An interesting article.
 

The following is an article from NPR (National Public Radio)( web site here ) if you have acsess to the station listen for a while and they might say it.


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. For All Things Considered, NPR's Julie Rovner reports.

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.

Animal vet coverage? How about fixin' people's skrewed healthcare system before fukking with Fido

This shows how much I know - I didn't even know the USA had an NHS... I thought Private Health Care was all you got there...

Check the calendar, people.

I think it's a nice idea. Statikk, I'm going to have to ask you to mind your language.

Sorry. I don't want to get canned here, Syd. I will kill it from now on.

Wha???
 

I don't see anything with giving animals free health care. What I want to know is why there aren't any health sevices for plants. What have we got against lesser life forms??

And improving human health care is good too, of course. And while you're at it, try fixing the education system, transport networks (in particular rail, road and air), postal services, communications conditions, law enforcements, fire, cave and mountain rescue operations, structural integrity attributes, atmospheric research and forecasting, political correctness laws, entertainment content regulations, fast-food and petroleum boycotting services, natural resource sustainability potentials, endangered species protection, financial currency disaster prevention mechanisms and homelessness.

pet health care is not that bad of an idea, especially if your trying to win an election, but putting more money into it than exists isn't. but if anyone were to spend more money than exists in the world it would be bush... just not for that, probably for war funds.

Don't forget the important CO₂ factories!

Pet health care? There are plenty of people that don't have any health care. And while tax money is being spent on pets, the government is giving my state a very "fair" proposal: either raise your sales tax so its the highest in the country or 1,500 teachers in your state lose their jobs, the school day is shortened, and the school year is shortened. Great choices.

... ok, I'm rambling. My point is the Bush Admin or whoever is the brain child of this mess, should learn to spend money wisely.

edit: this post is no longer relevant to the topic, sorry (thanks doug)