Name:
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
You are not gonna believe this.
First, let me say that I'm not a pet owner. I don't dislike pets...I really do like both dogs and cats. As long as they're yours.
But liking your pets does not make me believe I should be asked to help foot the expense for your kitty's chemotherapy. Yet, that's just what this bill would do:
It's not enough that I will be subsidizing the health care of millions of (in some cases voluntarily) uninsured people. I may now be forced to pay for their dogs' and cats' health care as well. Never mind that some of the uninsured could afford their own health care if they gave up their pets and saved the associated costs--evidently pet ownership is a right even if we have to force the American taxpayer to help with the financial burden they cause.
Really, it's easy to look at your pet and think, "Hey, yeah, I would love to get a tax break for the vet bills." But what that really means is that you want to spread the cost out among all of us, even non-pet owners, so that I have no choice but to, in effect, write a check to your vet. Let's don't lose sight of what a tax break really means: it means a break for you by a tax on everybody else.
And it never ends. Two years ago if I'd posted this story, you wouldn't have believed it. Now, not only is it not out of the realm of possibility, it seems reasonable to a sizable chunk of the public. Next, if it's up to one or more of our czars, we'll be footing the bill for your dog to get a lawyer if you neglect his health needs or maybe his food preferences.
Oh, and to add to the "feel good" nature of this oh-so-compassionate effort:
But liking your pets does not make me believe I should be asked to help foot the expense for your kitty's chemotherapy. Yet, that's just what this bill would do:
A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.
"We think this is as much a health care bill as any," said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs at the Humane Society. "It's a human health issue to ensure that pets are provided with better care because of the role they play in our families."
It's not enough that I will be subsidizing the health care of millions of (in some cases voluntarily) uninsured people. I may now be forced to pay for their dogs' and cats' health care as well. Never mind that some of the uninsured could afford their own health care if they gave up their pets and saved the associated costs--evidently pet ownership is a right even if we have to force the American taxpayer to help with the financial burden they cause.
Really, it's easy to look at your pet and think, "Hey, yeah, I would love to get a tax break for the vet bills." But what that really means is that you want to spread the cost out among all of us, even non-pet owners, so that I have no choice but to, in effect, write a check to your vet. Let's don't lose sight of what a tax break really means: it means a break for you by a tax on everybody else.
And it never ends. Two years ago if I'd posted this story, you wouldn't have believed it. Now, not only is it not out of the realm of possibility, it seems reasonable to a sizable chunk of the public. Next, if it's up to one or more of our czars, we'll be footing the bill for your dog to get a lawyer if you neglect his health needs or maybe his food preferences.
Oh, and to add to the "feel good" nature of this oh-so-compassionate effort:
The measure even has a snappy acronym: the HAPPY Act, as in Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years.Oh sheesh.
Labels: Health, Theater of the Absurd
<< Home