This is a text published on the editorial pages of Dagens Nyheter. The political stance of the editorial team is independently liberal.
Last week Aftonbladet examined rampant veterinary prices, which have risen 54 percent in five years, according to Statistics Sweden. So significantly more than inflation.
The increase is, of course, sad for pet owners, who are often willing to do anything for their sick dog or cat. And that is why it is very welcome that the Swedish Competition Authority will soon put forward proposals to improve competition so that prices will hopefully remain under control.
At the same time it is like that something that jumps into action as soon as Labradoodles and Chihuahuas appear.
It shouldn’t be a class issue whether you can have a pet or not, says a woman in Aftonbladet who received a horrendous bill after her dog’s knee operation.
Should it be a class matter whether people can visit you? the reporter says accusingly to a representative of an expensive vet actor.
And on their website, the Social Democrats write: Being able to have a dog or a cat should not be a class matter.
Why not The?
The objection may sound cynical. But ultimately we live in a time in which all private consumption has to adapt to one’s own wallet. And most people cannot afford to pursue all the leisure interests on their wish list, but have to set priorities, for example between a sports holiday in the mountains or renovating their balcony.
According to calculations by the Swedish Kennel Club, the basic cost for a dog’s first year is a whopping 49,000 crowns.
Why should longing for an animal be the exception to this principle? And if so, what is the plan to move on from the fact that dog ownership already exists? Is a financial problem?
According to calculations by the Swedish Kennel Club, the basic cost for a dog’s first year is a whopping 49,000 crowns. This includes, among other things, the purchase of the dog, food and insurance. After that, the annual costs are almost 21,000. And this excludes more expensive veterinary care, for which pet owners should have a buffer even as prices are reduced.
If pets are allowed start to be classified as a right, as is the case with medicines, for example, we must therefore introduce high subsidies. Not just for vet visits, but also for buying puppies and food, among other things.
Such a pet reform is unlikely to be proposed before the fall election. And if, for example, S does it, it probably won’t be a voter magnet because most people realize that the tax money is needed elsewhere.
Not least to ensure that everyone has the right to equal healthcare, a roof over their head, food on the table and a safe neighborhood. Just like the right of children to a good education and a stable upbringing.
That is, things like absolutely not may be a class problem.
Read more:
Susanne Nyström: Normally I don’t begrudge Norway Olympic gold – but now I’m making an exception
Susanne Nyström: “Coward” and “idiot” are in the air – this is how we prevent the debate from derailing
