[This post is about campaign tactics, not policy. And it’s definitely not an endorsement.]
JEB! has been rightly excoriated for picking on Marco Rubio’s Senate attendance record in last night’s debate and Rubio deserves credit — from a debating standpoint — for his clever rebuttal. Given that JEB!’s attack was obviously pre-planned, it seems like he was advised poorly by whomever was preparing him for the debate.
From a tactical perspective, a better approach for JEB! to win over Republican voters would be to paint Rubio 2016 as equivalent to Obama 2008. Imagine if he had said something like this:
“If we’ve learned anything during the last eight years, it’s that half a term in the Senate is not sufficient experience to be President. Marco, you may offer Obama-esque rhetoric about youthful optimism, but President of the United States is not the place for you to get on-the-job training.”
* – A concern, by the way, that seems largely blown out of proportion. Sure, large NYC employers like Wall Street banks are getting doses of the vaccine, but at least in theory they’re supposed to be giving it to the portion of their employee populations that are in high-risk groups for medical reasons. Like owning a yacht.
Having recently read David Kessler’s book The End of Overeating and Michael Pollan’s essay Big Food vs. Big Insurance, I have a proposal for how to address a major health care issue. Create a “Calorie added tax” that applies to prepared food served in restaurants. Whether it’s based on the number of calories in the food served or is truly analogous to a Value added tax, it seems like it would be a relatively straightforward way to address the issues that Kessler and Pollan raise.
It appears that the biggest issue with our public health in the United States today is that we are consuming too much unhealthy food – for which calorie count is a useful proxy – and this is leading to a whole series of obesity-related problems. In addition to Kessler’s observations about the food-production industry’s role in engineering food for maximum palatability, leading to overconsumption, I’ve heard Adam Drewnowski observe that while historically less healthy food had a higher cost per calorie, today the reverse is increasingly true (as Pollan notes about government corn subsidies leading to the increased use of high fructose corn syrup). Generally speaking, healthier food now costs more per calorie, so people acting in their economic self-interest have a less healthy diet.
If a calorie tax rewards both producers and consumers for fewer calories being served and eaten, or the tax on those increased calories is used to offset the associated health costs of our societal overconsumption, then perhaps we can reverse in some measure the current cost per calorie relationship.
In practice there would be many details to work out: What’s the definition of “prepared food”? Is it just restaurants, or does prepared food purchased in a supermarket count? Does cola purchased in a restaurant get the tax and cola purchased for consumption at home not? How do you prevent it from being a regressive tax for low-income people who don’t have convenient access to healthier food? While these may sound hard, states deal with these issues today on a regular basis when assessing sales tax. It’s not perfect, but it can be made to work.
Is this likely to happen? I doubt it. I imagine that Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and many other industrial powerhouses would fight it vigorously. But if the predictions of the experts are true, we could be on track for a major health-care crisis in the United States and other developed nations.
If you read this and are inclined to be judgmental about people who are overweight or eat too much unhealthy food, I encourage you to read Kessler’s book. He makes a compelling case that overeating is a by-product of our food industry’s exploitation of humans’ evolutionary history, and that blaming people for this is not much more sensible than blaming people for the color of their hair.
"… and so, my advice to you students is to be born rich, white, and male. And it doesn’t really matter how hard you work in school or how many times you screw up, as long as you can rely on your family connections to keep getting you out of jams."
From Sotomayor Defends Ruling in Firefighters’ Bias Case – NYTimes.com (emphasis mine):
In his opening remarks to the nominee, [Oklahoma Senator Tom] Coburn apologized for the several outbursts by anti-abortion protesters since the hearings began. “Anybody who values life like I do and is pro-life recognizes that the way you change minds is not yell at people,” the senator said. “You love them.”
As has been widely reported, e.g. in On Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate, recently released Oval Office tapes from January 1973 (after the Roe v. Wade decision was announced) record President Nixon saying the following:
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.”
I’m sorry, but even in 1973 those were, shall we say, outdated views. Or perhaps he was pandering to all those pro-choice racist voters?
Apparently one of the big criticisms of a government-run health insurance plan by its opponents is that it will drive private insurance companies out of business. But given the presumption that a government-run plan is by nature more bureaucratic and less efficient and that a government-run plan won’t be able to cherry-pick its patients based on criteria like pre-existing conditions, what does this say about the cost structure of a private sector health insurance company if it can’t successfully compete with a government plan?
*RMTB = Riddle me this, Batman