
I feel better already! (per Chat GPT)
I’m all for the government funding these new fat drugs as they would any other necessary medicine. Word has it they improve health in all sorts of ways – heart, diabetes, alcoholism, as well as appetite suppression. For sure, nobody taking these fat drugs wants to be. So yeh, the citizenry’s wellness is an urgent government concern circa 2022, so go for it.
But what about dogs?
I don’t mean prescribing Ozempic, Zepbound, or Wegovy for canines. Mostly we don’t need it and if we do, shame on our proprietors. I mean prescribing dogs.
Dogs improve health, there’s no debate. They
· Reduce loneliness, especially among older adults and people living alone.
· Increase physical activity through daily walks.
· Increase social interaction ("social lubricants"—people talk to dog walkers).
· Provide purpose and routine, which can be particularly valuable after retirement or bereavement.
· Reduce acute stress. Simply petting a familiar dog lowers cortisol and can increase oxytocin, the bonding hormone.
(The foregoing was composed by Alistair, not me, but so what if he aced it? The minutes AI saves me I can profitably deploy chasing squirrels or snoozing. Lighten up, purity police!)
While a bargain, dogs aren’t cheap. Food, shelter, vets, supplies, licensure cost a dog-owner maybe two-K annually, not to mention doggy day-care and absurdly overpriced treats. Carll and Jane spend a bundle on me, but I’m a celebrity, so that makes sense.
The salubrious benefits of canine companionship are so apparent it’s surprising we’re not mandatory. But at least we should be underwritten! A healthier, happier populace would cost taxpayers less in the long run, saving much of what’s spent on mental health, psychopharmaceuticals, fat drugs, policing, etc., not to mention the emotional wear and tear of chronic loneliness.
So where’s the hitch?
Dogs, while numerous, lack organization, and thus influential power. Dog packs differ from human PACs. We lack lobbyists hosting visioning sessions on swank tropical islands featuring tasty tarts. We don’t represent a deliverable voting bloc (though I’m convinced – on no evidence – we lean left). Big Pharma’s all in on fat drug funding, but who’s plumping for us!
That’s where I come in.
Reluctantly, I undertake this public service on behalf of my species. I’d rather not. One aspect of my astonishing charm is I’m apolitical. You can loathe Carll for his incessant partisan bloviating – enough already with the Nameless One! – whereas I, invariably, if you can untangle my somewhat ornate diction, will enliven your hour. We dogs don’t do depressing. Even old and creaky, we’re non-complainers, gleeful at your arrival, wagging our pathetic arthritic tails. Evolutionary biologists confirm we were born to make your day.
Politics are necessarily divisive, a grab-fest where some seize the loaf, others crumbs. Every dollar here is a dolor there. Personal advantage is peddled as public interest. Antagonism fosters antipathy. Ranters from Internet soapboxes are a dime a dozen; talking dogs rare.
Yet in visibility there’s accountability. Being Taylor Swift or George Clooney isn’t always a walk in the park or bed of roses. Sometimes you’ve got to step up, speak up for the throng who’ve entrusted you with their attention.
I hereby propose dog ownership be reimbursable as medical expenses up to but not exceeding two-k per annum per person post-deductible, subject to cost-of-living adjustments as determined by applicable regulatory bodies. We (the canine collective) are willing to consider income-capping this benefit. Billionaires can fund their own pooches, whom they’re likely to neglect anyway, tootling off to Cannes.
The prospects for our prudent proposal? Zero to none. That’s because Big Pharma has lobbyists, we have Labradors. No matter how we lick we’re licked.
