What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Tamas]

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.

I am starting to think, actually, the only reason he will NOT start WW3 is that he has the US army and all the nukes, so foreign diplomats and leaders will be super-sure to not offend him.

[Syt]

IMHO, as a lay person, it would make sense to hold off on hearings until the background checks are done. I presume the senators will work off a script to some degree, and any background check findings, question marks, or lack thereof might greatly affect that script.

[dps]

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.

Yeah, but at least in the case of regular checkups and maintenance drugs, you can budget for those.

And this is one of the reasons I reject the complaint that paying for my medical expenses out-of-pocket doesn't take into consideration the possibility of an accident or an acute illness.  If I have to undergo a hospital stay, I'm fucked with or without insurance.  My health insurance has a 20% copay.  Even a brief hospital stay might easily cost $50,000 or more.  I don't have $10,000 to pay the co-pay, so what difference is there really if I own $10,000 I can't pay or $50,000 I can't pay?  I'll tell you the difference--without insurance premiums, I have $3000 more a year for all other expenses, and the hospital stay is only a possibility, not a certainty, anyway.

[Berkut]

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.

The kicker though is that the reason hearings are not done is because the Trump team hasn't sent in the information needed to get the checks started.

[Berkut]

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.

Yeah, but at least in the case of regular checkups and maintenance drugs, you can budget for those.

And this is one of the reasons I reject the complaint that paying for my medical expenses out-of-pocket doesn't take into consideration the possibility of an accident or an acute illness.  If I have to undergo a hospital stay, I'm fucked with or without insurance.  My health insurance has a 20% copay.  Even a brief hospital stay might easily cost $50,000 or more.  I don't have $10,000 to pay the co-pay, so what difference is there really if I own $10,000 I can't pay or $50,000 I can't pay?  I'll tell you the difference--without insurance premiums, I have $3000 more a year for all other expenses, and the hospital stay is only a possibility, not a certainty, anyway.

That isn 't how that works. Co-pay's are capped under every single plan I have ever seen.

[Berkut]

IMHO, as a lay person, it would make sense to hold off on hearings until the background checks are done. I presume the senators will work off a script to some degree, and any background check findings, question marks, or lack thereof might greatly affect that script.

Trump isn't a lay person though. He is Trump.

Of course background checks should be done prior to hearings - they are designed to give people information that they need to actually make a decision. This has never been a significant issue before, there is an entire department to do this.

But of course Trump won't provide the information necessary on time, and you have to wonder why...

[Valmy]

I suspect the reason is incompetence.

Congress is trying to cover for him though. He has that going for him.

[dps]

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.

Yeah, but at least in the case of regular checkups and maintenance drugs, you can budget for those.

And this is one of the reasons I reject the complaint that paying for my medical expenses out-of-pocket doesn't take into consideration the possibility of an accident or an acute illness.  If I have to undergo a hospital stay, I'm fucked with or without insurance.  My health insurance has a 20% copay.  Even a brief hospital stay might easily cost $50,000 or more.  I don't have $10,000 to pay the co-pay, so what difference is there really if I own $10,000 I can't pay or $50,000 I can't pay?  I'll tell you the difference--without insurance premiums, I have $3000 more a year for all other expenses, and the hospital stay is only a possibility, not a certainty, anyway.

That isn 't how that works. Co-pay's are capped under every single plan I have ever seen.

Yeah.  Mine's capped at $100,000.

[LaCroix]

it's a lot easier to scrounge up or come up with a payment plan for $10k than $50k. it's not as simple as "I can't afford either, so there's no difference between the two figures." there is a big difference, and that difference might be selling your car rather than your home, etc.

[Jacob]

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).

It seems to me that it makes sense that the vetting happens first - I mean you may want to bring something up in the hearing that was uncovered during the vetting process.

[dps]

it's a lot easier to scrounge up or come up with a payment plan for $10k than $50k. it's not as simple as "I can't afford either, so there's no difference between the two figures." there is a big difference, and that difference might be selling your car rather than your home, etc.

I don't own a car or a house.  And even if I did, and the hospital got a judgement against me for the debt, your primary residence and 1 vehicle are exempt (as well as a certain amount of other assets, which basically adds up to more than everything else I own, anyway).

[garbon]

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).

It seems to me that it makes sense that the vetting happens first - I mean you may want to bring something up in the hearing that was uncovered during the vetting process.

Oh I would think so to but trying to be generous as one must account for institutional incompetence.

[dps]

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).

It seems to me that it makes sense that the vetting happens first - I mean you may want to bring something up in the hearing that was uncovered during the vetting process.

True, though as long as a nominee hasn't already been confirmed, you could always hold additional hearings.  That doesn't seem like an efficient way to go about things, though. 

Most confirmation hearings are pretty much pro forma, so it really doesn't matter much in most cases.  But in the cases where the hearings aren't just a rubber stamp, I'd certainly want the vetting done first if I was on the committee.  And without the vetting, I'm not sure how you'd be certain that a particular nominee shouldn't be rubber stamped.

[Jacob]

Oh I would think so to but trying to be generous as one must account for institutional incompetence.

How nice of you to be so generous

[LaCroix]

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).

It seems to me that it makes sense that the vetting happens first - I mean you may want to bring something up in the hearing that was uncovered during the vetting process.

but it doesn't seem like the end of the world that the vetting is delayed. I'm assuming if something came up, they could hold another hearing.