Pet food and pet care companies should pay at least half the cost By a tax and or import fees, on all animal related Products And Medicines that way they have incentive to keep costs down and not sell junk that harms everyone's bottom line
Bonnie - 13 years ago
I choose taxpayers with pets but how come there was no choice to have insurance for pets covered under a co-op plan Birds, fish, snakes, lizards, etc are all someone's pet their tests are limited; use of any type of equipment is limited but specialized vets are necessary. First of all I think pet insurance premium is too high for the healthy ones, yes it comes in handy should your pet need more comprehensive care as they age but how about those first 10 yrs? then nothing is covered 100%-then not all vets accept insurance and like anything else once they know you have insurance on your pet all the prices for everything go up because after all you have insurance. For people, a box of kleenex in a hospital, is billed at $24.00 only because insurance is involved--because your pet can not communicate it is hit and miss in the vet's office with more tests than what is needed just so the diagnosis will be correct. Let us not even discuss the cost of the medicine or procedure if the diagnosis happens to be correct. Again, if the diagnosis is correct and can be treated insurance does not cover 100% For pets I think it should--the vets should be kept in check --all you have to do is see the cost of a 10 dose vaccine versus what a single dose of the same vaccine will cost you. Personally, when it comes to anything our government is involved in only the gets rife with fraud and theft. Personally, I think anyone who has worked all their life until retirement age should be exempt from any kind of taxation. You paid throughout your whole working life with or without children--you paid for schools, police and fire protection, the streets with the potholes, the public parks, etc. why keep paying as you use any of what you paid for less and less until the last thing is tax on the coffin or urn!
chris - 13 years ago
I hear Italy has it now so why can't we, we have no problem supporting so many from other countries, making tax payers with no children pay for childrens services and education. I don't want a handout I just think it's only fair middleclass folks start to see some upperclass treatment. I do agree though that I don't want to be told where to go or when, thats why I would like to try the upperclass for a change.
Jaime - 13 years ago
My two dogs are my children; however, I still think the idea of universal healthcare for pets is ridiculous. People choose whether or not to have pets; it's a privelege and not a right. Also, pets are still legally viewed as property and are not entitled to the same rights as people; society in general should not be expected to pay for other people's property. (That is the legal interpretation, not the emotional one.) I'll repeat that I adore my dogs and they are my kids, but I don't expect other tax payers to pay for them. If you can't afford to care for your pet properly, don't have one. Since I don't have kids, it does irk me a little to pay for those who do. However, I recognize that paying for public education is an investment in society's future and those little darlings will (hopefully) be paying for my social security and other programs that will benefit the community. I'd rather invest in people who will give back to society some day rather than investing in other people's pets. I also feel that it's better to have fewer things in the hands of the government. I'd hate the government to tell me where I can take my pups and what treatment they can or cannot have. That disturbs me.
All taxpayers should pay into universal healthcare for pets. All taxpayers have to pay into universal healthcare for children...and I do NOT have any of those!
Sandy - 13 years ago
I would love it if we could insure our pets thru our employers on our own insurance.
Margaret Hester - 13 years ago
If it were to happen. I think everyone should pay. I pay school taxes however I have no children to go to the schools. I pay taxes to the goverment who provide money to programs to people who are out of work because they have loss their jobs or prople who are just to dang sorry to get out and get a job. I also pay taxes so teens who get pregnant have health care and then when they have the baby I pay taxes for them to have food for the baby. So, if I choose to have my four legged babies why shouldn't everyone help pay for it.
Elaine Ellis - 13 years ago
Everyone seems to have his or her hand out in today's society. Why should someone else pay because I chose to have a pet? I have insurance for my pet, and I do not expect anyone else to pay my way or my pet's way. The government should not be involved. Having a pet and caring for it is my responsibility, not the governments.
Nita McDonald - 13 years ago
I do not want to pay for anybody's medical bills for their dogs except mine. I have 2 Maltese dogs I love very much, I pay for pet insurance and medical expense on my pension income, I pay my fair share of taxes, and I am personally tired of people thinking that you should chip in and pay for their things, especially for their pets. Enough is enough.
Mike - 13 years ago
Under obama we will wind up paying for health care for everyone on the planet. Why not include their pets?
Patti - 13 years ago
Why not have all tax payers pay? We pay for schools and I don't have kids!
konica135 - 13 years ago
First, such pet insurance needs to be limited to household pets - barnyard type pets as well as exotics may require more expertise and raise the premiums. Second, there must be a definition of the type of insurance: for cat, dog or "other pet" owners. Third, all vets must accept it. Then, only pet owners should pay for it. Why burden those who prefer not to have pets or those who cannot have pets due to allergies or residence restrictions?
ed - 13 years ago
If things are working DON`T FIX IT. AND for GODS sake don`t get the goverment involved, they can destroy more good in 60 seconds than can be fixed in 10 life times!!
justine - 15 years ago
I believe that everybody should pay for the health care of an animal, and for those who do not have pets there tax money can contrubute towards helping the charitys that help and save abused animals or animals that need new loving homes, so many people feel that they can dump animals because they can't be bothered to care for them anymore, this money could also be put to prosicuiting people who cause harm to animals. making it everybodys responsibilty to provide health care or care aid for animals might make them think twice in hurting or dumping animals. we are made to pay for so many other useless things why not actually pay towards something that is important. Animals play a big part in many people lives either helping the blind or deaf, rescue search dogs, family pets. people should give more respect towards animals, in one way they are more intelligent than us humans, you don't see them screwing each other over money and politics. they just want to be loved and cared for, so they deserve to have health care.
Ann Garback - 15 years ago
I'm thinking that owning a pet should be a privilege not a right. I think there should be a tax for owning a dog (pet). A lot of people can't afford to properly care for a dog either in time or money. Some end up running wild, become unmannerly & or literally dangerous, & end up in at humane or the dog pound which of course we end up paying for. A lot are put down.Then there are people who 'collect' animals who also can't properly care for them. Let's take the tax money & pay for a yearly exam for each dog.
Whatever4 - 15 years ago
You want to have pets? You pay for them. You want to help other people with pets? Donate your time or money. Not everything in life needs to be taken care of by the government. Take responsibility for your own decisions.
The poll needs to have an option -- Don't have Universal Care for animals.
Dory - 15 years ago
Mr. Graham- I'm glad things worked out for you. However: I don't know what kind of cancer your wife had, but in some cases the drug for curing a disease simply isn't allowed into your country due to the expense. You've got government rationing. Why not hit the root of the problem- attack the high prices of drugs, the frivolous lawsuits (in our country at least), etc? There's no real need for rationing- and it's a tragedy it occurs, since it effects people's lives (and deaths). But then, there is starvation in China and Africa, too- that's certainly a tragedy.
I think...people want a perfect world, where everybody is fit, loving, giving, no one is corrupt, natural disasters don't happen, etc. Well...so some people think "hey, the government should do something!"
But why isn't it, "hey, our neighborhood communities should do something", or "we should donate more to charities that will do something"? Of course, there is a horrendous tax on charitable donations- because yeah, everyone who donates WANTS the government to take 50 percent and spend it as they choose. Or not.
Look- the government takes things that could be better dealt with by an active, thoughtful society and creates inefficient, often ineffective, and sometimes downright corrupt bureaucratic entities that suck money and are practically impossible to kill once they get started. Take social security, medicare, medicaid, the entire welfare system, the postal service, the list is endless. Take a private equivalent, and you find it does the job better- FedEX for example.
The government isn't a substitute for our parents, or our pastors/priests/rabbis, and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't control our doctors either. Look- health care is 20 percent of our economy. When you give ANY single organization that kind of power, you're asking for trouble. Monopoly creation in a business sense aside (which is also a problem), this is the kind of thing that leads to extreme corruption, graft, etc.
You've got to look at human nature, look at history- and acknowledge that, though the world is painful in many ways, there are good ways and bad ways of trying to better things.
I guess it boils down to whether you're an individualist or a statist- but honestly, if you sit down and analyze things, how could anyone put that much power in the hands of the government? You've got to encourage people to be their own person, to work hard, to be good- these values come from a good home, a solid church/temple/etc, a good neighborhood, etc. The kind of world people want will never come from government.
You just can't MAKE people be good. We've got free will, remember? And trying to ultimately leads to governments like the USSR, or Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to be incendiary here- just naming off famous examples.
People simply want a quick fix to the world''s problems that doesn't exist. How else can you explain governments such as the USSR ever coming to power? The Russian people aren't stupid, after all.
Universal health care for pets is bad- for multiple reasons. Keh- how about this? Think of the people out there with cat/dog/both allergies- they'll never get a pet, and yet they would be paying into a system not doing anything for them. How is that "fair"? Simple answer: it's not. Nor is it fair to pay for schools you have no power to influence. Just because a government entity already exists doesn't mean it's the best thing available, or even a remotely good solution to a problem. Analyze it- if it sucks, ditch it and find a better way, I say. Just because it's the norm doesn't make it the best. Sorry- I have a gripe with the public school system for causing me years of unnecessary misery.
Cheryl in Tacoma, WA - 15 years ago
Interesting question. I am a staunch supporter of a public option in health care reform (although single payer would be ideal, but we as a nation can't get there from here). In considering the various options, pay-as-you-go is our current system, and in many cases it's unworkable. How many pets go unspayed/unneutered because owners can't afford it? How many present a risk to other animals or people because they haven't had all their shots?
The second option is unenforceable. If it were enforceable, all pets would be licensed, as is required by law pretty much everywhere.
The third option is justified only if universal coverage benefits society as a whole, and I would argue it does. It would incentivize spaying/neutering, because if you're already paying into the system, you might as well use it. It would decrease the number of abandoned/feral animals, with which many communities struggle. It would reduce the availability of "free to good home" or shelter animals, which often wind up in the hands of unscrupulous Class B dealers who sell them into painful and unnecessary research programs, or criminals who use them as fight animals or bait for same. So, I weigh in on option 3. A civilized society can afford to care for the least among us, and who is more vulnerable than our animal companions?
Kevin - 15 years ago
I'm glad this discussion is occurring because I constantly run into clients that think veterinarians should cover all their pets needs out of the goodness of their hearts. We love animals and want to help them all and cannot stand to see an animal suffer but we are also a small business that is hurting in the current economy. We cannot afford to take care of your pet if you can't. Please plan ahead for medical emergencies-Pet insurance, savings account, third party payer(Care Credit) or the dreaded credit card that you don't use except in dire circumstances. Be responsible for your pets well being-Help it lose weight if the veterinarian told you it was overweight, Brush your pets teeth, have your pet neutered, buy a fence for your yard, do not skimp on flea and heartworm control keep them on it year around, get yearly bloodwork done for pets over 7 years, come in for annual exams and discuss your pets lifestyle with your veterinarian. These actions alone will decrease your need of emergent care by ten fold.
Richard Graham - 15 years ago
I am a Brit and despite all you may hear our UK National Health Service works extremely well, my Wife had a cancer and it was dealt with immediately, within 3 weeks of diagnosiser operation and the post op care is superb.
Now to pets,; it is a proven fact people with pets like cats and dogs have less health problems than those without, especially in terms of blood pressure, heart and dementia. Therefore it can be said the pet actually saves the health system significant funds. We already discriminate about people who smoke, drink alcohol excessively and are grossly overweight. The reverse of this is people who contribute to a healthier lifestyle should be recognised too, pets make a significant difference in the health of the pet owning population so less drain on the system.
It would be good to take it a stage further. We have Blue Cross & PDSA over here which provides minimal cost pet care to those less well off. If you coupled it with a meaningful licence fee for pet owners to cover further costs you would have the funding to provide a service and less people having pets who just do not care about them.
I wish my American friends well with both a state health system and an animal care system.
Dory - 15 years ago
The argument that every tax payer should cover animal health care because every tax payer covers public school makes no sense to me.
But then I never got why people without kids should have to pay into a system to send other people's kids to a very likely lousy school. I vote for more competition in the school system- if you've got to pay taxes for it, you should choose what kind of school you're paying for kids to go to, and if you've got kids you choose where to place them and send that tax money there- be it to a public OR private institution.
All this talk about "competition" for the insurance companies by adding a public option to health care (which makes no sense- how is it a fair competition when one competitor- the government- doesn't have to make a profit, doesn't have to be any good, and can force people to sign up over time?) should by practically applied to some of our lovely government run institutions- such as the public school system. It sucks, why not try some healthy competition? :P
Eh, I'm rambling here a bit, and blowing off a little steam. This is a weird subject for a cat lovers group, lol. Oo;
So...back to the subject: heck no! It's not the government's job to take care of our pets! Dang, people! If you want a pet, you need to have the means for taking care of that pet. And as far as insurance goes, if we can take steps to cut down on some of the stupidity that raises prices in the first place, people could shop around for reasonable private insurance for their pets just fine. Or choose not to get any- some people don't want it, and don't need it.
jo - 15 years ago
We all have to pay school taxes. I have paid school taxes for over 50 years and I have no children and I am not complaining about paying the taxes.
Susan - 15 years ago
Ok people, I wasn't going to comment on this because of the insanity of it all.. BUT- Pets are pets.. humans are humans... remember? You can not compare the two! Yes, I understand that some people don't have children and their pets serve as a surrogate child. However, they really aren't childern they are pets. No matter how bad you would like to get exemptions for them, tax breaks for having them, feel that health care should be manditory for them.. ain't gonna happen. We are fortunate in this country (so far) to include pets in our lives, choose where we get them, benefit from them in our lives, BUT... that is a choice. Along with that choice comes responsibility. If you can't afford the necessary care of owning a pet then you wait until you can. Comparing a pet to a human child is nuts... sorry no matter what anyone says, no one could ever compare my son to one of my pets. I've seen some comments "I pay taxes and I don't have kids but I have to pay for education". I'm willing to bet that while you were growing up, at some point you went to public school, and someone with no kids contributed thru their taxes for your education. Consider it a payback. When you ponder having children, part of that process is how you will pay for their medical care. You just don't go and have a kid and hope somehow that the "system" will take care of it all!!?? That's crazy!!! Now I respect the right to have a pet, call them whatever you want (four legged kids, furry children) and dress them up in froofy clothes.... but bottom line is, they are YOUR responsiblity, no one elses.
J Banathy - 15 years ago
I don't believe that creating a universal healthcare system for pets is going to solve any problems. It will only create more. Look at what is going on now with the healthcare "reform" in our country. We can't even organize safe, efficient, and affordable healthcare for ourselves. Adding universal healthcare for our pets is only going to complicate issues. Yes, I am in favor of better insurance for our pets, with more benefits and coverage. But, ultimately, if we decide to become pet parents, it is OUR responsibility to ensure their health and happiness. I do not agree that anyone should be taxed for having pets, especially those who are not pet parents. How about a tax credit for pet parents who make the time and effort to obtain healthcare for their pets? Let's not add to our already heavy tax burden. Let's find a way to lessen it.
DiWi - 15 years ago
Reply to CAVITT CRUISER and a few others: Why NOT pay for your kitty to get well again? We pay for ILLEGALS AND THEIR KIDS to get well, we pay for CHILDREN TO GO TO SCHOOL (when we don't have school age children or any children of our own) and the list goes on and on what WE TAX PAYERS pay for and don't get any personal benefit from, so why NOT help everyone who has a PET get help for their pets? I know humans who have 8 kids and no father and WE pay for them in taxes. I have several cats/kittens and 2 dogs and I pay EVERY THING for their care since the "Pet Insurance" costs would be too high for me to afford for ALL of them (and those of you who say I have too many pets get rid of some) I care about ALL my pets enough to get them to the Vet when I need to, that comment would be like "You have 8 kids, why not get rid of some?" or "Hey why didn't you get FIXED sooner?" so Yes I am FOR this idea of Universal Pet Care or maybe FREE SPAY AND NEUTERING NO MATTER WHAT YOUR INCOME would help cut down on the animal population at least or as someone said USE THAT MONEY AND ALL MONEY FOR PETS TO PAY FOR THE UNIVERSAL PET CARE! There's a amazing amount of people out there who love their pets and spoil them with clothing/Boutiques and other expensive things--TAX THOSE ITEMS as well to pay ONLY for the UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ANIMALS. The FREE SPAY OR NEUTERING would stop some owners from saying they can't AFFORD to get their animals FIXED, ofcourse that wouldn't help fixing over population of HUMANS. I recently HAD to put a beloved cat to sleep because I couldn't AFFORD the PET INSURANCE OR MEDICAL CARE and how many out there know that when your pet gets past a certain age the PET INSURANCE places won't insure your pet and the Vets won't spay or neuter them? If we pay TAXES on various things we DON'T use, why should ONLY PET OWNERS PAY TAXES ON THIS UNIVERSAL CARE? As I said, I don't have school age kids and I still pay taxes on them and as for the ILLEGALS in all states, well what all do you think YOU pay in taxes for them?
jim murphy - 15 years ago
I think the whole idea for universal pet care is insane. If we add insurance companys to a universal system this will break our system that is already walking on a fine line.My dog was my choice because I have the monies needed to take care of him and this is my cost not any one else.
Why think of adding cost to the american people dont we pay enough. This would not help our pockets this would be another way for our goverment to inflate cost more then it already is.Lets not allow our rights get taken more. As our goverment holds our hand thru enough.
On the comments well dont we give enough to welfare or illegals why not us is the wrong attitude "He has gum why dont I get a piece " HOW ABOUT NO ONE GETS GUM.
karen hobbs - 15 years ago
Since americans are not as left leaning as canadians i doubt that you will ever see "universal" health care. Even candians do not have that. So, i also doubt it weill ever happen for pets. I think that as with children people need to take some personal responsibility for having kids or pets, neither of which really happens. Health care should be available to everyone for at least the basics and any emergencies. But, I think health care covers more than docotro care. wE are never privy to preventive care and that is what we all need for ourselves and animals in general. I agree with the "rant" about the politics of health care. Never, should we say these people but not those people! As for taxes, well there is an old poster that says, "I will be happy for the day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to raise money". Pay your taxes and never worry about health care or education again. And for those withour kids, well, someday you will be old and sick. Pray you don't have top pay for health care then!
Marlene - 15 years ago
I know there are people who cannot afford pet insurance and of course some people said that the insurance companies make out. If your pet doesn't use it and you have paid sure they will benefit. Same as yourself if you don't use it they benefit.
Has anyone ever priced pet insurance? It isn't as expensive as everyone thinks. Universal insurance I don't think so. I think it will only become messed up the national health bill will become.
Everyone should have pet insurance because you know you never know when you will need it. I didn't have health insurance for my cat but decided to buy some in January 2008 and in March 2008 she developed so many problems and her bills cost over $5,000.00. I am very lucky that she is still with us and I thank goodness for health insurance. Her insurance runs me 19.50 a month up to 8,000.00 for the year and there are other plans. Does not have a per incident limit as well. Some do. She has two different diseases going on. Do you really think that if we had Universal Health care it would have covered it. I don't think so. They would have said time to put the cat down. Her bills run approximately $2,000.00 per year right now. She is thriving so well and running around gaining weight. Most people said put her down but she was not suffering at all. So I took the chance with her. Universal Health coverage as I said before never would have allowed this. She is my first cat in many years as we never could have afforded to have an animal till now.
So NO to Universal Health coverage for animals.
Michelle Ross - 15 years ago
Being a pet owner, I have not problem with having pet owners pay for it. The issues that I have are when I pay taxes for schools, and other things that should have absolutely nothing to do with my life. My daughter is grown and when she was in school I paid taxes. Now I have no one in school, but have to pay taxes. I also do not care anything about sports arenas etc. What I would like see changed, would be deciding where our tax monies should go. After all, as I said, I have no one in school. So people with children in school should be the ones to foot the bills. Most of them would screetch if they had to pay taxes to help animals. To me, this is very unfair since this is MY money. I should be able to have it put towards what I have an involvement in.
Thank you,
old lady - 15 years ago
I said only pet owners should pay but I also think it should be that only pet owners who WANT to opt in should pay. I do think there should be some kind of incentive to get pets "fixed".
This is a really skewed poll, because although it proposes a policy to insure animals, it replaces the term "animal" with the term "pet" which deviates into a completely different discourse. PETS, and COMPANION SPECIES are not the only ones relevant in the discussion of universal healthcare, the broader term ANIMALS, which includes HUMANS, is a much more political and social concept. Of course we all need universal healthcare; as our political system is an individualist hierarchical system, most of the population assumes that this is a policy related only to one's own needs (i.e. your own healthcare, your pet's healthcare) but what about our extended community? What about those who are marginalized or outside of this political system? Don't they need healthcare too? As our human society utterly disregards the rights of our own species, AND that of other life forms, we move away from any hope of a shared and just community. This issue is not only about PETS, its about how we care for the world around us; how we can take a stand to defend not only that which is ours, but that which exceeds the individual. As for paying for social needs, such as healthcare; I find it ironic that the keyword "TAXES" immediately clouds and evaporates what could be a communitarian debate; why is it that no one questions the type of tax breaks granted to the companies who monopolize the healthcare industry. How is it that we permit pharmaceutical and insurance companies to dictate the HIGLHY inflated prices of our healthcare? If there are any "death camps" out there, they are the directly caused by the policies promoted by health industry CEOs, who ferociously advocate strict patent laws that prevent life saving medication to be administered to MILLIONS around the world. Furthermore, we need to move beyond a debate that only refers to health insurance for the EFFECT of sickness - as a society we should be asking ourselves how we can prevent illness; carcinogens, pesticides, hormones, amongst many other environmental toxins exist in our immediate environment, which have direct effects on our health; how can we curb the disastrous contagion of poverty, pollution and slavery (for both human and animals) that is damaging our quality of life. This is more than a question about healthcare, its a question about how our society functions, and how the economic system we are mired within is just not working for most of the earth's life forms. I suggest those of you are interested in this debate to see my website, www.votecocorico.com, and to read my most recent speech "No More Inflation" which discusses how the global economic system directly effects our society, and how my anarchist presidential platform promotes an alternative global society, where all species are respected.
Barb - 15 years ago
I think taking a little tax money from everyone to insure the health of our pets. Health insurance for pets is pretty expensive and most people probably will never need it. If you want coverage for yearly check-ups and routine care then the individual owner should pay for this service. If an individual cares enough to take their pet for their yearly check-ups and shots whether they have coverage for these services or pay themselves, if a major illness occurs, they should be able to have that pet treated without having to go into major debt to do it. These tax dollars should also go to Humane Societies to help animals that are in need and can be saved.
morekare - 15 years ago
Everybody is affected by sick animals. We pay for animal shelters and the vets who treat the animals in the shelters, therefore it is right for all of us to contribute to the care of all animals (personal pets as well as strays).
Diane Johnson - 15 years ago
Actually if each veterinarian would donate one day a month to providing, at cost plus 10%, shots, exams, spay/neuters, surgery, and other treatments,
it would not only allow many who cannot afford pet insurance etc. to treat their animals instead of dumping or euthanizing them plus it would bring attention to their clinics and therefore more clients.
I know several veterinarians who donate their time for shot or spay/neuter clinics who have increased their clientelle both.
Sandy J Davis - 15 years ago
While I like the idea of Pet Insurance for all, there has to be a better way than just taxing everyone. Owning a Pet is optional. Trying to determine who may have a pet and just taxing those with pets is an impossible job. Possibly if we can get our human medical costs under control, then our Pets will benefit from lower Veterinary costs also.
Mary - 15 years ago
Dear Cavitt Cruiser - I can understand your point and have recently spent $5000 in tests, interventions, and surgery on the cat I inherited from my mother who passed away last Oct. I would do it all again and will be paying for this over 5 years time.
In answer to your question: YES...I would be happy to have my tax dollars go to support the extensive care of our furry family/friends that need it. There is more SHARED cost and perhaps the cushion of spreading across the masses would hurt a little less?
Being an advocate for animals, I am more than willing to make the conscious choice of where my tax dollars go. Unfortunately in our system, we are not given that latitude. I have been given no choice whether I want to support people who ride the system...support a state government that sees education as an after thought and makes that the first stop an budget cuts rather than diminishing their own deep pockets....need I go on?
I am also an advocate for the human youth of our country today and am not complaining that my tax money goes to their education - be that as it may.
However, is there a better way to be more proportionate according to accountability/responsibility? People with human children get tax breaks...I get none. As a matter of fact, as a single female - sole provider - moderate home owner (mobile home - doesn't make a dent as an itemized asset so it never ranks enuff to do more than EZ taxes - my salary puts me in the upper middle class tax bracket)..I end up paying MORE % in taxes than a married couple with 2 kids, a house, 2 cars, a dog, a boat,....wha wha wha...get my drift? There has got to be a better way ALL AROUND so that "fat cats" don't get fatter (pardon the punn) and those that TRULY struggle will see more of the benefits of their labors than they do now.
JoAnn - 15 years ago
If you want to insure your pet, do it, but I don't want to pay for everyone else's pets. Pets are not people, tho we consider them part of our families. Don't want to pay for illegals' medical care either, which is one reason I am totally against Obamacare. We need lower taxes, not more. Lower our taxes and we could afford pet insurance.
Mary - 15 years ago
I TOTALLY agree with Merry Drew and all the subsequent responses.
Can't think of anything that speaks it more plainly to this specific topic.
Brief rant:
Case in point - if you are a renter, you are required most times to pay an EXTRA pet damage deposit and PROVE that your cats are declawed...
OK..this will sound very harsh but do we require that of human children? Believe me, they can do even MORE damage to a unit or even an entire building - I was an apartment caretaker, I've seen it!
Elaine - 15 years ago
Ridiculous idea! If health insurance expanded for pets, the price would go up and up and up and so would our premiums. It's what always happens with insurance, from our medical to our dental to doctors' malpractice insurance, once competition is out of the marketplace, prices rise. I would like to see a high deductible insurance so our pets are covered if they get something that requires a lot of care that is expensive but not for day to day things.
I agree entirely with the ideas that I have to pay for education/schools and I have no children AND we are paying for illegals and those on welfare to support whatever they need. So WHY not use taxes to help pay for our pets insurance. This is OUR country and besides alot of our dollars go overseas to help other countries(who do not always appreciate it) , why not use it for US.
Why do our own get forgotten.
Cavitt Cruiser - 15 years ago
I sincerely believe that we should have a single payer healthcare for us humans, however, I don't go along with this thinking for our pets. The way our systems is right now, as pet owners, we have to make difficult decisions. For instance, I have five kitty babies and I always take them in for maintenance and emergencies. I don't have pet insurance because I think insurance companies ALWAYS make out in the end. I have one kitty who suddenly got all wobbly in her hind quarters about six weeks ago. I took her in and got full body Xrays done and they didn't show any problems. Next I took her to a referral vet, an Internist, who felt that the problem was neurological, either a stroke or an inflamation in the brain. The vet recommended against further testing i.e. MRI is around $2500. plus extensive blood tests because even after all the testing we wouldn't necessarily know what is wrong and quite possibly we couldn't make my kitty better. I agreed with the vet and took kitty home. She did improve considerably but this past Saturday she relapsed and again she is improving. HOWEVER, if I didn't have the financial consideration, and had Universal Healthcare for her I'm sure I would have ordered ALL the tests on the slight chance the problem could be identified and fixed. Do you want to pay for my kitties tests?
Brenda Gamache - 15 years ago
Merry Drew , you took the words right out of my mouth! It makes perfect sense, and it's fair. I am child-free, and my taxes are used for the life choices (having kids) of others. My cats are MY kids, so why not?
Maria Alvarez - 15 years ago
I ditto Merry Drew word for word because it makes complete sense.
Merry Drew - 15 years ago
I don't have children and have to pay for their education and care. So why shouldn't people who don't have pets help us pet owners. After all they are our kids.
I believe that if the taxpayers under Obama can pay for Education & Health care for all the Illigals, THEY can pay for Health Care for my CAT.
Almeda Meehl - 15 years ago
I believe only pet owners should pay for univeral health coverage for our pets.
We could use half the money we pay for lisencing our dogs and start lisencing our cats.
Pet food and pet care companies should pay at least half the cost By a tax and or import fees, on all animal related Products And Medicines that way they have incentive to keep costs down and not sell junk that harms everyone's bottom line
I choose taxpayers with pets but how come there was no choice to have insurance for pets covered under a co-op plan Birds, fish, snakes, lizards, etc are all someone's pet their tests are limited; use of any type of equipment is limited but specialized vets are necessary. First of all I think pet insurance premium is too high for the healthy ones, yes it comes in handy should your pet need more comprehensive care as they age but how about those first 10 yrs? then nothing is covered 100%-then not all vets accept insurance and like anything else once they know you have insurance on your pet all the prices for everything go up because after all you have insurance. For people, a box of kleenex in a hospital, is billed at $24.00 only because insurance is involved--because your pet can not communicate it is hit and miss in the vet's office with more tests than what is needed just so the diagnosis will be correct. Let us not even discuss the cost of the medicine or procedure if the diagnosis happens to be correct. Again, if the diagnosis is correct and can be treated insurance does not cover 100% For pets I think it should--the vets should be kept in check --all you have to do is see the cost of a 10 dose vaccine versus what a single dose of the same vaccine will cost you. Personally, when it comes to anything our government is involved in only the gets rife with fraud and theft. Personally, I think anyone who has worked all their life until retirement age should be exempt from any kind of taxation. You paid throughout your whole working life with or without children--you paid for schools, police and fire protection, the streets with the potholes, the public parks, etc. why keep paying as you use any of what you paid for less and less until the last thing is tax on the coffin or urn!
I hear Italy has it now so why can't we, we have no problem supporting so many from other countries, making tax payers with no children pay for childrens services and education. I don't want a handout I just think it's only fair middleclass folks start to see some upperclass treatment. I do agree though that I don't want to be told where to go or when, thats why I would like to try the upperclass for a change.
My two dogs are my children; however, I still think the idea of universal healthcare for pets is ridiculous. People choose whether or not to have pets; it's a privelege and not a right. Also, pets are still legally viewed as property and are not entitled to the same rights as people; society in general should not be expected to pay for other people's property. (That is the legal interpretation, not the emotional one.) I'll repeat that I adore my dogs and they are my kids, but I don't expect other tax payers to pay for them. If you can't afford to care for your pet properly, don't have one. Since I don't have kids, it does irk me a little to pay for those who do. However, I recognize that paying for public education is an investment in society's future and those little darlings will (hopefully) be paying for my social security and other programs that will benefit the community. I'd rather invest in people who will give back to society some day rather than investing in other people's pets. I also feel that it's better to have fewer things in the hands of the government. I'd hate the government to tell me where I can take my pups and what treatment they can or cannot have. That disturbs me.
All taxpayers should pay into universal healthcare for pets. All taxpayers have to pay into universal healthcare for children...and I do NOT have any of those!
I would love it if we could insure our pets thru our employers on our own insurance.
If it were to happen. I think everyone should pay. I pay school taxes however I have no children to go to the schools. I pay taxes to the goverment who provide money to programs to people who are out of work because they have loss their jobs or prople who are just to dang sorry to get out and get a job. I also pay taxes so teens who get pregnant have health care and then when they have the baby I pay taxes for them to have food for the baby. So, if I choose to have my four legged babies why shouldn't everyone help pay for it.
Everyone seems to have his or her hand out in today's society. Why should someone else pay because I chose to have a pet? I have insurance for my pet, and I do not expect anyone else to pay my way or my pet's way. The government should not be involved. Having a pet and caring for it is my responsibility, not the governments.
I do not want to pay for anybody's medical bills for their dogs except mine. I have 2 Maltese dogs I love very much, I pay for pet insurance and medical expense on my pension income, I pay my fair share of taxes, and I am personally tired of people thinking that you should chip in and pay for their things, especially for their pets. Enough is enough.
Under obama we will wind up paying for health care for everyone on the planet. Why not include their pets?
Why not have all tax payers pay? We pay for schools and I don't have kids!
First, such pet insurance needs to be limited to household pets - barnyard type pets as well as exotics may require more expertise and raise the premiums. Second, there must be a definition of the type of insurance: for cat, dog or "other pet" owners. Third, all vets must accept it. Then, only pet owners should pay for it. Why burden those who prefer not to have pets or those who cannot have pets due to allergies or residence restrictions?
If things are working DON`T FIX IT. AND for GODS sake don`t get the goverment involved, they can destroy more good in 60 seconds than can be fixed in 10 life times!!
I believe that everybody should pay for the health care of an animal, and for those who do not have pets there tax money can contrubute towards helping the charitys that help and save abused animals or animals that need new loving homes, so many people feel that they can dump animals because they can't be bothered to care for them anymore, this money could also be put to prosicuiting people who cause harm to animals. making it everybodys responsibilty to provide health care or care aid for animals might make them think twice in hurting or dumping animals. we are made to pay for so many other useless things why not actually pay towards something that is important. Animals play a big part in many people lives either helping the blind or deaf, rescue search dogs, family pets. people should give more respect towards animals, in one way they are more intelligent than us humans, you don't see them screwing each other over money and politics. they just want to be loved and cared for, so they deserve to have health care.
I'm thinking that owning a pet should be a privilege not a right. I think there should be a tax for owning a dog (pet). A lot of people can't afford to properly care for a dog either in time or money. Some end up running wild, become unmannerly & or literally dangerous, & end up in at humane or the dog pound which of course we end up paying for. A lot are put down.Then there are people who 'collect' animals who also can't properly care for them. Let's take the tax money & pay for a yearly exam for each dog.
You want to have pets? You pay for them. You want to help other people with pets? Donate your time or money. Not everything in life needs to be taken care of by the government. Take responsibility for your own decisions.
The poll needs to have an option -- Don't have Universal Care for animals.
Mr. Graham- I'm glad things worked out for you. However: I don't know what kind of cancer your wife had, but in some cases the drug for curing a disease simply isn't allowed into your country due to the expense. You've got government rationing. Why not hit the root of the problem- attack the high prices of drugs, the frivolous lawsuits (in our country at least), etc? There's no real need for rationing- and it's a tragedy it occurs, since it effects people's lives (and deaths). But then, there is starvation in China and Africa, too- that's certainly a tragedy.
I think...people want a perfect world, where everybody is fit, loving, giving, no one is corrupt, natural disasters don't happen, etc. Well...so some people think "hey, the government should do something!"
But why isn't it, "hey, our neighborhood communities should do something", or "we should donate more to charities that will do something"? Of course, there is a horrendous tax on charitable donations- because yeah, everyone who donates WANTS the government to take 50 percent and spend it as they choose. Or not.
Look- the government takes things that could be better dealt with by an active, thoughtful society and creates inefficient, often ineffective, and sometimes downright corrupt bureaucratic entities that suck money and are practically impossible to kill once they get started. Take social security, medicare, medicaid, the entire welfare system, the postal service, the list is endless. Take a private equivalent, and you find it does the job better- FedEX for example.
The government isn't a substitute for our parents, or our pastors/priests/rabbis, and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't control our doctors either. Look- health care is 20 percent of our economy. When you give ANY single organization that kind of power, you're asking for trouble. Monopoly creation in a business sense aside (which is also a problem), this is the kind of thing that leads to extreme corruption, graft, etc.
You've got to look at human nature, look at history- and acknowledge that, though the world is painful in many ways, there are good ways and bad ways of trying to better things.
I guess it boils down to whether you're an individualist or a statist- but honestly, if you sit down and analyze things, how could anyone put that much power in the hands of the government? You've got to encourage people to be their own person, to work hard, to be good- these values come from a good home, a solid church/temple/etc, a good neighborhood, etc. The kind of world people want will never come from government.
You just can't MAKE people be good. We've got free will, remember? And trying to ultimately leads to governments like the USSR, or Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to be incendiary here- just naming off famous examples.
People simply want a quick fix to the world''s problems that doesn't exist. How else can you explain governments such as the USSR ever coming to power? The Russian people aren't stupid, after all.
Universal health care for pets is bad- for multiple reasons. Keh- how about this? Think of the people out there with cat/dog/both allergies- they'll never get a pet, and yet they would be paying into a system not doing anything for them. How is that "fair"? Simple answer: it's not. Nor is it fair to pay for schools you have no power to influence. Just because a government entity already exists doesn't mean it's the best thing available, or even a remotely good solution to a problem. Analyze it- if it sucks, ditch it and find a better way, I say. Just because it's the norm doesn't make it the best. Sorry- I have a gripe with the public school system for causing me years of unnecessary misery.
Interesting question. I am a staunch supporter of a public option in health care reform (although single payer would be ideal, but we as a nation can't get there from here). In considering the various options, pay-as-you-go is our current system, and in many cases it's unworkable. How many pets go unspayed/unneutered because owners can't afford it? How many present a risk to other animals or people because they haven't had all their shots?
The second option is unenforceable. If it were enforceable, all pets would be licensed, as is required by law pretty much everywhere.
The third option is justified only if universal coverage benefits society as a whole, and I would argue it does. It would incentivize spaying/neutering, because if you're already paying into the system, you might as well use it. It would decrease the number of abandoned/feral animals, with which many communities struggle. It would reduce the availability of "free to good home" or shelter animals, which often wind up in the hands of unscrupulous Class B dealers who sell them into painful and unnecessary research programs, or criminals who use them as fight animals or bait for same. So, I weigh in on option 3. A civilized society can afford to care for the least among us, and who is more vulnerable than our animal companions?
I'm glad this discussion is occurring because I constantly run into clients that think veterinarians should cover all their pets needs out of the goodness of their hearts. We love animals and want to help them all and cannot stand to see an animal suffer but we are also a small business that is hurting in the current economy. We cannot afford to take care of your pet if you can't. Please plan ahead for medical emergencies-Pet insurance, savings account, third party payer(Care Credit) or the dreaded credit card that you don't use except in dire circumstances. Be responsible for your pets well being-Help it lose weight if the veterinarian told you it was overweight, Brush your pets teeth, have your pet neutered, buy a fence for your yard, do not skimp on flea and heartworm control keep them on it year around, get yearly bloodwork done for pets over 7 years, come in for annual exams and discuss your pets lifestyle with your veterinarian. These actions alone will decrease your need of emergent care by ten fold.
I am a Brit and despite all you may hear our UK National Health Service works extremely well, my Wife had a cancer and it was dealt with immediately, within 3 weeks of diagnosiser operation and the post op care is superb.
Now to pets,; it is a proven fact people with pets like cats and dogs have less health problems than those without, especially in terms of blood pressure, heart and dementia. Therefore it can be said the pet actually saves the health system significant funds. We already discriminate about people who smoke, drink alcohol excessively and are grossly overweight. The reverse of this is people who contribute to a healthier lifestyle should be recognised too, pets make a significant difference in the health of the pet owning population so less drain on the system.
It would be good to take it a stage further. We have Blue Cross & PDSA over here which provides minimal cost pet care to those less well off. If you coupled it with a meaningful licence fee for pet owners to cover further costs you would have the funding to provide a service and less people having pets who just do not care about them.
I wish my American friends well with both a state health system and an animal care system.
The argument that every tax payer should cover animal health care because every tax payer covers public school makes no sense to me.
But then I never got why people without kids should have to pay into a system to send other people's kids to a very likely lousy school. I vote for more competition in the school system- if you've got to pay taxes for it, you should choose what kind of school you're paying for kids to go to, and if you've got kids you choose where to place them and send that tax money there- be it to a public OR private institution.
All this talk about "competition" for the insurance companies by adding a public option to health care (which makes no sense- how is it a fair competition when one competitor- the government- doesn't have to make a profit, doesn't have to be any good, and can force people to sign up over time?) should by practically applied to some of our lovely government run institutions- such as the public school system. It sucks, why not try some healthy competition? :P
Eh, I'm rambling here a bit, and blowing off a little steam. This is a weird subject for a cat lovers group, lol. Oo;
So...back to the subject: heck no! It's not the government's job to take care of our pets! Dang, people! If you want a pet, you need to have the means for taking care of that pet. And as far as insurance goes, if we can take steps to cut down on some of the stupidity that raises prices in the first place, people could shop around for reasonable private insurance for their pets just fine. Or choose not to get any- some people don't want it, and don't need it.
We all have to pay school taxes. I have paid school taxes for over 50 years and I have no children and I am not complaining about paying the taxes.
Ok people, I wasn't going to comment on this because of the insanity of it all.. BUT- Pets are pets.. humans are humans... remember? You can not compare the two! Yes, I understand that some people don't have children and their pets serve as a surrogate child. However, they really aren't childern they are pets. No matter how bad you would like to get exemptions for them, tax breaks for having them, feel that health care should be manditory for them.. ain't gonna happen. We are fortunate in this country (so far) to include pets in our lives, choose where we get them, benefit from them in our lives, BUT... that is a choice. Along with that choice comes responsibility. If you can't afford the necessary care of owning a pet then you wait until you can. Comparing a pet to a human child is nuts... sorry no matter what anyone says, no one could ever compare my son to one of my pets. I've seen some comments "I pay taxes and I don't have kids but I have to pay for education". I'm willing to bet that while you were growing up, at some point you went to public school, and someone with no kids contributed thru their taxes for your education. Consider it a payback. When you ponder having children, part of that process is how you will pay for their medical care. You just don't go and have a kid and hope somehow that the "system" will take care of it all!!?? That's crazy!!! Now I respect the right to have a pet, call them whatever you want (four legged kids, furry children) and dress them up in froofy clothes.... but bottom line is, they are YOUR responsiblity, no one elses.
I don't believe that creating a universal healthcare system for pets is going to solve any problems. It will only create more. Look at what is going on now with the healthcare "reform" in our country. We can't even organize safe, efficient, and affordable healthcare for ourselves. Adding universal healthcare for our pets is only going to complicate issues. Yes, I am in favor of better insurance for our pets, with more benefits and coverage. But, ultimately, if we decide to become pet parents, it is OUR responsibility to ensure their health and happiness. I do not agree that anyone should be taxed for having pets, especially those who are not pet parents. How about a tax credit for pet parents who make the time and effort to obtain healthcare for their pets? Let's not add to our already heavy tax burden. Let's find a way to lessen it.
Reply to CAVITT CRUISER and a few others: Why NOT pay for your kitty to get well again? We pay for ILLEGALS AND THEIR KIDS to get well, we pay for CHILDREN TO GO TO SCHOOL (when we don't have school age children or any children of our own) and the list goes on and on what WE TAX PAYERS pay for and don't get any personal benefit from, so why NOT help everyone who has a PET get help for their pets? I know humans who have 8 kids and no father and WE pay for them in taxes. I have several cats/kittens and 2 dogs and I pay EVERY THING for their care since the "Pet Insurance" costs would be too high for me to afford for ALL of them (and those of you who say I have too many pets get rid of some) I care about ALL my pets enough to get them to the Vet when I need to, that comment would be like "You have 8 kids, why not get rid of some?" or "Hey why didn't you get FIXED sooner?" so Yes I am FOR this idea of Universal Pet Care or maybe FREE SPAY AND NEUTERING NO MATTER WHAT YOUR INCOME would help cut down on the animal population at least or as someone said USE THAT MONEY AND ALL MONEY FOR PETS TO PAY FOR THE UNIVERSAL PET CARE! There's a amazing amount of people out there who love their pets and spoil them with clothing/Boutiques and other expensive things--TAX THOSE ITEMS as well to pay ONLY for the UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ANIMALS. The FREE SPAY OR NEUTERING would stop some owners from saying they can't AFFORD to get their animals FIXED, ofcourse that wouldn't help fixing over population of HUMANS. I recently HAD to put a beloved cat to sleep because I couldn't AFFORD the PET INSURANCE OR MEDICAL CARE and how many out there know that when your pet gets past a certain age the PET INSURANCE places won't insure your pet and the Vets won't spay or neuter them? If we pay TAXES on various things we DON'T use, why should ONLY PET OWNERS PAY TAXES ON THIS UNIVERSAL CARE? As I said, I don't have school age kids and I still pay taxes on them and as for the ILLEGALS in all states, well what all do you think YOU pay in taxes for them?
I think the whole idea for universal pet care is insane. If we add insurance companys to a universal system this will break our system that is already walking on a fine line.My dog was my choice because I have the monies needed to take care of him and this is my cost not any one else.
Why think of adding cost to the american people dont we pay enough. This would not help our pockets this would be another way for our goverment to inflate cost more then it already is.Lets not allow our rights get taken more. As our goverment holds our hand thru enough.
On the comments well dont we give enough to welfare or illegals why not us is the wrong attitude "He has gum why dont I get a piece " HOW ABOUT NO ONE GETS GUM.
Since americans are not as left leaning as canadians i doubt that you will ever see "universal" health care. Even candians do not have that. So, i also doubt it weill ever happen for pets. I think that as with children people need to take some personal responsibility for having kids or pets, neither of which really happens. Health care should be available to everyone for at least the basics and any emergencies. But, I think health care covers more than docotro care. wE are never privy to preventive care and that is what we all need for ourselves and animals in general. I agree with the "rant" about the politics of health care. Never, should we say these people but not those people! As for taxes, well there is an old poster that says, "I will be happy for the day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to raise money". Pay your taxes and never worry about health care or education again. And for those withour kids, well, someday you will be old and sick. Pray you don't have top pay for health care then!
I know there are people who cannot afford pet insurance and of course some people said that the insurance companies make out. If your pet doesn't use it and you have paid sure they will benefit. Same as yourself if you don't use it they benefit.
Has anyone ever priced pet insurance? It isn't as expensive as everyone thinks. Universal insurance I don't think so. I think it will only become messed up the national health bill will become.
Everyone should have pet insurance because you know you never know when you will need it. I didn't have health insurance for my cat but decided to buy some in January 2008 and in March 2008 she developed so many problems and her bills cost over $5,000.00. I am very lucky that she is still with us and I thank goodness for health insurance. Her insurance runs me 19.50 a month up to 8,000.00 for the year and there are other plans. Does not have a per incident limit as well. Some do. She has two different diseases going on. Do you really think that if we had Universal Health care it would have covered it. I don't think so. They would have said time to put the cat down. Her bills run approximately $2,000.00 per year right now. She is thriving so well and running around gaining weight. Most people said put her down but she was not suffering at all. So I took the chance with her. Universal Health coverage as I said before never would have allowed this. She is my first cat in many years as we never could have afforded to have an animal till now.
So NO to Universal Health coverage for animals.
Being a pet owner, I have not problem with having pet owners pay for it. The issues that I have are when I pay taxes for schools, and other things that should have absolutely nothing to do with my life. My daughter is grown and when she was in school I paid taxes. Now I have no one in school, but have to pay taxes. I also do not care anything about sports arenas etc. What I would like see changed, would be deciding where our tax monies should go. After all, as I said, I have no one in school. So people with children in school should be the ones to foot the bills. Most of them would screetch if they had to pay taxes to help animals. To me, this is very unfair since this is MY money. I should be able to have it put towards what I have an involvement in.
Thank you,
I said only pet owners should pay but I also think it should be that only pet owners who WANT to opt in should pay. I do think there should be some kind of incentive to get pets "fixed".
This is a really skewed poll, because although it proposes a policy to insure animals, it replaces the term "animal" with the term "pet" which deviates into a completely different discourse. PETS, and COMPANION SPECIES are not the only ones relevant in the discussion of universal healthcare, the broader term ANIMALS, which includes HUMANS, is a much more political and social concept. Of course we all need universal healthcare; as our political system is an individualist hierarchical system, most of the population assumes that this is a policy related only to one's own needs (i.e. your own healthcare, your pet's healthcare) but what about our extended community? What about those who are marginalized or outside of this political system? Don't they need healthcare too? As our human society utterly disregards the rights of our own species, AND that of other life forms, we move away from any hope of a shared and just community. This issue is not only about PETS, its about how we care for the world around us; how we can take a stand to defend not only that which is ours, but that which exceeds the individual. As for paying for social needs, such as healthcare; I find it ironic that the keyword "TAXES" immediately clouds and evaporates what could be a communitarian debate; why is it that no one questions the type of tax breaks granted to the companies who monopolize the healthcare industry. How is it that we permit pharmaceutical and insurance companies to dictate the HIGLHY inflated prices of our healthcare? If there are any "death camps" out there, they are the directly caused by the policies promoted by health industry CEOs, who ferociously advocate strict patent laws that prevent life saving medication to be administered to MILLIONS around the world. Furthermore, we need to move beyond a debate that only refers to health insurance for the EFFECT of sickness - as a society we should be asking ourselves how we can prevent illness; carcinogens, pesticides, hormones, amongst many other environmental toxins exist in our immediate environment, which have direct effects on our health; how can we curb the disastrous contagion of poverty, pollution and slavery (for both human and animals) that is damaging our quality of life. This is more than a question about healthcare, its a question about how our society functions, and how the economic system we are mired within is just not working for most of the earth's life forms. I suggest those of you are interested in this debate to see my website, www.votecocorico.com, and to read my most recent speech "No More Inflation" which discusses how the global economic system directly effects our society, and how my anarchist presidential platform promotes an alternative global society, where all species are respected.
I think taking a little tax money from everyone to insure the health of our pets. Health insurance for pets is pretty expensive and most people probably will never need it. If you want coverage for yearly check-ups and routine care then the individual owner should pay for this service. If an individual cares enough to take their pet for their yearly check-ups and shots whether they have coverage for these services or pay themselves, if a major illness occurs, they should be able to have that pet treated without having to go into major debt to do it. These tax dollars should also go to Humane Societies to help animals that are in need and can be saved.
Everybody is affected by sick animals. We pay for animal shelters and the vets who treat the animals in the shelters, therefore it is right for all of us to contribute to the care of all animals (personal pets as well as strays).
Actually if each veterinarian would donate one day a month to providing, at cost plus 10%, shots, exams, spay/neuters, surgery, and other treatments,
it would not only allow many who cannot afford pet insurance etc. to treat their animals instead of dumping or euthanizing them plus it would bring attention to their clinics and therefore more clients.
I know several veterinarians who donate their time for shot or spay/neuter clinics who have increased their clientelle both.
While I like the idea of Pet Insurance for all, there has to be a better way than just taxing everyone. Owning a Pet is optional. Trying to determine who may have a pet and just taxing those with pets is an impossible job. Possibly if we can get our human medical costs under control, then our Pets will benefit from lower Veterinary costs also.
Dear Cavitt Cruiser - I can understand your point and have recently spent $5000 in tests, interventions, and surgery on the cat I inherited from my mother who passed away last Oct. I would do it all again and will be paying for this over 5 years time.
In answer to your question: YES...I would be happy to have my tax dollars go to support the extensive care of our furry family/friends that need it. There is more SHARED cost and perhaps the cushion of spreading across the masses would hurt a little less?
Being an advocate for animals, I am more than willing to make the conscious choice of where my tax dollars go. Unfortunately in our system, we are not given that latitude. I have been given no choice whether I want to support people who ride the system...support a state government that sees education as an after thought and makes that the first stop an budget cuts rather than diminishing their own deep pockets....need I go on?
I am also an advocate for the human youth of our country today and am not complaining that my tax money goes to their education - be that as it may.
However, is there a better way to be more proportionate according to accountability/responsibility? People with human children get tax breaks...I get none. As a matter of fact, as a single female - sole provider - moderate home owner (mobile home - doesn't make a dent as an itemized asset so it never ranks enuff to do more than EZ taxes - my salary puts me in the upper middle class tax bracket)..I end up paying MORE % in taxes than a married couple with 2 kids, a house, 2 cars, a dog, a boat,....wha wha wha...get my drift? There has got to be a better way ALL AROUND so that "fat cats" don't get fatter (pardon the punn) and those that TRULY struggle will see more of the benefits of their labors than they do now.
If you want to insure your pet, do it, but I don't want to pay for everyone else's pets. Pets are not people, tho we consider them part of our families. Don't want to pay for illegals' medical care either, which is one reason I am totally against Obamacare. We need lower taxes, not more. Lower our taxes and we could afford pet insurance.
I TOTALLY agree with Merry Drew and all the subsequent responses.
Can't think of anything that speaks it more plainly to this specific topic.
Brief rant:
Case in point - if you are a renter, you are required most times to pay an EXTRA pet damage deposit and PROVE that your cats are declawed...
OK..this will sound very harsh but do we require that of human children? Believe me, they can do even MORE damage to a unit or even an entire building - I was an apartment caretaker, I've seen it!
Ridiculous idea! If health insurance expanded for pets, the price would go up and up and up and so would our premiums. It's what always happens with insurance, from our medical to our dental to doctors' malpractice insurance, once competition is out of the marketplace, prices rise. I would like to see a high deductible insurance so our pets are covered if they get something that requires a lot of care that is expensive but not for day to day things.
I agree entirely with the ideas that I have to pay for education/schools and I have no children AND we are paying for illegals and those on welfare to support whatever they need. So WHY not use taxes to help pay for our pets insurance. This is OUR country and besides alot of our dollars go overseas to help other countries(who do not always appreciate it) , why not use it for US.
Why do our own get forgotten.
I sincerely believe that we should have a single payer healthcare for us humans, however, I don't go along with this thinking for our pets. The way our systems is right now, as pet owners, we have to make difficult decisions. For instance, I have five kitty babies and I always take them in for maintenance and emergencies. I don't have pet insurance because I think insurance companies ALWAYS make out in the end. I have one kitty who suddenly got all wobbly in her hind quarters about six weeks ago. I took her in and got full body Xrays done and they didn't show any problems. Next I took her to a referral vet, an Internist, who felt that the problem was neurological, either a stroke or an inflamation in the brain. The vet recommended against further testing i.e. MRI is around $2500. plus extensive blood tests because even after all the testing we wouldn't necessarily know what is wrong and quite possibly we couldn't make my kitty better. I agreed with the vet and took kitty home. She did improve considerably but this past Saturday she relapsed and again she is improving. HOWEVER, if I didn't have the financial consideration, and had Universal Healthcare for her I'm sure I would have ordered ALL the tests on the slight chance the problem could be identified and fixed. Do you want to pay for my kitties tests?
Merry Drew , you took the words right out of my mouth! It makes perfect sense, and it's fair. I am child-free, and my taxes are used for the life choices (having kids) of others. My cats are MY kids, so why not?
I ditto Merry Drew word for word because it makes complete sense.
I don't have children and have to pay for their education and care. So why shouldn't people who don't have pets help us pet owners. After all they are our kids.
I believe that if the taxpayers under Obama can pay for Education & Health care for all the Illigals, THEY can pay for Health Care for my CAT.
I believe only pet owners should pay for univeral health coverage for our pets.
We could use half the money we pay for lisencing our dogs and start lisencing our cats.