are helping animals. We get free operations etc if we have health insurance and with the NHS, so why can't animals have that if they have pet insurance?


Firstly, I would like to thank abbyturner1007 for creating this debate so we can discuss whether we should have to pay for vet bills. Hopefully, by the end of this debate, it will be very clear that we should have to pay for vet bills.

To begin, I am going to start by defining some of the key words in this debate.
Firstly a vet, according to, is "A veterinarian" while a veterinary, according to, is "Of or relating to veterinary medicine; concerned or connected with the medical or surgical treatment of animals, especially domestic animals." Simply put, a vet treats domestic animals for medical or surgical means. The infamous bill, according to, is "An itemized list or statement of fees or charges." Finally, the definition of domestic (which will come into play later in this argument) according to is "Of or relating to the family or household," so a vet is mostly concerned with animals who have an owner or belong to someone. So should we have to pay someone who helps treat and save animals? Absolutely.

Vets are like you and me; they are professionals who are well trained (hopefully) at their jobs and are applying work to the task at hand, which they are paid for in return. Why should these people be denied their payments? I am sure everyone agrees that these people should be payed adequately for their services. You could argue that governments could pay the staff, but why should they be concerned? It is not their animal they are saving, they should be putting previous resources towards far more critical things that ensure the stability of every day life because we must face a harsh reality: the life of a single animal is minimal in comparison to the rest of the world. If you recall above the definition of domestic, a vet does not need to deal (or at least does not commonly deal) with animals in the wild. The life and death of these types of animals is best left to nature and the circle of life, human interference could, theoretically, dramatically affect ecosystems, particularly small ones. This effect will be increased ten fold if these animals can be treated for free, by any person, anywhere. This is not acceptable, therefore people must pay for vet bills.

What about our beloved pets? There are plenty of morality complications when it comes to treating loved ones because they could die simply because you couldn't afford to keep them alive. This sounds cruel and unfair, but there are arguments against this:
1. If you own a pet, you should have money to back it up. You already have to pay to feed it, keep it clean and keep it healthy, so you should also keep money to treat it when it gets sick
2. Sometimes pets grow old and get sick from old age, so treating them is a risk anyway since they may pass away not long after treatment.
But if money is really an issue, then why not get pet insurance? Contrary to what the pro has stated (or perhaps implied), pet insurance does exist and this is what Medibank Australia at has to say:
"By choosing Medibank Pet Insurance for your dog or cat, you"re giving them the health cover* they deserve. Choose your pet"s own vet or specialist and get up to 80% cover for their bills, with generous annual limits from $8,000 up to $15,000 depending on the level of cover. And, if you"re a Medibank health insurance member you get a 10% discount."
So in the same way we get health insurance, pets also get pet insurance. This reduces fees to a minimum while still injecting money into the economy where it is needed to keep the vet industry going. Up to 80% less upfront payment sounds reasonable if you have an animal prone to sickness who you want to keep fresh and vibrant in everyday life. After all, Medibank agrees that "Your dog or cat makes your life better, and they deserve the best care possible when they"re sick or injured." There should be no reason to not pay for your pets to go to the vet, since there are affordable methods of paying for them, such as through Medibank Pet Insurance.

Finally, I would like to bring forward an alternate way of looking at the problem. According to, in the article about the cost of pet ownership, this statement is made:
"While the survey showed that on average dog owners will spend around $450 on veterinary costs per year, the bulk of spending goes towards feeding, treats and pampering."
This statement clearly shows how the survey revealed that dog owners, on average, are paying more on feeding their animal than treating it at a vet every year. Food costs for domestic animals is even worse, why should we have to pay for pet food? If this question sounds ludicrous to you, then surely it is even more ludicrous to propose that we should not have to pay for our vet bills. After all, feeding the animal is also required to keep it alive, and it is more expensive in the long run!

To sum everything up, the above adequately proves that we should have to pay for our vet bills because the vets themselves deserve pay for keeping your precious animal alive, and because paying for these bills is far easier thanks to pet insurance and is even cheaper than paying for pet food, so if any cost should be decreased it shouldn't be vet bills, but the cost of food. It is crazy to suggest that others should pay, such as the government, because there are far more important investments to be made that concern much more than a single animal, and because it is not their job to keep your animal alive; you have a responsibility for your own pet. Finally, the natural ecosystem involving wild animals could be tampered with if treating these animals costs nothing to you, and critical resources used to keep domestic animals alive will be wasted on creating an imbalance in an already delicate ecosystem. Thank you for reading and I look forward to the argument that my opponent, abbyturner1007, will present.
Debate Round No. 1


some people can afford the food but when it comes to vet bills sometimes people are not prepared and they could cost "1000's. When it comes to putting your pet to sleep the amount you have to pay is reticule's, all you are doing is putting them out their pain. some people cant afford this so they just shoot them, which is horrible! people sometimes do have money to spare but sometimes the vet bills are so extreme that people cant afford it, then what do they do? as it says in this source they can't afford it and pet insurance won't over it now what should she do?


I would like to thank my opponent for his response. While I can see where pro is coming from, I don't think the argument is going to hold up.
Firstly, to address your point about owners being unaware about vet bills. As I demonstrated in round 1, surveys revealed that pet owners were paying far more on pet food than vet bills. Yes, it is true that you have to pay for food periodically while vet bills are one off occasions, however, this is not taking into account the previously mentioned pet insurance, which can make your life far easier when paying for vet bills.
As you have stated however, they sometimes do have money spare but it is simply not enough to pay for the bill, and I agree that this can happen. So why not propose an alternate solution altogether? Make people still pay for vet bills, but pay them off over time, where insurance will slowly add some extra money to the original payment. This means that vets will get even more money, but it wont' be instant, just over time. Remember, you are trying to argue for "should we have to pay for vet bills?" The question in point does not take into account when these bills have to be payed, nor how much. In fact, this site here:, says that some vets are even willing to do installment payments, and you just have to look around a bit. This would provide a solution to the girls problem in your source, while still allowing vets to get the money they deserve.
On the topic of shooting your animal, many places don't even allow you to own guns so this isn't even possible sometimes, and it is a terrible thing to do; some pet owners just don't have the guts to do it. There are ways around this, such as asking others for payments to help you with this or to simply let the animal run its natural course of life, as horrible as it sounds. From this source here:
"Even if the dog is in bad shape, you don't have to let the vet put her down. She'll die on her own if that's what she needs to do."
You can also use the above methods of installment payments and pet insurance to help mitigate costs even further. There should be no excuse if you cannot afford to pay the vet bills after all this. If you cannot, perhaps you did not have enough income to support the animal in the first place.

Since the pro has not refuted it, the con side still stands on its claim that vets deserve pay, and that pet owners should have to pay for vet bills, not others like the government. In addition, the con side still asserts that not paying for vet bills would upset the balance of the economy and possibly the ecosystem in extreme cases, since the pro side has not attempted to refute these claims at all. Finally, if you truly still cannot afford the payment after all the reductions, there is the option for installment payments so vets still get their money, while you can afford to pay them. In conclusion, there is no reason not to pay for your vet bills.
Debate Round No. 2


abbyturner1007 forfeited this round.


Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has decided to not post another argument so I will not post any new content. Despite this, I believe my argument remains as the pro has refused to rebut it.
In conclusion it is clear that we should pay for vet bills, as the consequences of not doing so are simply too severe. Money does make the world go round, and vets need it to sustain themselves and get the resources required to actually help your beloved pets. Other entities like the government should not pay for all of your vet fees as there is plenty of more important infrastructure that money could be spent on that could change a large population of the world, not just a few people and one pet. Even so, there are plenty of other ways to help pay such as pet insurance and payments over time. At the end of the day, it does not matter how you pay for the bills, as long as the money is given to the people who have earned it. As mentioned before, arguing an alternate payment method will still work in my favor because of the way the topic is worded. Overall, there should be no excuse for not paying the vet bills.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lavenders2 2 years ago
This is the longest voting period ever...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate started off with the very strange switching of sides by both debaters, so that Pro argued against the resolution, and Con argued for. However, I think it would be very mean to give Pro the win based on Con's crushing arguments, so I'll let common sense guide me here. Con basically argued that because vet work requires a professional, the professionals doing the work should be payed. Pro's argument of 'it costs too much' isn't fair, considering that vets would have to work for free. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. I'm not giving Con source points, because a lot of the time, things were sourced simply to define or quote, and the Yahoo Answers arguments were really quite low, in terms of quality. Pro's S&G was almost bad enough to lose points in this regard, but not quite.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought up better arguments and Conduct points as Pro forfeited.