What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[11B4V]

Muslim?

Methodist.

Thought you were a Rican.

[11B4V]

Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that.



Local
Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that.
Trump Jr. visits company that makes gun silencers to show his support Embed  Share Play Video3:45

Donald Trump Jr. visited a Utah-based company that manufactures gun silencers, which proponents call suppressors. It's legal to buy gun silencers in most states, but they require long wait times and a special tax under stringent regulations. (Footage provided by SilencerCo/YouTube)
By Michael S. Rosenwald January 7
The federal government has strictly limited the sale of firearm silencers for as long as James Bond and big-screen gangsters have used them to discreetly shoot enemies between the eyes.

Now the gun industry, which for decades has complained about the restrictions, is pursuing new legislation to make silencers easier to buy, and a key backer is Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter and the oldest son of the president-elect, who campaigned as a friend of the gun industry.

The legislation stalled in Congress last year. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and the elder Trump moving into the White House, gun rights advocates are excited about its prospects this year.

They hope to position the bill the same way this time — not as a Second Amendment issue, but as a public-health effort to safeguard the eardrums of the nation's 55 million gun owners. They even named it the Hearing Protection Act. It would end treating silencers as the same category as machine guns and grenades, thus eliminating a $200 tax and a nine-month approval process.

"It's about safety," Trump Jr. explained in a September video interview with the founder of SilencerCo, a Utah silencer manufacturer. "It's a health issue, frankly."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.275035ef9efa

[CountDeMoney]

Is he Uday or Qusay, I can't remember.

[merithyn]

I think it would make sense to take non-life threatening medical activity that 40% or more of us do off of health insurance.  I don't think we gain much pooling that risk.  Yearly doctor visits don't need to be insured, serious health problems discovered at a visit should be.

And what about the millions of people who can barely afford rent, food, and utilities?

You guys all talk like people who've never had to stress about money. If there is no insurance for those people, a $100 doctor visit will mean no food or no electricity.

[frunk]

And what about the millions of people who can barely afford rent, food, and utilities?

You guys all talk like people who've never had to stress about money. If there is no insurance for those people, a $100 doctor visit will mean no food or no electricity.

If it reduces the cost of their insurance premium (which they are presumably paying anyway) I don't think it will be a big difference.

[jimmy olsen]

I think it would make sense to take non-life threatening medical activity that 40% or more of us do off of health insurance.  I don't think we gain much pooling that risk.  Yearly doctor visits don't need to be insured, serious health problems discovered at a visit should be.

And what about the millions of people who can barely afford rent, food, and utilities?

You guys all talk like people who've never had to stress about money. If there is no insurance for those people, a $100 doctor visit will mean no food or no electricity.

I believe nearly 50% of Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency.

[celedhring]

How are these medical emergencies supposedly detected in time without regular doctor visits? Are people supposed to not go to the doctor until they are about to drop dead?

[Syt]

I don't blame the ACA. I blame the combination of insurance and bloated medical costs. But I don't see the representatives doing anything about either of them anytime soon, unless they have to pay for it.

I think I posted an in depth article a while ago that pointed out the high costs of the American medical system (often with big differences for the same procedure between hospitals) compared to single payer systems, and that while Americans spend on average twice as much per capita on healthcare as other countries, they don't see much benefit from it.







Makes you wonder what all that extra money is spent on. 

[bogh]

How are these medical emergencies supposedly detected in time without regular doctor visits? Are people supposed to not go to the doctor until they are about to drop dead?

Yeah, removing incentives for early treatment and preventive care is a great way to make emergency and critical care balloon completely out of control.

[Syt]

One of those headlines that inadvertently make you wince:

Boris Johnson arrives in US for talks with Trump team

[garbon]

One of those headlines that inadvertently make you wince:

Boris Johnson arrives in US for talks with Trump team

I saw it right before bed last night and was like ugh, what reality is this?

[CountDeMoney]

Makes you wonder what all that extra money is spent on. 

Marketing and lawsuits.

[frunk]

How are these medical emergencies supposedly detected in time without regular doctor visits? Are people supposed to not go to the doctor until they are about to drop dead?

The ideal system is obviously single payer, but that isn't happening in the US for at least the next 4 years (and probably much longer).  The change I would like would be to remove doctor's visits and similar frequent medical activities from insurance, but give insurance discounts if they are actually undertaken.  So someone who does a yearly doctor visit would pay less for their insurance than someone who doesn't, but the visit itself would not be covered.

[Tamas]

Every time I read about it seems to me like the US health care system is a very "nice" combination of the disadvantages of private and public healthcare.

On healthcare in general in the modern world, I wish politicians had the wiggle room to be braver about reforms in this field.

For example, it seems like one of the issues with "free" healthcare is the number of unnecessary visits of doctors putting a strain on the system.
The socialist government in Hungary, had an idea about this about 10 years ago: they introduced a "visit fee" of a hundred forints, about 0.3 euros. If you paid more than a given such fees a year (20 IIRC) the rest were free for the whole year, and there was some kind of scheme were you could reclaim these, but I don't remember the details now.

This amount was I think quite well chosen: it was something you would not just throw away, but would not pose a problem except for the very poorest of the poor (and again, you could get it back under certain circumstances).

You know what happened? GP waiting rooms emptied down, as suddenly visiting the doctor stopped being a weekday morning program for bored pensioners.
But, alas, Fidesz (in opposition) declared it the destruction of the nation and an evil plot, and had it retracted via a national referendum.

[Syt]

Such fee schemes are pretty common these days, I think. IIRC fo a while there was also a visit fee in Germany if you went to a specialist without a referral from a general practitioner (because people kept going to specialists, even when it wasn't necessary - clogging specialist waiting rooms and emptying the general practitioners').