In his comment in response to my previous post, Roger points out an article that I think is worth a read, if only for the humor.  A physician in Britain has penned this article to provide commentary on human health care systems and health care reform from his vantage point in the UK.  As one means of doing so, he contrasts health care access of UK citizens to their national health care system with what he thinks are some better features of a dog accessing (through an intermediary, as he puts it) the veterinarian of their choice in the veterinary health care system. 

There are multiple levels on which this commentary works, aside from its main purpose to weigh in on human health care reform.  For starters, it touches on the different payment systems in human medicine vs. veterinary medicine, one of the issues I think is raised by the notion of a tax deduction for qualified pet care expenses.

It also touches strongly on the role of the value of veterinary services to the consumer of such services, ... the client must think the services are worth the charge, or go elsewhere (with or without complaint).  Every practicing veterinarian knows, or soon learns, of the struggle to ensure that the value of services -- usually paid directly at the time of service and not by some mostly invisible third party -- is perceived by the client.  With respect to this latter point, this small piece frames the latter issue nicely; so many misconceptions...where to start? (thanks Charlie for pointing this out)