E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLots of Americans buy the argument that we should ration health care according to lifestyle. So do many employers who are trying to charge their obese employees more for health insurance. But if we are going to penalizing the health care sinners amongst us, shouldn’t we target all of those who raise our collective health care bill through poor lifestyle choices? This means you, cat owners.
The costs of a cat-loving America ought to be looked at in the same vein as recent calls to tax fat people. According to a Forbes magazine poll, one in three Americans believe that obese people should pay more in taxes than those who maintain a healthy weight. The same sentiments prevail among doctors in the UK.
Overweight people cost the system a ton. People seem to think it's fair to ask them to pay more if they choose to munch chips while reclining on the Lazyboy watching Paula Deen on TV. Let's apply the same logic to all lifestyle choices. Cats are costing each one of us a lot of money to treat the allergies, asthma, skin problems and hospitalizations that they cause.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are over 86 million owned cats in the USA. Nearly a third of you own these furry disease vectors. More than half of you cat owners have the gall to own more than one!
At a recent meeting on immune diseases in Chicago, doctors and scientists who are studying allergies made it clear that cats are a menace. I learned that 17 percent of Americans, or 60 million of us, have allergies to cats. So that means the odds are high that either you are allergic or someone you have over to your house could be.
Once a cat is in a home it is nearly impossible to get the cat allergens out of the bedding, carpets and furniture. The cost to all of us of treating cat-induced asthma, rhinitis, skin reactions and allergies is big. While there are no specific numbers for paying for the shots and drugs to treat the health problems due to cats, the overall medical cost for treating all allergies in the USA exceeds $7 billion. And that does not include time lost from work or days out of school due to allergies.
One drug that is now frequently prescribed for kids and adults with chronic asthma due to exposure to cats, omalizumab, costs anywhere from $6,000 to $24,000 a year depending on dose. One in 2,000 of those with cat allergies require a trip to the hospital in any given year due to an acute adverse reaction to shots or drugs!
If we apply the "fat tax" logic, the obvious ethical question is why the heck are we cat-free citizens paying for the health problems associated with tolerating cat ownership? If you choose to own a cat or refuse to get rid of one even after being told to do so by your doctor, then why should I pay for this gross irresponsibility?
So bring on the fat tax -- but tax all those who choose to make themselves, their kids and visitors sick by lifestyle choices, whether it's eating too much junk food or housing felines. And hey, employers, don’t hire cat owners, or at least make them go to classes where they can learn about the true cost that kittens impose on us all.
While we are at it, let's impose a fine on those who fail to wear a hat while at the beach, risking melanomas, and a skiing tax for those nutty enough to speed downhill knowing that the orthopedic clinic awaits at the bottom.
Of course, none of this applies to dogs or dog owners such as me. Those who own them should receive a tax break. Pet ownership has a lot of benefits for your health, particularly if the pet is a dog. But cats are a very different matter. Those who insist that personal responsibility ought to drive what everyone pays for health insurance had better let cat owners know what is best for them.
More from Art Caplan:
Leave a Comment:
LOL such idiocy, having cats as pets is absolutely NOT a threat to ones health. Guns are a threat, Car accidents are a threat, anything than can cause physical damage is a threat to ones health. By this logic we should impose a health tax on all gun owners, on all people who drive cars, on anyone who practices hand to hand combat, on all our soldiers, on butchers, on welders, i could go on forever but surely you are intelligent enough to see the idiocy of this logic.
This article went right over your head didn't it?
That was excellent missing-of-the-point there...
Not unexpected. It's amazing how many people still believe Randy Newman's song "Short People" is actually a slam against short people.
Got get 'em Morlack - do cat owners take up two seats on an airplane so you can't use your own armrest? If two cat owners are walking down the supermarket aisle can you still squeeze through?
Lets talk about smokers - can you "smell" a cat owner in their car when you are driving behind them? Do cat owners flick poo on the sidewalk as they walk from the street into a store?
Finally, ever hear of someone being mauled in a "pit cat" attack?
@sndrake - is that true?
but is Gary Newman's song still about "Cars"?
It's even worse than the writer thinks. I have cats and dogs. The health-improving dogs can't even come inside because my vicious cats meet them at the door and threaten them. So I'm a prisoner inside my own home to my flea and allergen-toting oppressors. The largest one pins me to the easy chair every night by insisting that I'm his laz-y-boy, just so he can force me to rub his belly and massage his head.
Steve - the aforementioned large cat mauls me several times a week. He places his front paws on my shoulders and nibbles my neck, leaving behind pools of drool, marking me as his property. I can't wait for my rotweiler puppy to grow up and save me from this constant abuse.
Scrolling through these postings, I find it absolutely appalling how many here have had this article travel MACH V right over their heads. Even after it is pointed out to them by their fellow posters, that this is Sarcasm. Perhaps we need to have a tax on stupidity. We could fix the deficit problem in a jiffy if we could just tax stupidity.
In other news, the cat population among readers of MSNBC.com's website suddenly dropped by 33% on Tuesday, and it appears that many of those cats have been abandoned in poor inner-city neighborhoods while others were sent to Mexico.
One drug that is now frequently prescribed for kids and adults with chronic asthma due to exposure to cats, omalizumab, costs anywhere from $6,000 to $24,000 a year depending on dose. One in 2,000 of those with cat allergies require a trip to the hospital in any given year due to an acute adverse reaction to shots or drugs! THIS is one of the true reasons healthcare is so expensive, companies in the medical industry desire to make huge profits in an extremely short amount of time. Heaven forbid they have to spend a decade or two building up a hefty profit.
I guess you peopl are COMPLETELY unaware of the major toxins in your homes carpet, furniture, drapes , paint, laundry detergents, household cleaners etc that are the real culprits. Do some research , dimwits! Those are the largest causes of asthma attacks.
Logical- do you have any idea what "satire" is? If not, you might want to look it up....
So let's say half of all allergies are cat related (a high estimate but lets consider a worst case scenario), that means $3.5 billion/year is being used to treat cat allergies every year (and it's probably much less).
Obesity is costing ~$190 billion/year by recent estimates.
Let's tackle the bigger problems first.
And by bigger, we really mean bigger.
Scuba-
It's a joke. Meant to prove the ridiculous of the argument. Also, the majority of obese people are low-income. Can they afford the tax? No. It will force them to eat cheap food, which is generally high calorie and high fat.
Of course, none of this applies to dogs or dog owners such as me. Those who own them should receive a tax break. Pet ownership has a lot of benefits for your health, particularly if the pet is a dog. But cats are a very different matter. Those who insist that personal responsibility ought to drive what everyone pays for health insurance had better let cat owners know what is best for them. Hopefully the writer of this article is being ironic because i cant believe someone could actually be so ignorant and then flaunt this ignorance for all to see.
Calm down, calm down. It's satire. Look up the original A Modest Proposal and suddenly this makes sense.
Morlack, you just broke my irony meter.
Maybe you should change your name to mor-on.
OMG Kitty! So I'm NOT the only person who caught the Jonathan Swift reference! >^.,.^<
Seems no one hear has heard of the original 'A Modest Proposal,' or at the very least has failed to recognize the use of satire and ludicrous statements to make a point about how ridiculous the base concept was in the first place.
Such is the state of education in this nation.
Ah, but the irony there is that I dropped out of high school (due to bullying).
Kitty, that's because many people here are merely looking for articles to disagree with. It's much easier to ridicule something than think constructively. It's why all the cool kids at school hate everything.
Obviously this article was a satire, but the author could have at least picked a health condition that was somewhat comparable to the cost of obesity. If the cost is $7 billion dollars annually for overall allergies - not just cat allergies - versus $190 billion dollars annually for obesity, there's no comparison. Obesity clearly costs the nation a heck of a lot more than all allergies combined, so it is clearly a much bigger problem. The author had a good (albeit unoriginal) idea, but did a very poor job of selecting a comparable health issue.
Kitty: Many times it's the smarter kids that drop out of school. I always wished I did. It would have saved me a lot of stress and agony!
I sure hope this was supposed to be satire.
Satire or not, this article was an Epic FAIL.
Cat lovers would make sure that their cats were strictly indoor "house cats". Too many bad things could happen if the cats were allowed to run loose.
Cat tax? I'm not feline it.
DA-dunk KSSSSSH! Nice pun!
Seriously??! What is wrong with you people? No wonder America is in such bad shape when people cannot recognize satire, or even get the modest proposal reference. Lord help us all.
Satire is used to attack and mock ideas. This satire is attacking what many people believe to be a good idea. That's why they are defending it.
Seems to me a lot of them are defending it because they don't recognize it as satire, don't realize the intent of the article, and are taking it at face value.
The author writes an obvious satire, then titles it based on one of the most famous satires ever, and it still completely goes over most peoples heads. I wonder how much stupidity costs this nation every year...
Clever!
Stupid article. I suppose everyone that has allergies are going to get penalized. Allergies are also due to pollen, peanuts etc.
Obesity in the other hand is a form of laziness which should not be in the same category. Who the hell comes up with such stupid ideas?
Lucy, I see that you have never dealt, either personally or through a friend or relative, with an endocrinal issue, or with drug-related side-effects, or with the results of a devestating injury.
Additionally, you must not suffer from poverty or live in a "food desert". You have access to and can afford good healthy food choices and are not limited to what your $200 per month in food stamps can provide for a full month.
Good for you. Now, if you could just get off of your self-righteous soapbox long enough to realize that not all fat people are lazy or make bad food choices on purpose!!
Sorry Bunny Slayer....Lucy is right on. The percentage of those who are fat due to "endocrinal" issues is really small. The majority of obese people fail to exercise and eat responsibility or take a "pill" hoping to take the easy way out. If that isn't laziness, then I don't know what is.
And the satire is not as funny as the author thinks. I think the article was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to tax people based on lifestyle choices, but I seriously disagree. Obesity costs us as a society really big. Owning cats, or some other inocuous lifestyle choice does NOT. If you don't make it hurt, people will not take responsibility. Humans are notoriously thick-headed. We rarely change unless forced into it. Sad, but true.
Just as I suspected, scroll to the bottom of the article and see that the author is 'heavy set' = fat. NO ONE in my sixty plus member extended family is allergic to cats... and many of us own cats. What an absolutely ridiculous arguement! So Fatty believes that #1. that there ARE 60 million cat-allergic people running to hospitals/doctors and driving up the costs of health care (don't they just take a Benadryl??) and #2. that the drain on personal and national resources to provide long term health care for the generations of Obese is equal to the costs to treat allergies associated with cats?? and lastly, #3. that homes in which cats are pets are the social gathering hot-spots for cat-allergy sufferers..! REALLY??
Please, please read the comments above yours. It is satire. The author does not actually espouse the idea of taxing cats. In fact, as a heavy-set person, the author is probably also not in favor of increased taxes or other costs foisted on the obese, which is why it was written as a mockery supporting both positions instead of refuting them. It's meant to point out how ridiculous and false the first idea is by following it up with another idea in a similar vein but greatly exaggerated.
You Mister Kaplan need to be neutered. Obviously you are one of the 1% and are worried bout your tax bill!
Honestly, as satirical as this article was intended to be...it lost it's luster for utilizing an example that truly doesn't have much credence. Yes, extreme anaphylaxis (allergic reaction) can be deadly...but obesity is a far greater threat to life than something than can be easily remedied with a good dose of benedryl. Obesity can only be helped by making proper food choices and portion sizes, lifestyle and addressing any issues that can hinder healthy weight maintenance(hormonal conditions, diabetes, etc)...allergies alone can at least be tempered with medication and simple avoidance of an allergen. The two are diametrically opposed to one another; and even in satire, these two do not make a good comparison to make a point.
The whole point of the satire was to use a follow-up idea that is ridiculous and shouldn't even be considered because it doesn't equate.
Holy crap. This article was a satire, a joke, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek....whatever you want to call it, it wasn't serious. Good thing stupid people aren't taxed or a lot of the posters here would be taxed straight to the poor house.
...i'm figurin around 80% of the entire population would be in the poor house....
What about people who have dogs, rabbits, hamsters or other furry critters? Shouldn't THEY be taxed too?! LOL! Such foolishness!
Loved it! "A Modest Proposal" was my favorite essay in high school English class. The comments are even more entertaining, sad, but entertaining. Sometimes, JoeyJoe, I think we do need a "stupid tax." That would get our country out of debt, and create a large surplus.
The notion that the audience was just too "stupid" to get the joke is typically used by rank amateurs at open-mike standup-comedy nights, to explain why the audience should have laughed, but didn't. No, in most cases the audience did "get it" -- they just didn't think it was funny. Caplan may be a brilliant bioethicist, but at satire he's an amateur. (Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is also one of my all-time favorites, which is why I hate to see it aped so badly.)
as the old joke goes, satire is what closes on Saturday night (barrum bum tsssh)
Tax satire....
...and bullying too Kitty
I understand the satirical intent -- but this argument fails, even as satire. A basic element of humor of any kind is truth, and there's little truth behind Caplan's argument, which is sloppy and lazy. It may be true that "17 percent of Americans, or 60 million of us, have allergies to cats." But it's quite a stretch to suggest "that means the odds are high you are allergic or someone you have over to your house could be." He cites some stats, but they don't prove much. Of those 60 million Americans who have allergies to cats, some undoubtedly own or are in frequent contact with cats, but many are not. And of those 60 million allergic Americans, their allergies most likely range in severity from a serious medical problem, to a minor issue that requires no or infrequent medical intervention. But perhaps most irresponsibly for a bioethicist, Caplan ignores an abundance of data that suggests that overall, pets -- including cats -- have a positive impact on the health and longevity of human beings. Study after study has shown pet owners have lower heart rates and blood pressure than non pet owners, for example. Perhaps we should tax people who refuse to adopt a pet! I get Caplan's larger point -- that people make a variety of lifestyle choices that have consequences for our health care system, and to single-out obesity may not be fair. But with cats, he's picked a particularly poor example to make his argument, satirical or otherwise.
so many times with articles it's the comments that you can't wait to read. it never fails that some idiot doesn't get "it". and some peoples sense of humor is simply to wicked:)
but the comments on this article? are you people serious? stupidity has never been a communicable disease, at least not that i knew of. that is until i read this article's comments.
wow! it really does have to hurt to be that stupid. it's rather a "pet" peeve of mine. i can't stand stupid people, they make me crazy!
I have terrible allergies, environmental ones, you know, peoples stinking perfume/cologne, laundry detergent, the everyday chemicals that pervade out lives. it's horrid. i am not however allergic to my 12 cats who live with us in the country away from crazy people in towns and cities. of course, i'm a bit over weight so i suppose i should be punished and taxed to hell. Oh WAIT A MINUTE...........I ALREADY AM!!!!
try being responsible for yourself and stop worrying about other people that are none of your damn business. this tendency the country has developed over the years of judging people based on appearance or anything else is not something as a nation we should be overly proud of.
this is america after all. land of the free? really?
The best tax would be to tax idiots who write crap like this article!
It's called satire.
The problem with articles like this is that they get the wrong people thinking (Politicians for one).
This article is hilarious - the last bit about the exception for dog owners is also very funny.
I say tax the growers, processors, transporters and retailers of peanuts and products made from peanuts (or things processed in a plant where peanuts are handled, or were once handled.) Lots of peanut allergies out there - sometimes they are deadly. The same could apply to different nuts, seafood, fur products, dairy, citrus, dyes/artificial flavors, other chemicals, etc. A tax on anything that ever caused an allergy!! A ragweed tax!!
By the way, when calculating that huge cost of obesity, I wonder if the bean counters (bean allergy!!!!) have considered the cost SAVINGS to health plans that results from the obese persons' early deaths. Surely that reduces the outlay for elder care and treatment - obesity must save Medicare billions each year. Lots of tubbies pay their Medicare tax faithfully, then kick off before reaching 65 (sorry, no refund.) Bonanza for Medicare - more cash on hand for care of skinny people.