IMO only way we would not need a vet is to have quality food to feed in the first place. Can anyone stand up and say that if the food were not laden with gawd knows what among the questionable mixes added to it that the pets would live long healthy vibrant lives without need of a vets care?

Read on a site a few years ago (wish I could remember it) that if a pet is fed healthy and not given toxic vaccines that dogs and cats can live to 30 yrs of age. Well I'm trying that with my current dog to see if what this person wrote is true or not.

And as a closing thought when I took the dog I adopted from the shelter to my regular vet just for a check over they asked me what kind of food I would be feeding. I told them organic and home cooking. Their reply was "well we'll never see you again." So that meant the organic and home cooking would not harm my dog and result would be a healthy animal with no need of any vet visits.

Re: "Seems like vets are already liable for bills due to malpractice if you can prove it."

I wish that were true, Klondike -- and it is theoretically, but not in practice.   Because to prove it, of course, you have to take them to court.  The amount you would spend far exceeds any amount you could recover.  Example:  One of the largest malpractice verdicts in teh country was Bluestone v. Bergstrom in California.  The owner was awarded $39,000.  Guess how much he spent prosecuting the case?  Over $300,000.  Suing for vet malpractice is impossible for all but the richest of the rich, and even then you would not do it to get back your expenses, you would do it to prove a point (since what you would spend on bringing the suit would just put you further in the hole.)

Also, I believe that most people believe that malpractice suits have driven up the cost of insurance because, we the public, have been midled to believe this by repetitive marketing paid for by the medical lobby and the politicians they have put in office.  It is insurance Co profits that are the big problem. 

In fact, only a fraction of the individuals harmed by medical malpractice ever bring a lawsuit.  Depending on which source you believe, medical "care" gone wrong is either the third-leading cause of death in the US, or the 8th leading cause of death.  If its that bad for humans who have the alternative of a lawsuit, you can only imagine how bad it is for pets who have no legal rights.

The damage caps on malpractice that are sweeping the country have merely made medical institutions, researches, pharmaceutical cos, and others less likely to take steps to reduce life-threatening drug reactions, malpractice, etc.  It has put profit over people's wellbeing.  That's my belief, based on research I have done. 

Thanks for your kind words about the Toonces Project and support for a national veterinary quality database.  Also, I agree w/you that PETA is not a terrorist group.  I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but the AETA was passed by anti-animal people and mostly the brainchild of the biomedical research industries in the wake of the exposure of Huntington Life Sciences unspeakable cruelty to "laboratory beagles."