meshuga

Looks like a maximum benefit policy - a nice play on words to make it look like a lifelong policy. From the detailed wording it looks like once treatment of a condition has reached £10k thats it, even if that was over several years. I might be wrong though so best to ring them to clarify. Also - you need to pre-authorise all treatment by calling the insurers prior to embarking on treatment. Might be difficult out of hours, but they do say in an emergency your vet can treat straight away - but they may try to get out of paying out unless it's a genuine emergency. Otherwise, looks like very good value - ask them as well if the premium goes up each year more than inflation - some start low then increase by crazy amounts every year you stay with them.

The 3 year thing has caused confusion. Distemper, Hepatitis, and Parvo (DHP) hare for the last 5 years or so been licensed by manufacturers for 3 years. The immunity in to Parainfluenza (Pi), and Lepto (L), is shorter lived, and manufacturers recommend annual vaccinations for Pi/L still, with DHPPi/L every 3rd year. Vets have to stick to manufacturer's recommendations - there is constant research, by those without financial interest, into what is required and how frequently. It will take time for this to filter through to data sheets and drug licensing. Until then vets will be open to litigation if they change the schedules without an owner's consent. Along with the cost of the vaccine (I can only get them for £11 +vat - obviously I must shop elsewhere!!), there are medicines regulations (you have to be licensed to keep medicines - at a cost), storage costs - vaccine fridges and daily temperature monitoring to ensure conditions are OK, and a full clinical examination is performed at vaccination. During this time you are entitled to bring up any aspect of your pets health and ask for advice. I think the £40, if that is what you are charged, is value for money, not a rip off. But then of course I'm a biased greedy specialist rip off merchant only in it for one thing . If anyone has concerns over the requirement for annual vaccinations, speak to your vet. You are allowed to opt out of the annual schedule, no problem. I happen to believe that not all dogs or cats require annual jabs, but the trouble is knowing which ones. A blood test for antibody levels can be done annually - again something you can ask for. It is more expensive to do this than to give the jab and doing this as standard is going to upset a lot of people! Please don't think vets are forcing you to do anything, we are not. We are offering you advice. Your pet is your possession in law, and provided you stick within the laws, is yours to do with as you please.

A wonderful thread!!! The sad thing is there really are people out there who think like this parody.

What a load of rubbish, I often ask for a paw as it tells me a lot about the nature of the dog I'm about to examine.

As already pointed out, you are wrong. However the highway code DOES say "Rule 163 - give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" So can I ask what the problem is? You should be giving one cyclist the same room as you do two cyclists, or a car. That's why the highway code permits 2 cyclist to ride abreast - they take up the same room as a car. Sounds like you should be giving the single cyclist more room to me.....

Welcome to Sheffield! The mountain biking around here is great and there are just loads of circuits in the Peak. A lot are easily accessible from the stops along the Hope valley line, so you can just hop on the train with your bike and you'll be there in 15-20 minutes. There are two excellent books to the peak by Vertebrate, each about £10-15 on amazon. Failing that, just follow any of the bridleways on the OS maps, most are ride-able. Enjoy!

Unbelievable! Reasoning with you is making me lose the will to live! My post was an attempt to try and get you to understand that 1. roads are funded from general taxation 2. the majority of cyclists pay tax 3. it is impossible for any road user to assess another road user's contribution to the tax pot on visual inspection alone, and it absolutely has no bearing on the size of their car/engine/whatever 4. you have no idea what you are talking about My argument is not at all that people should get a rebate or bigger share of the roads. That was an attempt, lost on you, at pointing out that such a system is ludicrous. My post was to highlight how ridiculous you were being, but somehow you have got the wrong end of the stick again. And still at the end of the post you say "So cyclists pay ......................how much YES THATS IT s** ALL and still you lot bleat on about how hard done to you are.:loopy:". Honestly, you are beyond belief. You still haven't grasped it!! My post was trying to explain that cyclists pay far from s** all. I'm sure that you are a nice person, and don't come across as being this thick in real life. I know you mean well, you are trying to safe a child's life here or there. But doing so with this argument of trying to stop people carrying children on bikes is misguided. Your efforts at child life protection would be better spent elsewhere. The CTC, our national cycling body in their latest magazine, which dropped through my door yesterday, had an article promoting the school run by bike, be it children on bikes, or in trailers or child seats. This body issues safety guidelines and policy advice to road planners and government. It has thousands of members in the UK. I think if you really wanted to save lives, you should leave the car at home. Oh, my opinion of course!

And this is what it boils down to isn't it!? Is this the only argument that you have left, having lost all the others? How ignorant can you be? Please, the next time you see a cyclist on the road, calculate (on sight alone and without any verbal contact) their gross earnings, national insurance and income tax contributions, the VAT they pay on all goods purchased over the year, any tax they pay on savings and investments, any vehicle excise duty they pay on vehicles they own, and stamp duty on houses purchased. Then deduct any benefits in kind they receive, tax relief on pensions contributions, any tax credits and tax free allowances they have, and end up with that persons total contribution to the tax pot. Now, compare that to your own, and every motorist or other road user around you, and assign to each person a rating equal to their "right" to use the roads. And while you are doing that, make sure you don't mow anyone down in your 2 tonne metal box.... I'm afraid your grasp of this concept doesn't give me any confidence that you know what you are talking about on any topic in this thread, but of course, that's just my opinion

And you, by your own admission, do that on a regular basis. Just depends on your point of view doesn't it? Its a free choice and your opinion, but I don't feel compelled to start a thread about how irresponsible I think you are. I just respect that it's your decision and get on with it.

An excellent journey planning tool, giving fastest, quietest, and balanced routes is available here http://www.cyclestreets.net

I don't think boyfriday shares your views, as I read it he has no objections to transporting kids on the roads, but he has made a risk assessment and feels that it's not for him (Posts 229, 236). A much more mature and tolerant stance. Your approach, on the other hand, is to insult and label all people cycling on the roads with children as idiots. You have no respect for an individual's assessment of risk and feel that just because you don't understand the degree of risk associated with the activity that they must all be stupid. You have agreed yourself (post 182), that your argument was silly. And that is why you appear to have let boyfriday do your talking. You just can't argue your case. As for cyclists being car haters - a nice try! Almost every cyclist on here drives a car.

Exactly. The argument about aircraft is very silly, yet it has its foundations in your one about cycling with kids. "I can't believe you are so irresponsible putting your children's lives in harms way by taking them on a plane, when you know full well that there is a chance that that plane could crash". You see, it's a ludicrous statement isn't it? At last we seem to be in agreement, the argument in your initial post is a very silly one. The fact that you can justify the risks involved in doing the things that you like (flying), but not justify the things that you don't (cycling) is just ridiculous and hypocritical.

Having read this entire thread and getting more and more disappointed at the OPs lack of ability to argue or provide any fact, it seems to me that it comes down to this - ab6262 clearly feels that cycle trailers and seats just look unsafe, therefore they should be banned on the road. The absence of any stats to prove it doesn't seem to matter somehow. So, a direct question ab6262, lets turn this argument over to air travel. That looks pretty unsafe doesn't it? Tons of metal hurtling through the air at 500mph. What if the thing just plummets into the sea at high speed due to instrument failure and bad weather (Air France 447)?. What if the plane collides with another in mid air (1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision)? Does the child/infant have a say about whether they fly? No. Does the child have any chance of surviving such an accident? Not much. What opinion does ab6262 about flying. Are you a parent? Have you taken your children on a plane? If not, do you feel the same anger and suspence of disbelief at the "stupidity" of those parents that fly with their kids? If not why not? Is it because the statistics demonstrate that flying is reasonably safe, despite the very notion of it looking unsafe? I think for the OP to retain any credibility in this argument they should produce as politely requested many times, some data on the number of child deaths per child-kilometre as a result of being carried on a pedal bike or trailer, and demonstrate by comparison to similar figures that such an activity is more dangerous than transporting the child on foot, by bus, by train, by car etc. Without that data I'm afraid you just come across as a ranty irrational person, and you would gain more respect by retracting your statement. Thank goodness I didn't have ab6262 as a parent!!

I only caught the second half, no doubt I'll see the first bit on iPlayer at some point. The incidents reported are NOT common. It's like all trades/professions, one bad egg will do the rest a cruel injustice. Charging for work or procedures that have not been done is indefensible and I have, until tonights allegations, after 17years in this profession never seen it done. Trying to get an owner to pay for a nurse trapping a foot in a door is also so wrong, and again a new one on me. Honesty costs nothing and in the long run works out better. The rest of the programme seems to be given over to showing animals having everyday procedures done that they were anxious about. Shock horror, some animals don't like the vets! But where was the footage of the countless animals that are so chilled out with what they are having done? And what on earth the BBC think nurses and vets are supposed to train on is beyond me. Yes it appears that things were taken too far in some of the cases tonight, but secret filming can always manipulate a situation into happening and is always subjected to cherry-picking. Unfortunately I think the BBC have done a very silly thing. The veterinary profession relies so hugely on trust. Thanks to tonights programme I fear that pets will not be presented for essential health care, and more animal suffering will occur as a result. I just hope I'm wrong.

Although unfortunately it does look like your son has developed an allergy to the kitten, there is a small chance that it could be that the kitten has fleas. I'm not allergic to cats but do get a sniffle when cats that are riddled with fleas come in. It is possible to develop allergies to flea dirt/urine, and also a mild cat dander allergy will be exacerbated if the cat has skin disease as the skin scales and dander are being produced and shed more abundantly. If the kitten is over 10wks try applying some frontline or effipro spot on (to the cat, not your son!). It might just settle things.

It certainly will be interesting to watch. It is unlikely that the programme will be impartial, as Panorama does tend to seek the sensational stories. That is after all what makes good viewing. The media are a funny lot. Vets spent a lot of time in the late nineties being built up by the media. Lately, over the last two years it seems we're all crooks and rip-off merchants in the eyes of the media. The BBC are at the same time airing the Bionic Vet on Tuesdays. Both programmes I suspect show diametrically opposite ends of the veterinary profession, and people should bear that in mind when watching both programmes. It is interesting to read the statement from Medivet, the chain of practices subject to the secret filming on Panorama. They feel that they have not been able to put their side of the story forward and that the BBC harassed clients for interviews (no surprise). Worth a read before Thursday to unbias the mind! http://www.medivet.co.uk/news_view.asp?id=112

Maternal immunity starts waning at 4-6 wks, and should be gone by 10 weeks, thats why vaccines have a 10wk finish. Pups' vaccines are considered to be effective from 2-3wks after the second dose. Because the passage of immunity from mother to pup is so variable and dependant upon so many factors, including mum's own vaccination status and immunity, vets, via the vaccine manufacturers offer standard advice protocols. Without a blood test for antibody levels it wouldn't be sensible to advise otherwise.

I thought it was a fascinating program, and nice to see where the boundaries of the profession are. It is also great to see animals being given a chance in life. And some good publicity for vets for a change after all the negativity recently in the press! Funny how the media tend to go in cycles, one minute building us up into superheroes, the next ripping us apart and telling everyone we charge too much. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same BBC airing a feature on how obscenely rich and uncaring we all are next month, only in it for one thing...

A booster should include the vaccine itself (currently the cost to supply a vaccine to my practice EX vat is £9.50 for a dog, and £15 for a cat), and a consultation fee (£20-30 depending on the vet). That consultation should see your pet receive a clinical examination, teeth, eyes, ears, heart, palpation of abdomen etc. I don't think its fair to say there's a huge markup on the vaccine cost, when you are actually paying for 2 things. The reason you'll see such a large variation in fees is that each practice will have it's own business model. Some will do the vaccines at a loss simply to get clients through the door. Others will charge properly for their time but see a lower foot fall. The deficit has to be made up somewhere though, and what you will usually find is that the practices offering cheap boosters may charge more for procedures, xrays, blood tests, ultrasounds etc if your pet gets ill. Other practices see it as unfair that ill pets should subsidise well ones, and choose to charge properly for their time and experience. But a list of vaccine prices is a good thing, and not a thing I'm against. I just want folks to be aware of why there is such a difference.

Hi Dawn Every vet has a different structure to their fees, but they shouldn't be giving you aggro over wanting them to explain their fees. Vets are supposed to be open with fees. I think you should ask for a breakdown of the bill (you should have been given it already?). Then, because sometimes there are items written on there that may be unclear or not self explanatory, you should ask your vet if there is anything on the bill you are unsure about. It is unusual to charge 2 consultation fees on one day, unless of course you have had 2 consultations. They may have charged a consultation fee, and if they kept your cat in, an additional fee for any work done. Sometimes a fee for a "test" may be split into a fee to collect the sample, a fee to run the sample in a machine, and a fee to interpret the results. Sometimes the same 3 fees may be rolled up in one overall fee. As I said all vets have a different fee structure, but it is not unreasonable to ask your vet to explain a fee you are unsure about. If your vet doesn't give satisfactory answers or is getting funny or short with you, vote with your feet and go elsewhere. Hope Puss gets better soon.

Drinking approximately half of your weekly allowance i.e. 14 units for men and 10.5 units for women, has been shown to lead to the lowest overall mortality rates. LOWER than those who drink none at all, and those that drink heavily. It's all a balance between the benefits that alcohol consumption give you in reducing the levels of "bad" cholesterol (and therefore coronary heart disease, one of the UK's biggest killers), and the risks of liver disease through excesssive use. With higher intake the benefits are lost or outweighed by the increasing risk of liver disease. Few people realise that those who drink steadily through the week in low levels (1-2 units a day) appear to live longer than abstainees. The practice of "binge drinking" loses the daily benefit of lowered cholesterol levels. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/hliving/alcmort.html In fact, related to that evidence based medicine website are 10 tips for healthy living - an interesting read. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/10steps.pdf Drink up! (But in moderation)

Does God count? For those who believe in such things, God was responsible for the great flood which wiped all life off the planet, except of course for those on Noah's boat. Now that is pretty evil!!

It depends on the animal and the dose. Please never give paracetamol to a cat - you will kill it, they lack the liver enzymes required to metabolise it, so there is no safe dose for a cat. Paracetamol is safe in dogs provided you give the correct dose, which is 10mg/kg every 12 hours i.e. HALF a 500mg tablet for a 25kg lab. Piriton may work for some pet allergies so it is worth a try. It is cheap but only effective in about 20% of cases at best. It has few side effects at the correct dose. A much higher dose is needed in dogs than in people, but one tablet for a medium sized dog is about right, 2 for a large dog over 25kg etc.

We enjoy Wentworth too. I must admit I also thought the loss of the "free" playground facility was an odd move (you still had to pay to park). The playground alone will draw many in that would pay for parking and then purchase drinks and food. However as we visit so regularly we went for the family season ticket which was £40 for the year, or £35 if you just have one child over 5. That to me seems excellent value, year round access to the whole place including parking and playground. Surely if you visit frequently that's not too bad?

Good on you. Don't know the area but try this http://www.cyclestreets.net for cycle route planning - gives fast and quiet routes for anywhere starting and finishing in the UK - an absolutely invaluble tool for cycle planning