The Glade 4.0

Ok simply have as part of being insured the issuance of a medical id bracelet or chain such as dogtags. Note that coverage may be delayed or at increased cost if emergency services are rendered without it.

Easily covered in a contract - the costs of treating emergency deliveries like this can be assumed by the charges to those who show up and are covered but without ID. This would make it such a stiff penalty that most would assure their ID to be present. Also a quick biometric (eye and fignerprints) could be taken, insurance servers queried and id established on the way to the hospital as a matter of procedure.

Tons of market solutions to this problem - there are two.

And a good point I heard on the radio just a few ago...

Most folks who can't afford insurance are also in the same group that don't pay any taxes anyway. So how are you going to tax folks you have already deemed untaxable?

Wow, this is really surprising on two fronts - first, that it was Roberts rather than Kennedy who provided the 5th vote to uphold the law, and second, that it was upheld on the basis of Congress' taxing power, not its Commerce Clause power. Going to be some very interesting legal analysis in the coming days/weeks.

The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated. The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.

The votes for this outcome are divided among several opinions. Three Justices – the Chief, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer – took the position that depriving a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion would exceed Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. Although Congress may attach conditions to federal funds, they concluded, it may not coerce states into accepting those conditions. And in this case, taking away all the states’ funds for the entirety of its Medicaid program just because it disagreed with a piece of the program would be coercive.

While the holding here may not go beyond the limits articulated in South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court has not limited the exercise of the spending power to impose conditions on states since the New Deal and, again, seven justices endorsed this result. Going forward, I expect this portion of the opinion to have the greatest practical impact. In fact, I can think of some federal laws, including portions of the Clean Air Act, that are likely to be challenged on these grounds.

Romney looking any tastier to anyone today?

Because if he gets elected you can expect an executive order getting rid of health care for millions of people.

Oh, and he'll save you a few bucks each year.

I guess I can understand being all "GRRRR! Coverage for poor people!" at the health care reform (not really, but we'll roll with the idea for now); what I can't understand is if you are mad about it, suddenly throwing your weight behind the guy who started the ball rolling in the first place.

Post hyperbole on the internet? Tax.

I look forward to the fact that now the goverment can tax you for anything. Seriously, this is a tax FOR NOT BUYING SOMETHING. It's a No-sales tax.

Don't have a car that gets over 30mpg? Tax. Overweight? Tax. Used more than 50 gig on your ISP for a month? Tax.