SCOTUS vs. "Obamneycare"

That's right, I said it. Obamneycare. And before Jindal "accidentally" said it. That's because while there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth (also lots of rejoicing) in the national arena today, it's all pretty amusing to observe. Obama's healthcare law is pretty close to Romney's as governor as MA. The Republicans are predictably all in disarray, with predictions of impending economic collapse now. Concurrently, the other side is a bit happier since they get to maintain the right to now demand healthcare all the time. (Another reform is actually needed, but that's a discussion for another time.)

Of course, quietly wading throughout the whole fray was the health insurance industry. Though some companies have recently come out saying they'll keep popular provisions, they really weren't very interested in the law while at the same time loving it. The law guarantees them the entire country as a customer base, and the country is still growing. That's guaranteed money.

What they didn't like was guaranteed expenses. The provision requiring them to make 80%/85% of expenditures be for patient treatments instead of on distributions to shareholders will make it very hard to continue to pay shareholders much of a profit. I can definitely see the government having to step in and "shore up" a couple insurance companies in the nearing future as the baby boomer generation continues to get on in age while simultaneously clamoring for the latest miracle treatments. Better to do that now preemptively rather than wait to react later.

Tax 'Fatty' Foods to Lower Obesity?

So it's been quite some time since I've last posted, but I'm back. I didn't actually go anywhere, I guess I just didn't feel up to posting for awhile. Anyway, for my next act, I have a response to an article ran by ABC recently on the possibility of adding an additional taxation on sweetened beverages to discourage their consumption. Disfrute.
If it was passed, the sweetened beverage industry would find a way to avoid having their products labeled as such by upping the amount of "natural" ingredients to qualify as such, slightly decreasing the amount of sugar (which wouldn't be a bad thing in itself) to not qualify as "sugar sweetened", or a combination of the above two methods. I predict a far smaller revenue stream than originally envisioned. At the same time, using part of those monies to offset the price of more natural foods could be a laudable goal, but I have little faith in modern political process promoting actual healthy foods instead of just being a handout to the industry w/ the biggest lobbyists.
At the same time, if they want to curb the obesity rate, they should impose a 15% increase in gasoline taxes and the other 5% on the aforementioned foods. Raising the price of gasoline would force people to really think before jumping in their car to zip down to the corner store instead of just walking or riding their bike. I think that policies which promote physical activity by making it a much more attractive economic alternative to driving will have a far greater effect on obesity rates than taxing foods ever will.