[wing-_-nuts]

>Don't blame the vet for charging $5000 for a surgery. Blame owners who can't afford to raise a pet but have one anyway.

What an utterly callous statement. We're mostly well paid professionals here on HN, but to suggest that the average american should be able to come up with $500, much less 5k, on a moments notice is laughably out of touch with most people's financial situation.

[kaashif]

There is an even more callous meaning that you didn't pick up on for some reason - they're not suggesting the owners should come up with $5000, they're saying the owners should kill or otherwise get rid of their pets once they can't afford them.

I think people are missing that the point here is that the prices aren't being set in a competitive market, so $5000 may just be a monopoly price. Maybe pet owners should be forced to pay the cost of treatment, but whether that's $5000 or not is what the FTC is concerned with.

[snapetom]

Calling that a monopoly price shows ignorance on what a monopoly is. Even large metropolitan areas have just a handful of emergency vet hospitals. Emergency vet hospitals don't have an army of vets on standby to handle cases. 2-3 is common and they might be just interns/residents supervised by a more experience vet. Scarcity and lack of supply have a much greater effect than collusion.

Pet owners should know this before getting a pet, or properly plan.

[snapetom]

Being able to come up with $500 or $5k at a moment's notice is part of pet ownership. If your financial situation prevents coming up with it, don't get a pet. You're just shifting irresponsibility in the guise of anti-corporate crusading.

[wing-_-nuts]

I expect this line of reasoning from corporate mouthpieces. To hear it from the mouth of a provider speaks to to your values.

I think the following quote applies here:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”