- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,981
- 3,318
- 126
Universal Healthcare for pets??
Reaction today was swift and vocal to a Bush administration proposal to extend universal health care to pets. Under the measure, veterinary care coverage would be fully subsidized by tax dollars. As a result of the announcement, a three-way squabble has erupted between fiscal conservatives, animal rights groups and pro-human organizations.
Health and Human Services officials found themselves scrambling to clarify who would be eligible for the controversial Pet Health Insurance Program, or PHIP. The program would allow states to use federal funds to cover veterinarian visits, preventive care, neutering -- even hairball extractions.
HHS spokesman Roland Dalet says the measure is designed to assist all animals, large and small. "Your dog, your cat, your iguana, your great komodo dragon," he tells Katie Curok. "Who can quantify your feelings for that animal, and what that animal gives back to you?"
Dalet points out that some states already allocate money to cover farm animals. But until now, there has been no state or federal guarantee for flea baths for Fluffy, grooming for Fido -- or even, as under this proposal, back surgery for the family vole.
Opponents of the measure argue that since house pets like gerbils don't pay taxes, they shouldn't receive benefits. But animal rights activists applaud the change. Valerie Austin, vice president of Animals First -- an advocacy group that has pushed for full rights for pets -- points out that the federal government provides aid to illegal immigrants and children, even though those groups don't pay taxes.
However, opponents of animal rights say this is a bad precedent. They fear a broader agenda is behind extension of universal health care to pets. James Cardigan, spokesman for the group People Are People Too, fears the federal government could get tangled in massive legal liability by letting nature simply take its course. For example, he told Rovner, what if a hamster covered by federal health care is eaten by a snake also covered by the federal government? "This is where it starts -- where does it stop?"
But Amy Lawrence of The Four-Legged League says universal pet care wouldn't automatically confer full rights to animals -- merely bring them dignity. "It's time for America to give their pets the respect they need," she says.
A fierce battle is expected on Capitol Hill for the funds to cover the estimated $345-trillion cost of scratching posts, catnip, birdcage paper, leashes, quill extraction, grooming, pet daycare and other pet care needs. Lobbying efforts could keep lawmakers swamped -- possibly paralyzing government for weeks and months -- as pet owners, animal lovers and the four-legged and winged constituents themselves descend on Congress.
hmmmmm.......
Reaction today was swift and vocal to a Bush administration proposal to extend universal health care to pets. Under the measure, veterinary care coverage would be fully subsidized by tax dollars. As a result of the announcement, a three-way squabble has erupted between fiscal conservatives, animal rights groups and pro-human organizations.
Health and Human Services officials found themselves scrambling to clarify who would be eligible for the controversial Pet Health Insurance Program, or PHIP. The program would allow states to use federal funds to cover veterinarian visits, preventive care, neutering -- even hairball extractions.
HHS spokesman Roland Dalet says the measure is designed to assist all animals, large and small. "Your dog, your cat, your iguana, your great komodo dragon," he tells Katie Curok. "Who can quantify your feelings for that animal, and what that animal gives back to you?"
Dalet points out that some states already allocate money to cover farm animals. But until now, there has been no state or federal guarantee for flea baths for Fluffy, grooming for Fido -- or even, as under this proposal, back surgery for the family vole.
Opponents of the measure argue that since house pets like gerbils don't pay taxes, they shouldn't receive benefits. But animal rights activists applaud the change. Valerie Austin, vice president of Animals First -- an advocacy group that has pushed for full rights for pets -- points out that the federal government provides aid to illegal immigrants and children, even though those groups don't pay taxes.
However, opponents of animal rights say this is a bad precedent. They fear a broader agenda is behind extension of universal health care to pets. James Cardigan, spokesman for the group People Are People Too, fears the federal government could get tangled in massive legal liability by letting nature simply take its course. For example, he told Rovner, what if a hamster covered by federal health care is eaten by a snake also covered by the federal government? "This is where it starts -- where does it stop?"
But Amy Lawrence of The Four-Legged League says universal pet care wouldn't automatically confer full rights to animals -- merely bring them dignity. "It's time for America to give their pets the respect they need," she says.
A fierce battle is expected on Capitol Hill for the funds to cover the estimated $345-trillion cost of scratching posts, catnip, birdcage paper, leashes, quill extraction, grooming, pet daycare and other pet care needs. Lobbying efforts could keep lawmakers swamped -- possibly paralyzing government for weeks and months -- as pet owners, animal lovers and the four-legged and winged constituents themselves descend on Congress.
hmmmmm.......
Facebook
Twitter