I don’t know why I didn’t think of this. Law and the Multiverse is a blog focusing on legal issues that could arise in the alternate worlds of comic books. For example, how does Tony Stark get around federal arms control laws? How does insurance function in a world where frequent battles between superpowered humans results in massive property damage? One post even addresses whether the Americans with Disabilities Act could apply to those with certain mutant abilities.

The blog is authored by a couple attorneys and has been in existence for only a few weeks, but it’s already been featured in the Times and geek überblog Slashdot. The Times article suggests that the site demonstrates that “in the grand Venn diagram of life, there appears to be substantial overlap between lawyers and the people Mr. Daily [one of the site’s creators] lovingly refers to as ‘comic book nerds.'” It also demonstrates that a legal education has some practical applications.

Best of luck to these new bloggers. If they can inspire at least one law school professor to formulate an exam question that includes Cyclops and Magneto rather than Whiteacre and Blackacre, they will have made the world a better place.

If all goes as planned, I’ll be greeting you on Monday with an upgraded computer. For the geeks, here are the specs:

• Asus M488TD-V motherboard
• 4 gigs of DDR3 1600 memory
• Radeon 5770 video card
• AMD Phenom X4 955 CPU
• 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard drive
• Windows 7 64 bit

Sexy, huh? It will do pretty much everything except give me a massage. But don’t worry; I’ve got that covered as well. My new rig should be sufficient to handle the gaming goodness that will be forthcoming in the next few years. And I’ll finally have enough storage for my massive collection of…nature photography.

We’re still digging out from the massive snowstorm that hit the Twin Cities over the weekend. I’m guessing that a significant number of people with disabilities and the elderly have become homebound since then. If not for the skyways and my van, I probably wouldn’t be going anywhere. Many of the sidewalks are still impassable or the cut-offs are blocked by huge piles of snow. The storm’s aftermath is making it difficult for everyone to get around and I know cities are struggling to clear the streets, but it might help to remind their workers that not everyone can climb over the mountains of snow and ice left behind by the plows.

All the health policy wonks are talking about the news of a federal judge ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional. For those keeping score, two federal judges (appointed by Democrats) have ruled in favor of the mandate’s constitutionality while one judge (appointed by a Republican) has ruled against it. The latest ruling isn’t a surprise and the issue will ultimately be decided by Justice Kennedy (the other Supreme Court justices will simply cancel out each other’s votes). What is interesting about the judge’s decision is that he refused to strike down the entire law or stop its implementation.

This will create an interesting set of circumstance for the Court. States and insurers will continue to prepare for a post-2013 world of insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansions. If this ruling stands, those things wouldn’t go away, but it could create a lot of confusion and uncertainty for policymakers. Without a mandate, insurers will scream bloody murder about having to make insurance available to anyone who wants it. State exchanges might be made irrelevant after millions of dollars are spent on their planning and creation. How the Court does or doesn’t respond to these facts on the ground will give us wonks plenty to speculate about over the next couple years.

NPR continues its series on the ongoing struggle for people with disabilities and the elderly to receive care in the community rather than in nursing homes. Particular attention is given to working-age adults and children who are forced to live in nursing homes because states–many in the South–provide little or nothing in the way of community-based supports to enable them to stay at home. One of the stories quotes Carol Steckel, a former Alabama Medicaid director, who explains states’ continued reluctance to offer home and community-based services:

At a meeting of state Medicaid directors, in a hotel outside Washington, D.C., last month, Steckel noted many reasons states are reluctant to expand home-based care. How do you make sure people get good care at home? It’s easy, she says, to send an inspector into a nursing home. It’s harder to check on hundreds of individuals in their own homes.

And then there’s the money question. It’s a big problem for states facing all-time-high budget deficits.

“We’ve got people asking us to do 24/7 at-home care,” she says, “which means that we’ll be paying $500,000 for one individual. And then you have to debate as a society is that what we want to do versus taking that $500,000 and spending it on prenatal care for 10,000 women. I mean it’s a societal question, it’s a conundrum almost.”

With former bureaucrats like Steckel espousing such paternalistic and alarmist bullshit, it’s little wonder that people are still languishing in nursing homes. States are certainly facing significant budget deficits, but in most cases care can be delivered in the home for much less compared to a nursing home. And plenty of people already receive great care at home. Perhaps Steckel should pay a visit to Minnesota to see how it’s done.