President Obama and his Democratic colleagues felt that Congress has the power to mandate that humans buy health insurance. If Congress has such power, I believe we need to address an equally serious problem. The problem has come to my attention because my cat is sick.
For those of you who own cats and dogs, you know how costly vet bills can get. There’s a growing (I think) pet insurance market.
Cats and dogs should be mandated to own pet health insurance. By not owning the insurance, they are driving up the health care costs for all other felines and canines and hurting the pet health insurance market.
The reasons for an individual mandate on cats and dogs are even greater than for humans.
Kittens and puppies think they’ll never get sick so they don’t buy health insurance because they are young. But you never know, and this arrogance of youth can be costly to other cats and dogs in the pet health insurance market.
The number of uninsured cats and dogs is far greater in percentage terms than the number of uninsured humans.
For these reasons, we need an individual mandate on cats and dogs. If Congress, under the Commerce Clause, can impose a mandate on humans to have human health insurance, then what legal distinction exists that would prohibit Congress from mandating pet health insurance? Seriously, I’m interested in hearing a distinction (assume the mandate is on humans to buy pet health insurance).
For those of you who have bunnies and birds as pets, you shouldn’t be excluded from this mandate either.
I would recommend that, like ObamaCare, we have exceptions for pets who are illegally here in the country and for pets who can’t buy health insurance on religious grounds.
The time is now to address this issue.
BTW: Seriously, what’s the legal distinction?