The whole idea of microchipping humans is just... no.. we don't need it. i can't tell you why, but we just don't.

yes, yes, we already talked about this today :)

Quite frankly, i think its a brilliant idea. Sure there could be hackers and all that, but there can be hackers for bank accounts too right? its just REALLY REALLY hard because they're so secure. at least i dont hear about it being a problem. same deal could be created here. if the government puts its top people on secure microchips for people, you can bet it'll probly work. and honestly, i seriously doubt that a chip would cause any medical problems, if implanted correctly in surgery.

Well, I don't think the type of ID this cad person described would be the greatest, but I think you're a bit too quick to foreclose on all similar options. What about fingerprinting? They're all unique, and if someone took your fingerprint (from an inkpad or whatever) they still wouldn't have the heat of a human touch that should be required for the ID to pass.

     Unlike a bank account, this system is full of insecurities. The way an RFID chip (I'm assuming this is a passive tag to increase the life to a maximum and to remove the need for a battery) works is that when a scanner (transponder) sends out a radio signal of a certain frequency (this signal would have to be universal or else it wouldn't work as an ID system), and the chip activates, sending out an identifiable signal.
     This signal could, at best, be a series of numbers and letters. Something easily identifiable and repeatable. There's no way to make the system more secure then to assume that most people wouldn't have scanners. At best, you could encrypt the numbers that the chip gave off, but then all you'd have to do is give off the encrypted numbers off another chip and it would work.
     As far as the medical thing goes, I was just saying that it's damn near impossible to have a 100% perfect procedure that wouldn't be rejected by someone. I mean, there are people allergic to sunlight, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be people with poor reactions to this. A good example is women who are allergic to silicone getting implants. Sure, it's good for 99.9% of the people who get it, but what about that .1%? What could we do for people like that? Give them tattoos? I mean, the system would sort of break down if even one person couldn't have the surgery.
     As far as the "hackers for bank accounts" thing, allow me to redirect you to a few sources:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3527969429626585489
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_fraud
Not as difficult as it would seem. In America, there was a robbery that ended up stealing over $5,000,000 in cash from different ATM machines. I couldn't actually find a link to it, but I believe that to date only one of the members was caught.
     As I said, I can't really win this because if something more "perfect" came along, like iris scanning (but even then think about "Minority Report" again, it's creepy to wear your identification on your sleeve), I doubt I could hold back the tide of support for it. I just don't like the idea of having something that identifies you regardless of whether or not you'd like to be identified. Yeah, we need our ID for a lot of things, deal with being responsible.

Oh, and in case you were wondering? E-passports that use the RFID technology that you're recommending has already been cracked in less than two weeks:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71521-0.html?tw=rss.index

All I can say is I think it's a bad idea.