It has been observed that dogs have owners, and cats have staff. I've worked for Cuddles Green for nine years. We share space in a small office at the home we also share with the rest of the Green family. While listening to a radio talk show recently, we heard a man ask the host if animals would be covered by the health care bill currently being discussed at great length and volume in town hall meetings. "Cuddles," I said. "The guy on the radio thinks he's making a joke, but with Cass (Carl) Sunstein around, you just might be one puss getting a boot into the new system."

Sunstein has been nominated by President Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. To give a highly abbreviated version of his future domain, OIRA is a statutory office within the Office of Management and Budget which plays what the Congressional Research Service calls "a significant -- if not determinative -- role in the rulemaking process for most federal agencies." Animal rights are one of Sunstein's passions, and he is out on the fringe even for the animal rights world. He has argued in favor of outlawing hunting as a sport and meat-eating. In his book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions he wrote, "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives." The Harvard Law professor, who has also taught at the University of Chicago, believes that legal guardians should be appointed for animals. If animals have rights, and health care is seen by those who run our government as a right, why not Blue Cat/Blue Shield, courtesy of Uncle Sam?

Sunstein was described in the WSJ as an academic who has "pioneered efforts to design regulation around the ways people behave." In his review of Sunstein's book The Second Bill of Rights Tom Palmer explains that the author believes all rights are grants from the state, or, as Palmer puts it, "There is no difference in kind between the right not to be tortured and the right to taxpayer-subsidized dental care." Sunstein would give constitutional status to welfare rights. Health care, for example, might not in be the Constitution, but, Sunstein writes, "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself." So it's not only birds that migrate. The professor holds that without government protection no one would enjoy anything of value, and therefore, all value comes from actions of the state. "Government is 'implicated' in everything people own. . . . If rich people have a great deal of money, it is because the government furnishes a system in which they are entitled to have and keep that money." Big Brother is also a sugar daddy.

Don't worry about Sunstein. He'll be confirmed. Besides the president, he has other friends in high places. He's married to Samantha Power, senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council. Her anti-Israel bona fides made her a shoo-in, so hubby can't be far behind.

I asked Cuddles how she feels about the proposed health care bill. "I would hope my annual check-up would be included," she responded, "especially now that I'm middle aged. But I worry that getting my nails clipped would be considered cosmetic and not be covered." Cuddles, who has a bit of a weight problem, was also concerned that she would be forced to listen to lectures about making "better choices" when it comes to eating. "And it's not like I can get all that much exercise," she added. "There's a certain amount of napping I have to do every day, plus I'm an indoor cat. I mean, give me a break!" She pointed out that the part of the bill that strongly suggests counseling older relatives not to linger if their time seems to be almost up is reminiscent of how decisions are made to put pets "to sleep." "They decide it isn't cost-effective to keep Fluffy alive," she huffed, "and the next thing you know, the so-called owners are at the pet store looking for a new model." She speculated that this is how the recommended end-of-life "counseling" section came to be drafted.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, compared human and veterinary health care in England. He decided "on the whole it is better to be a dog." You can choose your practitioner for one thing, and you rarely have to wait to see one. Apparently the human British don't enjoy these privileges. At the vet in Great Britain, he adds, "there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated...no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse...and (you) do not suspect that the system is cheating (your) loved one, for economic reasons, out of the treatment which he needs."

Cuddles finds herself intrigued by Sunstein. As for me, now I'm wondering what happens if one day Cuddles sues me. We've given her catnip since she was a kitten. Could we be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor? And I really hate changing her litter box and sometimes put it off for days. On occasion she accidentally gets locked in the laundry room. Could these actions constitute abuse? Or migrate into abuse? Will I have to pay for her lawyer?

Health care and legal rights for pets might be only the beginning. What's next -- affirmative action? Has a feline, or a canine for that matter, been even considered for the Supreme Court?

Ann Green is a free-lance writer.