Posted on 04/05/2002 9:45:48 AM PST by Phantom Lord
Spend federal funds on people, not pets
I recently heard a report on National Public Radio regarding proposed federal legislation for universal pet health care, at a projected cost that is in the trillion-dollar range. I am shocked that this type of proposal is being taken seriously.
As a former pet owner, I appreciate the comfort, affection, loyalty and companionship a pet offers. But in these times of fiscal responsibility, I suggest that if the federal government has any funds available, they should be used to support a section of the population that also offers love, affection and companionship - children. Available funds should be allocated not for universal pet health care, but for improved child care centers and better wages for child care workers.
Or spend the funds on another section of the population that has supported and developed this country, along with providing love, affection, companionship and loyalty - the elderly. Monies for senior day care centers, increased wages to senior care workers and specialty day care centers with specially trained workers are a much more worthwhile use of funds than universal pet health care.
RUTH DICKSON, R.N.
Williamsville
Guess after years of NPR she truly has lost all ability to think.
LOL
But why do I find it not so hard to believe?
The N in R.N. must stand for Nitwit...
Years ago I had a cat named Skooz (hence my namesake). One day Skooz fell off a portable closet and seemed to break his leg. I took him to the vet that morning and picked him up on the way home from work that afternoon.
The vet found nothing wrong with his leg. But, because Skooz would not let the vet examine him, he gave him a big shot of liquid valium to calm him down. The bill was $78.00, which is a lot of money to pay just to get your cat wasted.
All the way home Skooz was saying "Meowowowowowowooooooooowwww........" Skooz was stoned and digging it.
Thus far Bush has signed off on a 15 billion-dollar airline bailout, imposed 30% steel taxes (tariffs), proposed record spending on government schools, granted amnesty to illegal aliens and called for a state of Palestine.
Considering the liberal agenda Bush has advocated to this point I would not be surpassed if he supported Universal Pet Care
Demonstrators demanding health care rights for pets rally outside the Capitol Building.
April 1, 2002 -- 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.
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 Rovner. "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.
LOL!
Our cat was still under the effects of the anesthesia he was given for a minor surgery when we took him home. Poor thing staggered cross eyed to his favorite chair and meant to try to jump into it, but instead boooiiiinged perfectly vertical about 3 feet. We laughed until we cried and poor Outlaw slithered under the chair to sleep it off.
Train your babboon to commit violent crimes. Once incarcerated the taxpayers will pick up the tab. Even if it costs a million dollars!
Maybe I can find some numskull R.N. like Ruth Dickson who will do the procedure for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.