What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

Pretty much every insurance scheme in the US includes a nominal co-pay for office visits.

[merithyn]

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.

Again, spoken like a man who's never had to watch every penny. No, that's not how it will work.

Assume a family of four people with a single premium payment per month of $200. This gives the family a small amount of breathing room that they haven't felt in forever. They're not borrowing $50 from Auntie every Monday before the pay period. They're not stressing about having lunch money every week.

Now, a cold runs through the house which results in respiratory issues for two of them. So there's the $200, but that's not counting the medicines they'll have to get, too. And if things don't get better - which isn't uncommon for respiratory issues - there's another $100 and more meds. So now, while there is illness in the house, they have to figure out where they're going to pull that "extra" money in from again.

And then there are the yearly physicals and shots. Those hit at the beginning of the school year when the parents are looking at $200/kid to get school clothes, supplies, pay fees, etc. So now you're tacking another $100/kid appointment plus the cost of shots (~$50 per shot depending on the shots).

You've now just saddled this family with an additional $150-$250 per kid at a time that their budget is already stretched to its thinnest.

It must be nice not to have to live paycheck to paycheck, but that's not the reality of most of the people that I know.

[merithyn]

Pretty much every insurance scheme in the US includes a nominal co-pay for office visits.

And even in a single-payer system, I'd be okay with that. $20 to see a doc? Yeah, that seems reasonable. It will still be tight for some people, but it will alleviate the majority of the unnecessary appointments.

[jimmy olsen]

Hamil reads Trump tweet in his Joker voice! 
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ANewJeersToast?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[frunk]

Again, spoken like a man who's never had to watch every penny. No, that's not how it will work.

Assume a family of four people with a single premium payment per month of $200. This gives the family a small amount of breathing room that they haven't felt in forever. They're not borrowing $50 from Auntie every Monday before the pay period. They're not stressing about having lunch money every week.

Now, a cold runs through the house which results in respiratory issues for two of them. So there's the $200, but that's not counting the medicines they'll have to get, too. And if things don't get better - which isn't uncommon for respiratory issues - there's another $100 and more meds. So now, while there is illness in the house, they have to figure out where they're going to pull that "extra" money in from again.

And then there are the yearly physicals and shots. Those hit at the beginning of the school year when the parents are looking at $200/kid to get school clothes, supplies, pay fees, etc. So now you're tacking another $100/kid appointment plus the cost of shots (~$50 per shot depending on the shots).

You've now just saddled this family with an additional $150-$250 per kid at a time that their budget is already stretched to its thinnest.

It must be nice not to have to live paycheck to paycheck, but that's not the reality of most of the people that I know.

There's a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which that the current markup under the insurance system (so that the insurance companies can get their percentage discount) will continue, and I didn't talk at all about pharmaceuticals which is its own special clusterfuck. 

For the most part we are paying for those doctor's visits and medicines through our insurance plans anyway.  Insurance should be to provide protection for exceptional circumstances, not for regular expected occurrences.  When you insure those it just adds extra costs to everybody.  It's part of the reason family insurance plans are so ridiculously expensive.

It would be better to remove them from insurance and provide direct subsidies to keep the cost to the user of things like immunizations low (or zero).

[Syt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/us/politics/cabinet-hearings-senate-republicans-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Ready or Not, Republicans Say Cabinet Hearings Will Begin Tuesday

WASHINGTON — Advisers to President-elect Donald J. Trump's transition team, facing complaints from Democrats that they are trying to jam nominees through confirmation hearings, said on Sunday they were confident all the appointees would be approved by the Senate, perhaps even with Democratic support.

Being the minority party, the Democrats would face long odds in trying to derail any of the nominations. They are, however, seeking to delay Republicans' plans to open hearings on Tuesday until the nominees have completed F.B.I. background checks.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, signaled on Sunday that he was unwilling to reschedule any confirmation hearings, which are set to begin with sessions for John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump's choice to be the secretary of Homeland Security, and for Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the nominee to be attorney general. Five more hearings are scheduled for Wednesday.

Mr. McConnell dismissed the Democrats' complaints as sour grapes during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"All of these little procedural complaints are related to their frustration at having not only lost the White House, but having lost the Senate," Mr. McConnell said.

"I understand that. But we need to, sort of, grow up here and get past that," he added. "We need to have the president's national security team in place on Day 1. And papers are still coming in."

The majority leader said that while the vetting process for some nominees might not be completed in time for their hearings, he was optimistic it would be finished before the Senate votes on each of the nominees.

Several of Mr. Trump's nominees are likely to face sharp questioning from Democrats about their records. But, when asked by reporters on Sunday whether he thought all of Mr. Trump's appointees would be confirmed, Sean Spicer, who will be the White House press secretary, said, "Yes, we have an unbelievable all-star group of nominees."

Among those who will likely face tough scrutiny are Mr. Sessions and Rex W. Tillerson, the nominee to become secretary of state, whose hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

Mr. Sessions will no doubt have to answer questions that have dogged him for 30 years about his racial attitudes while serving as a federal prosecutor in Alabama. Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, will face concerns about his company's deep economic ties to Russia — particularly in light of the intelligence report released last week concluding that Moscow sought to interfere in the election.

The Trump transition team, seeking to create an air of invincibility before the hearings, said in a statement on Sunday that the nominees have spent some 70 hours participating in "mock" hearings, have answered more than 2,600 questions from aides and volunteers posing as senators, and have met with 87 senators — including 37 Democrats.

[Valmy]

Mr. McConnell dismissed the Democrats' complaints as sour grapes during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation."

How is that sour grapes? Did the Democrats say 'The Senate and the Presidency suck, I am so glad we lost' at some point?

Does the NY Times not know what sour grapes is?

[HisMajestyBOB]

The Democrats actions are childish, while the Republicans refusing to consider Garland was mature. 

I will give McConnell this: he's great at playing politics and I wish the Dems had someone as good as him.

[garbon]

The Democrats actions are childish, while the Republicans refusing to consider Garland was mature. 

I will give McConnell this: he's great at playing politics and I wish the Dems had someone as good as him.

Childish for wanting to have vetting finished before vote to confirm?

[Tamas]

The Democrats actions are childish, while the Republicans refusing to consider Garland was mature. 

I will give McConnell this: he's great at playing politics and I wish the Dems had someone as good as him.

Childish for wanting to have vetting finished before vote to confirm?

Well, who needs a bunch of experts and intelligence officers meddling in the new way of things?!

[Admiral Yi]

Childish for wanting to have vetting finished before vote to confirm?

According to McConnell the background checks will be completed before the votes.

[garbon]

Childish for wanting to have vetting finished before vote to confirm?

According to McConnell the background checks will be completed before the votes.

No, he said he was optimistic. That's very different.

[celedhring]

I see that Trump's called Meryl Streep overrated on twitter 

Skin so thin it's a wonder you can't see his internal organs. Can't wait for the nuclear retaliation at the first country whose leader comments on the size of his hands.

[Admiral Yi]

No, he said he was optimistic. That's very different.

Fair enough.  But Democrats are asking to hold off hearings (not votes) until checks are done. That's also different than what you said.

[garbon]

No, he said he was optimistic. That's very different.

Fair enough.  But Democrats are asking to hold off hearings (not votes) until checks are done. That's also different than what you said.

True. And I'll admit that I've no idea how these things are typically done so that might be the case all the time (hearings before vetting).