Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Text of the Bill

I made an attempt to convert the bill to wiki text. It is here in wikisource:HR 3590 TOC. The final section of the bill (TITLE X) is a series of amendments to HR3590. This makes it impossible to read the bill before unwinding all of the changes in TITLE X. Jeff Carr (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Most bills are impossible to read without reference to the U.S. Code or some original act, so it's not that much different than any other bill. Since I have the opportunity, though, I'll just point out that having to add Title X rather than amending the various sections just proves how idiotic the Senate's rules are. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Downplaying of tax increases

In this article (which I realize is in its infancy of course) there is only a cursory bullet point about the tax hikes. Instead, there is a bold section about the "deficit reduction". Clearly, the only way this bill can cut the deficit is if it increases taxes by about 2 trillion dollars over the next two decades (only makes mathematical sense, given that in the article it also states that the projected costs for each decade are nearly $1 trillion each. More details should be given on what the taxes are, and why they count towards making the bill budget-friendly even though they may or may not have anything to do with the health care issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.78.41 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Tried to sign it but not sure how, sorry.

As you seem to be aware, no one is downplaying the tax increases. You do make one point that is just false, though. A bill can cut the deficit by increasing taxes, directly or indirectly cutting spending. Therefore you would need to provide reliable sources for any discussion of increased tax revenues expected. Finally, leave a note at User talk:Rrius to explain the trouble you're having starting an account; I'll see if I can help. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

clarification

I don't understand this line:

HR 3590 is divided into ten titles. The text of the bill cannot be read directly as printed. The tenth title is a list of amendments to the previous nine titles. These amendments must be processed before the bill is read.

This needs clarification. Cannot be read as printed? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 08:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it means that the amendments are not wrote into the bill where they belong, so if you read it straight through, some of the information is obsolete because the amended provisions are still there in their original form. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Table expansion

The table under "Comparison with House version" should be expanded to include a third column for the reconciliation (HCEARA) bill even if some of the rows cannot be filled-in. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No protection?

You're kidding, right? I don't want this article to go from none to full because of an edit dispute. It may still want to be advance semi-protected. I doubt vandalism will be the issue for a while. mechamind90 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected it. I'm sitting here doing other things with Huggle notifying me of any revisions. Once I leave, I'll reprotect. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) And never do we ever advance protect, except for things like high-use templates

60-39 vote?

Was this vote pre Scott Brown or did a republican actually vote for it? IF so I think there name is worth mentioning here. I know I could do the edit but I don't the facts yet. 174.96.253.231 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It was pre Scott Brown. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"most controversial" in lead

This is currently in the lead: "The bill is one of the most controversial measures of the 111th United States Congress." I have fact tagged it. Obviously this is completely true, but none of the given sources state it in this manner. This is also no discussed in the body of the article, where a fuller description of this sentence needs added. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it "controversial" or a "highly controversial" measure would be accurate and appropriate for the lede. Concur about something in the body. Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Public option | State waiver or opt-out

Are states allowed to set up their own public option? 82.124.100.124 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"public option" is the wrong term. "state waiver" or "(partial) state opt-out" is what's in the law. There's nothing left in the law about a public option.

Yes, there's a waiver program if states want to go further than the federal program. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Would states have to waive their citizens receiving federal subsidies, or lose other benefits, by going further than the federal government? 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this subject might be appropriate for inclusion in the article. 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Section 1332 of the Act provides for a "waiver for state innovation". It would compensate states for opting out if they wanted to go further than the federal government. This appears to me to be a significant aspect of the legislation. 82.124.100.124 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see this detail get implemented in the article.   — C M B J   01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

I note the page is currently semi-protected. This is due to all the drive-by vandalism? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of anons were positively contributing to this. The history looks like a mess of numbers, but notice what version are being reverted to - many of them anon edits. (not counting anons reverting to their own vandalism) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's surprisingly quiet! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I say we leave it unprotected unless there becomes a rash of vandalism. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need it. There's not a helluva lot of vigor on either side of the kill-the-bill argument atm ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As I understand it (and I don't have sources for this offhand, for which I apologize), Michelle Bachmann is introducing legislation to repeal it. You also have statements from Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh. And then of course, there's the ever lovable Bill Kristol stating that it will be repealed in 2013. For what its worth, you can probably find sources for what i'm talking about on the Fark.com politics tab. Just don't go there if you'd like to retain your faith in humanity ;).Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Who specifically wrote the bill/act ?

I don't see anywhere where it says who the author(s) are. Redtrade (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that is even clearly determinable. The act has been in debate and amendment for 6 months between both houses. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Several Democrats asserted Republicans contributed 200+ text amendments to the bill, if that helps track it down at all.   — C M B J   06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A preliminary print that I have seen for this Act is well over 2,000 pages. I am sure that that the Act has many, many authors. Famspear (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

The article should note the significance of Ted Kennedy's indirect contributions to this bill, assuming reliable sources can be located. The bill achieved one of Kennedy's lifelong ambitions--as illustrated by "Kennedy! Kennedy! Kennedy!" cheers during the final House vote.   — C M B J   02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that belongs more in the general health care reform article. Ted Kennedy died before this bill was even created. To add him in this bill would seem like unnecessarily glorification. --kurykh 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy was directly referenced by several speakers in the House, which resulted in at least one congressman being penalized for exceeding the allocated time limit. It seems only appropriate to concisely describe extraordinary house proceedings and circumstances.   — C M B J   06:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LBJ was referenced quite a few times in the context of Medicare, but he's not necessary here. I don't think it's relevant to this article. Parliamentary penalties should not make Kennedy any more needed in this article, or else we might have to talk about Randy Neugebauer's "baby killer" comment in the HR 4872 article. --kurykh 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Neugebauer's remark reached front page status on some news outlets immediately following the event, I'm frankly fascinated that it has not yet resulted in an edit war. But on the subject at hand, we must weigh whether the information is merely rhetoric or if it is indeed something truly noteworthy. In analyzing the Speaker's closing statement, “And now, I want to just close by saying this. It would not be possible to talk about health care without acknowledging the great leadership of Senator Edward Kennedy, who made health care his life’s work. In a letter to President Obama before he passed away — he left the letter to be read after he died. Senator Kennedy wrote that: ‘Access to health care is the great unfinished business of our society.’ That is until today.", as well as her following statement today "I don’t want to sign this bill without mentioning Senator Edward Kennedy, who up until his last days had an influence on this legislation in the most positive way. He said this is ‘the unfinished business of our society.’ He said having health care reform was about ‘the character of our country, not the provisions of any particular bill.’ And in his honor, we all have to be prayerful and feel very blessed that we could all be here for the passage of this legislation.", it can be observed that there is what seems to be more than a casual connection at hand.   — C M B J   07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it would be a mistake to say he influenced this piece of legislation itself. It would be more proper to put him in the general article, as he made an impact more on the entire reform movement and process rather than this particular bill. At this point in time, the article is still about a single part of the reform process, not about the movement itself. However, if in the future this article starts to take on more of a general health care reform aspect, discussing the entire process instead of just a part of it, then we can probably add Ted Kennedy in. At this time, I would find it improper. --kurykh 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing that we engage in original research or synthesis about Kennedy, nor do I believe that this article will (or even should) ever begin to incorporate substantive quantities of abstract material. All I originally intended to suggest was that we include a concise and validly sourced citation--perhaps even a one or two liner--which explains that a fair number of politicians explicitly deliberated on Kennedy's connection to this specific bill; some fervently enough to deliberately violate House decorum. Though I may have failed to adequately articulate the original proposal here, there is nothing remotely improper about what I envisioned--rather, its ommission would be unencyclopedic. I do fully agree with you in that we currently lack the proper section to incorporate it into, however.   — C M B J   03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I know what you're saying (perhaps I didn't give that impression). It's just that as of now, I find it more of an unneeded passing reference which seems forcibly incorporated more than something the article needs (right now, at least). --kurykh 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, we're kind of arguing even though we agree pretty much on everything here: that it can be incorporated, but it would seem awkward and gratuitously glorifying to do so right now. If this is true, I would say hold off until such an opportunity arises where it would be useful. --kurykh 03:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would be just fine.   — C M B J   04:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Private Mandates?

In the section on state lawsuits, you mention that they oppose the government's requirement that individuals purchase healthcare, but I do not see that listed in the provisions. I know that this was a contentious issue leading up to the bill, does the final legislation require individuals in America to purchase healthcare and if so what are the provisions to that extent? Thanks!

It says: "Impose an annual fine on individuals who do not obtain health insurance; exemptions to fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Final count in the House

What was the final vote tally on Sunday? Our article says 219-212, while this says 220-211. -R. fiend (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at the vote for the Reconciliation Act. This is the vote on this Act. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Added section on background

I added a section on the background here, which I realize is rather redundant with other sections, and for that matter may be more about legislative history which comes in the next section (I did go back to the primaries, in very summary fashion). If others want to organize it better that's certainly fine with me, or I may try to do so. The section was blank, so I figured something was better than nothing.

As an aside, this article is somewhat difficult to find, though I don't know if there's any way for us to improve that.Mackan79 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Reaction

Please contribute to Public Reaction on the legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.24.148 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are the 14 million who will remain uninsured?

The article estimates that 45 million who are now uninsured, and quotes Senator Reid to the effect that this bill will extend benefits to 31 million of them. So who are the 14 million who will remain uninsured? I think this question should be answered in the article, as I have not seen the answer anywhere. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list and a source

• Undocumented immigrants. About 6 million people.

• People who are eligible for, but don't sign up for Medicaid.

• People who opt out. Some healthy individuals may decide to pay the penalties, which aren't that high, rather than purchase health insurance.

• People who feel insurance is unaffordable. This is similar to the "opt out," except that they may not owe a penalty. If insurance coverage would cost more than 8 percent of household income, people won't face a penalty for going without it. The law would provide subsidies that would assist people up to about four times the poverty level. For a family of four, that means federal assistance will phase out above about $88,000 in income.

Source: Christian Science Monitor 3/23/2010 [1] --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is another source with some relevant discussion, though I don't know if it is extremely authoritative. It says Obama has referred to a lower number of uninsured, and discusses the discrepancy between that number and the figure from the Census Bureau. Mackan79 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Working on adding a section to the article with this... And, added! --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How can this take effect in 2010 AND in 2018?

"All existing health insurance plans must cover preventative care and checkups without co-payment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.175.130 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New plans are affected as of 2010. Existing plans are affected by 2018.   — C M B J   05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Republican measures used in bill

I would like to see information on what Republican/opposition ideas made it into the final bill. Not to turn it into a partisan issue, but IIRC there are more than 100 Republican amendments in the final legislation, which resulted in 0 Republican votes. This information would help us understand how they shaped this bill and what aspects they have ownership of. - Liontamer (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

200 Republican amendments, according to Speaker Pelosi.   — C M B J   16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm hoping this article goes much more in depth with the content and effects of the Republican amendments on this legislation. - Liontamer (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)-No viagra for registered sex offenders. Dflav1138 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a proposed amendment to the reconciliation bill, not this. --kurykh 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deficit impact

A subsection from the article:

Deficit impact

According to the CBO, the legislation will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. The CBO has been continually revising their estimates, changing from a savings of $132 billion to $118 billion and then to $143 billion. The CBO estimates the cost of the first decade at $940 billion, $923 billion of which takes place during the final six years (2014–2019) when the benefits kick in.

It doesn't specify which deficit will be reduced. Is it the national debt, the trade deficit, or something completely different? --Lucas Brown 19:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These are not ambiguous within the context of this text. "deficit" here, and in general, means the budget deficit. Each year, the budget results in a surplus or a deficit and this is added to the debt. Bernardd (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the CBO actually give an estimate for the second decade? The CBO letter cited does not make a definitive statement on this. On page 15 of the letter, the CBO makes plain that it cannot give a detailed estimate. The closest I could find to a number for the second decade was on page 16, which references a "broad range" around 1/2 percent of GDP. Is this where the $1.2 trillion comes from? If so, it is misleading at best. I see 2010 GDP estimates at 14,532B. Are there growth assumptions in GDP assumed and then 1/2% applied to this set of data? What exactly is a "broad range?" 76.97.217.112 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Children's coverage

Just noting why I removed the info on allowing kids with preexisting conditions to get coverage at the six month mark. Turns out it was not part of the bill and was reported erroneously. Here's the AP story: [2] —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

high risk pools start within 90 days, June 2010 not Sept

The law states "(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals during the period beginning on the date on which such program is established and ending on January 1, 2014."

If we are looking for secondary sources, this one should suffice: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/8041.pdf which says "This high-risk pool program is scheduled to go into effect 90 days following the enactment of the bill and terminate on January 1, 2014 when the state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges are established." - Chromatikoma (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New England Journal of Medicine survey story

I think the article should make some effort to include the fact that many doctors have stated that they may resign as a result of the passing of the bill, upwards of forty percent according to the New England Journal of Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.163.118 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

--kurykh 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems unusual/improbable given that the AMA supported the bill. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Outlandish claims like this one need a strong reference and giving a medical journal without the actual citation isn't citation. Over 40% of doctors threatening to resign would have made front page news for days or weeks on end. That's not the case. Bernardd (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind providing us with a source to back up this claim? A related NEJM survey says "Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1)." and "Overall, 58.3% of respondents supported an expansion of Medicare to Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 years (see Panel B of graph)."   — C M B J   09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Those figures do not back the original claim above that upwards of 40% of doctors may resign if the bill passed. Bernardd (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some digging. This may be what the original post was refering to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. The CBS story says: "Oddly, NEMJ polled heavily on the public option, which has been out of the ObamaCare proposal since mid-December when the Senate finally killed it. The public option is deeply unpopular among physicians, with only 29% in favor of it. Forty-five percent would either retire or quit if it passed, and 71% believe their income would fall with a public option ? probably from experience with Medicare and Medicaid." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I digged a bit deeper still from your links and I see what's going on. First, the survey is not from the New England Journal of Medicine but from a firm called Medicus Firm based in Dallas and Atlanta. The survey was included as an advertiser insert in one of the issues of NEJM. NEJM clearly states that it doesn't reflect their opinion [7]. Second, the survey is not scientifically valid. It was conducted by email using a "simple random sampling" and a web based surveying application [8]. Third, the survey says that 21% would leave practice and another 24% would retire early if a bill with a public option is passed. That's where the 40% figure comes from. The public option has been rejected last October by the Senate so this info is irrelevant to the current bill. The percentages fall to 8% leaving and 22% retiring early for the passage of a bill without public option. Also note that this survey was conducted last summer and is of dubious relevance to the bill that was just passed. CBS News has removed mention of the survey altogether. The other couples of openly right leaning sites you list still propagate the info unfortunately. More on the story here [9] with statements from the NEJM editor. Bernardd (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, primarily because of the age of the survey. Its not particularly relevant anymore. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Going back to House

I was reading that the bill is going back to the House. I dont know if it should be added or not.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.158.21 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not this bill, but the reconciliation bill: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. This article will need update with the amendments from the reconciliation bill when and should it pass. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Obamacare

Obamacare has been set up as a link to this act.

Is that really appropriate? This is an act, not an insurance program. It seems to me that Obamacare is simply a derogatory term used to describe "some vague aspects of this act", often including things that actually aren't in the act, such as the death panels and the socialization of America and Obama eating your babies and such. dougmc (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don′t consider it inherently pejorative. The term by itself does nothing other than associate this topic with an individual whom the speaker considers a chief proponent, cf. Reaganomics. I suppose if we had a more general Positions of Barack Obama on health-care article it might be a more appropriate target for that redirect, though the goals of this “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” would be a significant part of it. To that extent the “health care reform” link in the following template similarly may be over-specific. ―AoV² 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with how pejorative you think the phrase is, but not much. Doing a (very) brief search on words/phrases in a similar vein, "Fundie" has non-Bay of Fundie links at the tail or the article, the much harsher "Republitard" does not exist (not even remotely surprised, nor inclined to approve one), "Little Bush Junior" doesn't exist either. So I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that a redirect is kinda unnecessary, as by the standards of Wikipedia it would seem to be just a pejorative use, but I don't really know if you could claim it's not notable. So, IMHO, tie. I could see sending it to AfD, but I'm unsure if it would pass. Now, if you don't mind, I seem to have some bricks coming in through my window. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out, Hillarycare redirects in a similar fashion. I think its probably appropriate in both instances, given the commonality of the term. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Romneycare. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal challenges

There should probably be a section on the threatened legal challenges. [11][12][13][14]. Nine states have formally announced a legal challenge today [15]. Findlaw has a pretty good article discussing case law surrounding the bill [16]. I think at least four states are so far preparing to mount a legal challenge. One of those article says 31 are considering a legal challenge. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the FindLaw article you referenced. It is terrible. Do you really want us to believe that the their are no limits to Federal power expressed in the Constitution? Because the cheap rationalizations and bad case law cited in that article lead to exactly that. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the two "legal" references reads this: "Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws." If we are to assume this is not simply propaganda, the sheer stupidity of such a statement is difficult to fathom. This would be the sort of answer one might expect from a mediocre high school student. Quite obviously this bill violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and any bone fide "legal expert" knows that the US Constitution explicitly limits what the Federal government can do. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

? I am not sure what you are getting at. The point is to show both sides, hence the conflicting opinions. The findlaw articles is not currently being used in the article though. But if you read through the findlaw article thoroughly, it is just summarizing positions, not pushing one. I think it would make a pretty good source. If you have an issue with the legal challenge as it is in the article please feel free to change it, with references of course. :) Or point out the issues here. I would be glad to address them. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems probable that the "federal laws trump state laws" quote was referring to the state laws purporting to override provisions of the bill rather than the constitution-based lawsuits. I went to the cited article, and unfortunately the original reporter was pretty vague (they didn't give any precise quotes or context regarding what the "legal experts" said or were asked, nor did the article name the experts). I think we can do without, as since then there have been numerous articles citing reputable commentators by name and giving more information about their arguments, and probably there will be more in the future as the lawsuits wend their way through the courts. (There are also blogs by several law professors etcetera that we could cite for more detailed commentary, but I'm not sure if we want to get into blogs, even blogs by people with recognizable credentials.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is to discuss the article itself, not to editorialize about the legislation. --kurykh 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, just read this section and realized I edited that portion of the article. (Edit id 352242126 (I think?)) The section cited above was worded to be in response to the sentence preceeding it, but was a red herring that didn't actually address the "concern". That said, here's the reference to when it was changed if someone finds an area appropriate for inclusion. (Also, I would have marked my other edit as minor, but I wasn't given the option, is there a way to do so in the edit summary, command-line style (ex: -m)?) 68.104.225.197 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the section to give an analysis of the case law involved, and venue by which the bill could be ruled unconstitutional or upheld. According to the article, it all hinges on whether the Court thinks the purpose of the fine is - revenue creation or a regulation to effect behavior. If its revenue creation, then the bill stands given current precedent. If it is to effect behavior, it is unconstitutional given current precedent. Dorf concludes that the fine is at its core a revenue creation measure, and upon that basis his opinion that it will be found constitutional by the court. His analysis is the value of the findlaw article, not his conclusion. I can't find anywhere else where that level of analysis has been given. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Had a question about this phrase "Twelve of the Attorneys-General involved in the suit are members of the Republican Party and one is a Democrat." Specifically, I was wondering if it would make sense to mention which of the AG's opposing the Act is a Democrat? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the Louisiana one, I am not positive their name though. Should be somewhere. Feel free to add it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I read in one of the original news reports (possibly in a real hardcopy newspaper, not sure) that he said he was joining the suit at the request of [Republican] Governor Jindal. It's probably out there in an AP report somewhere. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a note about the identity of the Democratic AG and cited a reference stating he was encouraged by Jindal. (I don't think the governor has the power to do more than make the request of the AG, is that correct?) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, that is the case in some states. Probably depends whether the AG is elected or appointed. I am guessing elected and therefore independant, since he is not the same party as the governor. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Health savings accounts

What is the effect of the 2010 health care reform on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)? Can't seem to find anything in the current article. Are there any published sources that have done analysis on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and analyzed the effect on HSA's? N2e (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not finding media reports on this particular issue because the impacts are so minor. Under the law, there are two main changes: (1) you can no longer use HSA funds to pay for over-the-counter drugs, and (2) the penalty for excess contributions is increased from 10% to 20%. The only other thing I'm aware of is that in determining what a "cadillac plan" is in 2018, HSA contributions by an employer are counted in the calculation. Congressman Waxman in particular really had it out for HSAs and wanted to get rid of them, but those provisions never made it into what became the "Senate Bill" that the House then passed and the President signed. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicare Improvement Fund

What is the "Medicare Improvement Fund" that was mentioned as being dropped in the article?

I am referring to the part located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_at_enactment

that states: The Medicare Improvement Fund is eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringer000 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts of the Text

At the summit, the Republicans had stacks of documents which would indicate that the legislation is thousands of pages. Don't see anything reporting on its text structure. Do see reported elsewhere that the reconciliation bill (the one currently in the Senate) is an additional 150 pages. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is 2409 pages, [17]. I am not sure that is the best measure for length though. It all depends on how they format the pages, font, etc. A quick word count yeilds: 477,520 words, 2,252,006 characters, 63,691 paragraphs. That is probably the best means of judging its size. Of course all that is Original research using a primary source. We need a secondary source before it can go into the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I just ran a word count on it and got 370,000 words; at 500 words per page (typical for single-spaced 12-point Times), this would run to about 750 pages. I'm not sure how you got 500,000 - I just downloaded http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590PP/html/BILLS-111hr3590PP.htm and ran "wc -w" on it. Because of formatting, however, it would print to considerably longer than that, but obviously it will depend a lot on the font size.

In comparison, Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix is about 260,000 words.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I copied the text into word from the pdf, something probably was lost in translation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not OR and needs to be in the article. A sourced fact report like that is not OR, or if it is it's the good kind that wiki actually needs and is well within the effective norms (as opposed to the barratry kind). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think we do need a secondary source on that. Just counting it ourselves isn't ok. There is bound to be one source out there somewhere that gives a count. The reason I say we need a secondary source is because page count depends on how it is formatted. Who knows what the length will en up being once its codified? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK,let's see how that works out and how different from "approx. 2400" the final page count turns out to be. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Heres a source that give 2700 pages, [18], 2800 pages [19], 2000 pages [20], our own count was 2400, etc. We need something definitive. Just by google, look slike 2700 and 2800 are the most common numbers. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no one version is "definitive," as there are several official U.S. Government Printing Office versions of each FINAL version of each Act of Congress. I have a PDF copy of the 2,409 page version. The PDF copy of the enrolled bill version, however, is "only" 906 pages. As noted by Charles Edward, it depends in part on how the lines are spaced by the printer, the font, etc. Eventually you will see the version printed as a "slip law" (i.e., the official pamphlet, also published by the U.S. Government Printing Office) format, and then later a printing in what is called "session law" format (United States Statutes at Large, also published by the Government Printing Office). All these official formats can have varying spacing, etc., and therefore varying total pages.

By the way, in a few days the official "public law" number for the Act will become available, as in "Pub. L. No. 111-xxx", as well as the United States Statutes at Large citation, as in "xxx Stat. xxxx." When those citations become available, they should be added to the article. Once the public law number is assigned to an Act of Congress, most legal commentators stop using the "bill number" (the "H.R." or "S." number) in citing to the Act. Bill numbers can repeat every two years, but a public law number, once assigned, is unique for each Act of Congress to which such a number is assigned. There are also such things as "private laws" (with private law numbers) enacted by Congress, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Famspear (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the final enrolled bill (this format is 906 pages):

[21]

However, as noted above, there will later be the "slip law" pamphlet version and the "sessions laws" version -- all of which are also officially published. Famspear (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the link to the 906 page "enrolled bill" version to the article. Notice that the enrolled bill print, while it is an official print, does not include the "approved" notation on the last page. When the slip law and session law versions are published, the Government Printing Office will include the "approval" notation on the last page. What is the approval notation? It's the notation of the constitutional date of enactment, which of course is the date on which the President signed the bill into law (in this case, March 23, 2010). Official reprints of an Act of Congress by the Government Printing Office generally do not reproduce the President's signature. Instead, they show the word "approved" and the date of the signature.

Each bill or joint resolution passed by either the House or the Senate is said, in one sense, to have been "enacted" by that body. However, for purposes of the Constitution, and for purposes of references to "date of enactment" in a given statute, the date of "enactment" is the date on which the President signs the bill or joint resolution into law (or the date that it becomes law without presidential signature, such as the date on which the Congress completes the override of a veto).

Ain't this stuff fascinating?? Famspear (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the bill itself, on the H. of R. website, which includes the nifty page numbers right in the bill. Here[22] shows exactly 1990 pages. It also comes with a certificate by the superintendent of docs at the USGov printing office. 68.59.177.3 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and other official versions as printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office may also come with certificates from the Office. Again, there is no one, single official printed version that constitutes the only official copy of "the bill itself," to the exclusion of all other official copies. Actually, if you want to get technical, "the bill itself" (meaning the actual, physical document signed into law by the President) is sent to and kept by the National Archives and Records Administration. All these different official copies (PDF copies) issued by the Government Printing Office that you see on-line are separate from the actual original "bill itself" (although all of them are verbatim reprints of the original). Famspear (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

State Opt-Out Provisions in the new law & plea for patience from editors

I have added the "Effective January 1, 2017" section to give at least some basic information about Section 1332 of the law - this explicitly allows for States to opt-out of parts of the law in 2017.

I can not find any media reports about this section of the bill. However, anyone can pull up the bill and read Section 1332. The language is very clear. (FYI, Section 1332 begins on page 212 of the 2409-page PDF with text of the bill.)

I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, so I would appreciate any help in helping to make this section better conform to wikipedia standards. It would unfortunate if someone just deletes this section because I don't have the time to learn all the ins and outs of wikipedia editing. (This has happened to me with other articles.)

There are many, many people like myself who have actual expertise in this area (whether they work in government or in the health insurance industry) and would probably like to contribute to this article in a fact-based, non-opinionated way to make this article better.

This wikipedia article can be THE central source for the average citizen trying to understand what this new law is all about. I just hope that experienced wikipedia editors will HELP those of us with specialized knowledge put our knowledge into the article, rather than just automatically deleting information that's not in the exact correct format. Many of us who work in this area are working around-the-clock to understand what has to be implemented right away AND do the implementation. Right now, we just don't have time to come up-to-speed on all the ins and outs of wikipedia editing.

OK, I'll step off my soapbox now. Thanks --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

http://newledger.com/2010/03/the-individual-mandate-can-states-opt-out/ This article discusses some of the issues. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MM, expert contributions are welcome. The main reason newcomer contributions are often deleted is not that they fail to format correctly (other editors can correct the formatting, you shouldn't get anxious about this), but rather they fail to include a clear source for their information. Even if you are an expert, we can't include things on your say-so alone, we need a reputable published source. Fortunately, if you are an expert you can help us find good sources, as you have done here. If you are not sure where/how to put something in the article, you can also put it on the talk page (with references). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded your description of the waiver process a bit. If one merely says that the states can "opt out", that is a bit misleading - the states have to provide an alternative that gives at least as much coverage, and the Secretary can reject their request in any case. Please provide your feedback on my expanded description (I tried to stick as closely as possible to the literal bill text to avoid any original interpretation, but please let me know if you think I screwed up). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think your revisions are right on target. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have made one change. I removed "the sections relating to the creation of health-insurance exchanges" because each state is still required to establish an exchange in 2014. The waiver isn't until 2017. (Personally, I think there could be bi-partisan support to move the waiver date from 2017 to 2014 because of the disconnect - i.e. doesn't make sense to put a lot of time and expense putting something in place for 2014 that you could waive out of in 2017.) I've replaced that removed language with "such as the individual mandate" since I now have a source for that other than the legislative language. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplication with Health care reform in the United States

I don't know if editors of this article are aware of it, but other editors have been redundantly adding long lists of the bill's provisions by year to the abovementioned article. This seems crazy to me, and counter to established WP practice, since we have a specific article on this bill listing the provisions.

If you want to comment on the situation, please do so at Talk: Health care reform in the United States#Duplication with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please put this under semi-protection

While it has not started yet, I am quite sure that it won't be long until people start vandalizing this article. It was just too controversial to not draw in the trolls. Fusion7 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Once partisans on either side start noticing this article, there is potential for all kinds of misinformation to make it's way in - even if only temporarily. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We never pre-emptively semi-protect except widely used templates; see WP:SEMI. In any case, if there is indeed heavy vandalism, then we'll protect (which has happened a few times already), but until then, no. --kurykh 00:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Started Article, Notes

The fact that I am starting this article a week after the event, which was on the cover of every newspaper and major news site in the US, is a case in point of the lack of diligence on the current health care debate.

In the intro I mentioned what this bill means in the context of the health care reform effort, which serves as an example of providing context to the reader that is almost totally lacking in most other articles.

Please help expand this article, using the links I listed in the article among others.

There needs to be, among other things:

• an outline of the bill
• a section that compares this with the House bill, which the NY Times does nicely
• claims on all sides, including President Obama
• support and reservations that people had in the initial debate

NittyG (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but the Summary is very poor - it doesn't say anything about the content of the bill! That's why I wanted to read this article. All the stuff about the legislative manoeuvering should be put later in the article - much later. Mkovari (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Historic narrowness

As the article develops, we may need a bit more mention of the historic narrowness or one-sidedness of the vote. As The New York Times put it, "Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965...." I haven't surveyed other news accounts to see if this point has been made elsewhere. —Kevin Myers 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's incredibly notable, if its true. Likely to be true, but that's a lot of information to sift through to prove...would that reference alone be a good enough source to use in the article? 68.104.225.197 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Description of penalty amount?

The penalty amount for the so-called "individual mandate" is described in two places, as:

• "Impose an annual $695 fine on individuals who do not obtain health insurance; exemptions to fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs," and
• "Those who are not otherwise covered and opt to pay the annual penalty (2.5% of income, $695 for individuals, or a maximum of $2,250 per family)"

According to my non-expert reading of the two bills (HR-3590 and HR-4872), neither of these are strictly accurate; the second is more complete but not particularly clear.

My reading (qualified above) would be that the penalty is the higher of:

• $695 per person up to $2,085 (3 x 695) per household, or
• a percentage (eventually 2.5%) of "household income" (I'm sure that's defined somewhere, but didn't search yet) minus personal exemptions and standard deductions – i.e. something close to 2.5% of the amount you calculate in determining whether you have to file a tax return that year, which is not the same as 2.5% of taxable income.

Obviously I'm not a reliable source, and even if that's the correct reading, the fumbling above should demonstrate the problem I'd have phrasing this in an encyclopdic yet understandable manner.

(As to reliable source, generally I don't see a problem with referring to the actual bill, but when we have one bill amending another bill, which was already modified by a separate set of provisions, all of which is making intermixed additions and modifications to existing tax law... that's a bit much to rely on for a cite.)

Suggestions? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I partially wrote those entries based off a news story currently given as the reference. I don't have any problem changing them. The bill is so complex though, I personally prefer using secondary sources reference the material in the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's my impression that the first year of the requirement (2014) the penalty is only $95 but then increases to the $695 over a few years. Will have to find a source for that. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Aims and Objections

I am coming to this as an outsider, trying to understand the legislation. Help please! What is hard to discern from this article is, at high level

1. What do the proponents of this bill aim to achieve (aims)
2. How (by what means) do they intend to achieve it
3. What are the main objections of their opponents

I have some idea, from other sources, about the first two points, but it would be very useful to summarise them here. The third point is I suspect the most baffling for non-Americans. The article mentions constitutional and legal grounds, but my sense is that these kind of objections are really tactics of objection, rather than the substantial reason for objection. It would be helpful if people with a broad understanding of both sides of the issue could summarise it.

As it stands the article is mainly about the legal and political process issues of the Bill, rather than the impact that are intended by its proponents, and feared by its opponents. Could someone please step back from the detail in order to give a high level summary? It will be very useful for those on the sidelines. Spike (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from and think a brief section on the aims of the new law might be a good idea. This would have to be carefully sourced. However, keep in mind that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not a "proposal" and it's not even a "bill" anymore - it is the law of the land. So anything more than a brief discussion of the aims and criticism is, for the most part, moot at this point. I'm not saying that criticisms should not be included - I'm just saying that going in to a lot of detail about those criticism would probably be better addressed in a separate article.--MeatheadMathlete (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on your point about most of the article being "baffling" to non-Americans, I definitely see your point. I think that may be mostly because the information is so new and so the article suffers a bit from "recentism." I think a lot of that will be flushed out over time. And by the way, most of this is baffling to Americans too. :-) --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Impacts section + Legal challenges section

I've reorganized things a bit by creating an "Impacts" section, with "Public Policy Impacts" and "Political Impacts" sections. I haven't changed the order of any of the content in the article or edited the content in doing this. I do think it's important to have some division between just what's in the law (i.e. "Provisions") and what the impacts are. Also, I do think it's important to divide the policy and political impacts, though of course some things may not fit exclusively in either category. I just think this framework will help keep the article focused. But if you guys don't think this revision makes sense, then let's discuss the pros and cons. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now reorganized the "Legal challenges" subsection to divide between "Challenges by states" and "Challenges by private organizations." I then moved the entire "Legal challenges" sections to no longer be under the "Impacts" section. Just about every federal law (and every regulation issued under a law) is litigated and litigated. For example, as recently as 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on a fundamental constitutional challenge to the Clean Air Act. So, expect this section to expand greatly. If may event warrant its own article.

Non-Profit Option?

I thought the Senate bill included a nonprofit health insurance plan administered by the United States Office of Personnel Management (similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, in lieu of the public option? Why does this article make no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.24 (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This didn't make it in to the law in the way you're thinking. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill vastly expands IRS, both in numbers of employees and powers of enforcement

There is no mention of this - 16,500 new IRS enforcement agents. Nor is there mention of the IRS as the principle enforcement agency.

I can't think of a legitimate argument which would justify excluding this information.

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100318-715006.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.93.82 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can. The US Federal government employees more than 2 Million people. Any attempt to rationalize dramatically overstating the importance of an increase in the employee pool by zero point zero zero eight two five percent is pure folly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.36.46 (talk) 19:53, 24 March (UTC) 2010

I don't particularly care either way, but wouldn't the percent increase in the number of IRS agents be a more relevant indicator of the importance of the issue raised than the percent increase in the total number of government employees? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why not is because these articles are monitored by people who support the bill. Any reputable news organization would report this. Wait, most of them did. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=p&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tbs=nws%3A1&q=irs+16%2C500&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.199.80 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If IRS agents make an average of $50,000 per year (this is just a guess and probably low) then 16,500 new agents will cost almost $1 billion per year. How is it folly to mention this expense? Raymod2 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I suspect that this story about the 16,500 "enforcement agents" may be getting a little out of hand. I haven't seen any support for the proposition that the new law mandates the hiring of 16,500 new "enforcement agents" by the IRS. In terms of the total number of government employees, maybe 16,500 would not be a large increase; I don't know. However, in terms of the size of the Internal Revenue Service, that would indeed be an astounding increase (right now I think there are only about 90,000 to 100,000 IRS employees in the whole world, total). The news stories I have read (at least so far) seem to say that the Congressional Budget Office had ESTIMATED that 16,500 additional IRS personnel (not necessarily "enforcement agents") would be NEEDED -- not that the law itself MANDATED the hiring of those agents. We have to understand that the term "enforcement agent" makes it sound like either an IRS Revenue Agent (in IRS parlance, essentially, someone who audits tax returns) or an IRS Revenue Officer (meaning a collections officer authorized to seize assets) or an IRS Special Agent (IRS law enforcement officer who is authorized to carry a firearm and make arrests). These are specialized jobs, and required specialized training. Hiring any of these in any combination totalling 16,500 would be a monumental task for the IRS. However, there is a lot of material to read that I haven't gotten to yet, and I'm still looking for support that shows exactly what the new law does mandate. Famspear (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

Frankly, I'm reading this and wondering if this article isn't overly biased. While it's certainly factual, virtually all of the facts point to the positive and sunny side of the issue and very little discussion is had as to the controversial side of the issue. A non-biased, encyclopedic article - IMO - should discuss all sides of the issue, not just tell me why it's a good thing.

As has been pointed out, this is a highly controversial piece of legislation. So far, all of the quotes and citations have been glowing, positive ones while any detractors are made to seem like mere dissenting grumblers. Sure, there is a section on "Legal Challenges" but I'm just not feeling that this covers the whole issue. The big story behind this is two-fold. On the one hand is the bill itself and on the other hand is the very contentious and controversial nature of the bill and it's history.

I do, however, understand that this is a new article and also understand that perhaps the debate and controversy itself might belong in a separate article, but at least some of that discussion should be found in more direct form here, no? Kholya (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The international opinion on this bill is vastly favorable. The criticisms are mostly from Americans who oppose the bill based on their own personal biases. The best measure of any act is to look at it from the outside. The idea that affordable healthcare despite pre-existing conditions is nearly universally accepted outside of the United States. In most nations, the universal single payer system is in use, the general health of these nations is almost always better, and the ratings of their healthcare systems by citizens are almost always better. ReignMan (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true. I've lived in the US and the UK, I have a friend that lived in Japan and in the US, those reports are rubbish. It’s The Prices, Stupid:Why The United States Is So Different From Other Countries has a great example of this, the end of page 10 and page 11 state:

"As is further shown in Exhibit 6, Canada’s health system also delivers far fewer highly sophisticated procedures than does the U.S. system. For example, the U.S. system delivers four times as many coronary angioplasties per capita and about twice the number of kidney dialyses. These data, of course, do not provide insight on the medical necessity of these procedures.

"Quite remarkable, and inviting further research, is the extraordinarily high endowment of Japan’s health system with CT and MRI scanners and its relatively high use of dialysis. These numbers are all the more remarkable because Japan’s health system is among the least expensive in the OECD." (emphasis mine)

Tell me that's not biased. I don't want "access" to sub-par health "care", I want quality care available. And so do the majority of Americans.

Also, you completely miss the spirit of the American government system: democracy, republic, whatever you call it, its (ideally) ran by the citizens of that nation, not by an oligarchy or "international opinion" that knows better than those stupid Americans (I've heard it all, first hand).

That said, this article doesn't read too biased to me, but the readers have to be thinking as the numbers are being played with by a lot of "reliable sources". But assume good faith, there's a lot of confusion stemming from the messy process this legislation went through, for better or for worse. 68.104.225.197 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not fact. The numerous studies done by the WHO and the OECD[23] are what are important, not hearsay. The statistics show that the United States has among the worst health of any OECD nation, the highest costs by far, and among the lowest satisfaction. There may be a few people who dislike the systems in other countries, or favor the United States' system, but on the whole, this is not the case. The United States' care is also highly dependent on wealth. Wealthy people favor the United States' system because it benefits them at the expense of others. There's also the issue that the United States has far less smokers than other nations, yet still has poorer health. All of these are major issue. Until the UN, WHO, and OECD can provide facts that show the United States has the best system, it does not. ReignMan (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do some research, find some negative opinions, and add them to the article (with citations). This is a wiki, you're openly encouraged to fix stuff you think could be better. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I also feel its mostly a positive article. But like Cybercobra said, simply requires someone to edit the article to make it more two-sided. However I myself don't think I have the capacity to do such a thing :D TheFedExPope (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an anon comment here, but I think, as often happens in politics, there is an assumption being made here that if the tone is not negative, it's positive. I don't think it's such a simple dichotomy..."for or against". There a million shades of grey relative objectivity in the middle. It's like assuming if I don't say "Pizza is the best food", that I'm saying pizza is a bad food. The fallacy rests in the existence of a middle option, i.e. "pizza is a food". The former statements implied a value judgement, the latter does not. Stating the facts of the health care bill, as dryly and to-the-point as possible is objectivity, not whitewashing for a positive result. Without trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I think some of the claims of bias against the media for coverage of this issue are based on people who want to hear "there is a health care bill, and it is evil" and what they're hearing is "there is a health care bill". That doesn't equate to support, it's a statement of fact, just like the text in this article. Unless we can identify and remediate specific points of supposed bias here, I think one has to honestly consider whether it sounds "positive" to you just because it doesn't have negative rhetoric. The lack of the latter doesn't make the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.174 (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A poll here[24] shows that only a mere 78% oppose this bill 68.59.177.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

That is not a reliable source. Opinion polls need to be conducted by taking a sampling of the population and figuring out a margin of error. This is a website with a sidebar poll, which is unreliable. ReignMan (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

F*** Yeah its f****** biased. What else do you expect from this Commie Website?--69.37.91.1 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but looking at the percentages of the CNN poll shows they polled more Dems than Repubs, so I don't know that it is any more reliable than this poll. You have to take the user base into account. (And don't swear, detracts from your point.) 68.104.225.197 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia was a bit too eager to paste that picture of Obama signing this bill. It's been over a week, and it hasn't come down. Seriously, there are more important things going on in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.189.176 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" didn't do that. A user did that. Big difference. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

confused about something

I understand that the act requires employers to provide medical insurance, but this statement isn't as straight-forward as it appears; many employers provide insurance, but only to full-time employees. Does the new act require employers to provide insurance only to full-time employees, or to all employees? Minaker (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such requirement; employers can choose to not offer an insurance plan. If they choose not to offer such a plan, they pay an annual fine per employee if they have more than fifty employees. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your non-answer, I guess. I'll rephrase to make you happy:

I understand that the act requires employers to either provide medical insurance or pay an annual fine, but this statement isn't as straight-forward as it appears; many employers provide insurance, but only to full-time employees. To avoid paying a fine, are employers required to provide insurance only to full-time employees, or to all employees?

Off-subject trivia: Federal tax law doesn't actually require you to pay your taxes; you can choose to go to prison instead. Minaker (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding who must be offered insurance to avoid the fee, section 4980H states that the employer should "offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan" (emphasis mine). The fee amount is also defined in the same section by the number of full-time employees. For some other parts of the bill, the size of the business is counted in terms of "full-time equivalent employees", defined in section 45R (basically, the average number of people employed over a calendar year). It's pretty easy to find this stuff in the bill by doing "find text" in your browser. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood me, please assume good faith. :) The bill does not mandate employers provide health insurance, the fine or tax is there as an alternative for employers to choose what is best for them - paying the fine\tax or offering the insurance. Companies would probably continue to operate similarly to how they do now, some just have to pay an additional tax. Its pretty similar to unemployment taxes and workers compensation taxes in that regard; employers participate or pay a fee. I have not heard at what point this fine\tax applies, whether it is part time or full time employees. That is an interesting point. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understood you just fine. And I would never accuse you of bad faith, that would be against Wikipedia policy. I cannot emphasize how much I am assuming good faith on your part, even despite all evidence to the contrary.  :)

Off-subject trivia: Federal tax law does not mandate you to pay your taxes, the fine or imprisonment is there as an alternative for people to choose what is best for them - paying the fine/ going to prison or offering the taxes they owe. Minaker (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok maybe I am misunderstanding you. :) Federal law does mandate people pay taxes. The law says if you max X you must pay Y, and if you do not pay you face legal action - non-payment is a non-legal option. This law does not say you must offer healthcare insurance to your employees or face legal action, it says you can offer it or not offer it, and if you choose to offer there is X financial incentive to do so, but if you choose not to do it there is Y financial penalty for it. Thats all. The bill, and the exact quote you stated says "should", which has an entirely different legal meaning from "must" or "shall". And that "should" is in relation to avoiding the financial penalty. There is no mandate requiring a business to offer health insurance; just the opposite, the fine will allow the government to fund its own insurance option which the employee then can access in lieu of an employer provided option. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to beat a dead horse on a slightly off-topic subject, editor Charles Edward is certainly correct that U.S. Federal law does indeed mandate that people pay taxes. And no, fine or imprisonment is not there merely as an "alternative" for people to choose what is best for them. You don't have the "choice" of "prison or payment." You can be tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned for Federal tax offenses, and still be required to pay the tax determined to be due -- if necessary by seeing the Internal Revenue Service seize your assets (even without a court order). Similarly, even if you are found not guilty of a Federal tax crime, you may still be legally obligated to pay the related tax, as some people have found out the hard way. Federal criminal tax proceedings (sending you to jail) and Federal civil tax proceedings (determination of tax liability, collection of tax, seizing of your assets, etc.) are separate proceedings. Famspear (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are misunderstanding me quite a bit, so I will spell it out more plainly. My point in providing the tax example is to illustrate the folly of editor Charles Edward's distinction between my interpretation of the law -- that you are required to provide insurance -- and his interpretation of the law -- that no, you're not required to provide insurance, you can pay a fine instead. A fine is "a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction" according to one dictionary definition. In other words, you're paying the fine because you broke the law. Yes, according to Mr. Edward, you can "choose" to pay the fine instead of providing the insurance, just like you can "choose" to pay traffic tickets instead of obeying traffic laws. Similarly, you can choose to no longer pay taxes. You can liquidate all of your assetts and bury the cash somewhere the government will never find it, no one can stop you, that is your "choice," but then you must pay the legal consequences for this action.

Now, just so you don't think I'm ignoring your other point, I will assert that your distinction on the legal significance between the words "must" and "shall" is equally meaningless. I'm no lawyer, so for all I know, you may be right on this point on a purely theoretical level, but on a practical level, the difference in wording is entirely irrelevant. The law requires you to provide insurance. The penalty is the fine. The law requires you to pay your taxes. The penalty is imprisonment. "Provide the insurance or pay a fine." "Obey the traffic laws or pay the traffic ticket." "Pay your taxes or go to jail." It's entirely up to you. Whether this can be considered a "choice" is the question you're both hung up on.

Remember basic reading comprehension in grade school? When you have to read a paragraph and figure out the main point? Mr. Edward was so busy correcting what he erroneously saw as imprecise wording that he somehow missed the obvious main point of the paragraph. I'm honestly sorry if that comes across as a personal attack, but this whole thread is wearing me out. All I wanted to know was how the law affects part-time employees, for cryin' out loud! Minaker (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you're asking questions about the legislation, you're in the wrong place. This talk page is to discuss the article, not the legislation.

Second, the section below may give an answer about fines, taxes, or whatever. --kurykh 23:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. [25] "Under the health care bill, by 2014 most Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine, with the exception of low-income Americans. Employers would also be required to provide coverage to their workers, or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, however, are exempt from this rule." This is pretty much what the article says now, provide it or pay a fine. It is not at all clear from anything I've read that employers are absolutely forced to provide health insurance benefits. This fine has no criminal implications, unlike tax avoidance. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Edward, I'm going to just move on and consider attempting to communicate with you to be a lost cause.

In response to Kurykh, if the article leaves the answer to my original question so unclear, then someone should call attention to the ambiguity, no? The next question to ask would have been, "Is the article unclear because of imprecise wording, which can be fixed, or because the legislation itself is unclear?" but I'll admit that the discussion got way too far sidetracked. Thank you, editor Steven Johnson, for finding an answer to the original question, so we can remove the unnecessary ambiguity and thus improve the article. Minaker (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok well please just get to your point. The article currently says: "Impose a tax penalty on employers with over 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers. (In 2008, over 95% of employers with at least 50 employees offered health insurance", what do you think it should instead say? That is a fair summary I think. It sounds to me like you are trying to say that the employers are going to be unilaterally required to offer health insurance, which I have found nothing that says that. Could you please provide a source for your position, and clearly state what you would like added to the article? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I already answered your original question above, by quoting directly from the bill text (recap: only full-time employees must be covered). But I guess your filling this thread with pointless carping obscured that. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it safe to say that Minaker is petulant? Some people just can't be satisfied. Broadjumper1 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadjumper -and others- please don't call people names. Minaker had a question about *part-time* employee coverage. Charles Edward's choice to skip that question and focus on the word "require", and various other posters' responses trolled him into a longer debate while trying to explain his question. Take a deep breath and re-read this whole section if you need to. Steven Johnson has answered the question and minaker has thanked him for it. No need to make enemies here - and no need for anyone to be a bully. Ebohman (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I resent being referred to as a troll... I have cooperated on improving thousands of article here for years without ever being referred to as such. Having just now noticed this thread I now reply. I was replying in good faith, and the initial premise of the original question was and is incorrect. It the was not I who escalated the conversation. I am a bit disgusted with this article (which I am the largest contributor to as of the time of this post) turn lately and will go on to edit other things... —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Talk Page

If you disagree with something someone writes on the Talk page, then write something yourself in response. Don't just DELETE the Talk page comments you don't like. I assume that my comments in the Threats section were deleted in error. Thanks. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Threats section

Removal

I'm a little iffy on including the "Threats" section here. While it's obviously related to the passage of the bill, it's not part of the bill's results per se.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

its not part of the bill, obviously, but what article would this information go in, if not here?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. Should it even go in an article, or does it belong over at WikiNews?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section runs the risk of recentism. Until a member of Congress actually gets hurt or, God forbid, killed because of this, then it would be encyclopedic, but until then... --kurykh 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is recentism, but I do agree that the threats in themselves are not enough to be notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur and support the removal. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. You're all wrong. It belongs in an article, mainly THIS article. But nobody is going to listen to me. So just do whatever you want. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone here can prove that it is indeed the status quo for an American legislative vote to result in an assassination attempt and ten or more disparate death threats, I strongly object to omitting these details as trivial.   — C M B J   04:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can consider this trivial or non-notable. It has turned out to be a significant part of the whole story behind a very controversial bill passage. I say it should go back in. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reinserted the section. It was placed, extremely well-sourced, pertinent to the topic at hand and there is clearly no consensus for its removal. Per WP:BRD, it should not have been blanked a second time without a more thorough discussion, particularly for a hotbed/controversial topic like this one. Please engage in discussion (and actually give people some time to contribute to that discussion) here before removing it again. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How much time constitutes "some time", as a general rule of thumb? More than two days, I suppose.

"Assume good faith" Take a breath, Burpleson. 68.104.225.197 (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The "threats" section should definitely be included but with the appropriate Republican reaction to the threats to retain NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.65.182 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I still object to its inclusion, at least as its own section. Maybe place it at the end of the legislative history, or in the impact section. It seems to be bit of both recentism and undue weight, especially considering nothing has really came of it. If some politicians gets whacked with a rock or something, then its might be worth mentioning. Most partisan legislation like this act end up with many threats over it, its common going back all the way to the New Deal, and even WWI. A guy actually bombed the capital building after WWI was declared. Throughout the New Deal they got death threats all the time, shotgun shells in the mail, etc. The civil rights legislation resulted in all manner of death threats, even as recent the authorization of the Iraq war and subsequent war, death threats galore. This seems very minor when put into the spectrum of historical comparison. SO, maybe two lines in another section, not its own section. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

that seems to be rather the question raised by   C M B J   above. If you can demonstrate from the usual reliable sources that these types of activity are, in fact, commonplace following a vote, then I would support at least heavy truncation if not outright deletion. Otherwise, I think the section should stand, though possibly demoted to a position under "Public opinions and views". Fat&Happy (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of the article is subject to recentism, but so be it. This Act has had far more attention than most legislation over recent decades. If the act itself is to be dissected and analyzed based on what pundits (reliable as they may be) say will be its effects, then the events attributable to outcry over anticipated effect of its passage are relevant as well, are they not? Steveozone (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think that this particular piece of legislation, as likely the biggest and most controversial since the New Deal, should mention the threats in some way, although I would support integrating the information into another section rather than having a separate section, especially if it can be proved that death threats after major legislation are common. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 1: Content removal

Okay, so there appears to be some kind of dispute here. Here's the issue= (A) Large scale removal of material is not a "minor edit", that's either an honest mistake of mis-clicking or a glaring (and easily certifiable lie). (B) It's reasonable enough to take issue with the content.

So we have this= A Philadelphia man, Norman Leboon, was charged with threatening to kill Republican Representative Eric Cantor and his family. The two-count complaint and warrant was filed on March 29, accusing Leboon with threatening to kill Cantor and his family in a YouTube video.[95][96] The Politico stated, "The arrest is the most serious in a string of threats of violence against lawmakers in wake of the divisive health care vote." Leboon was allegedly a donor to Obama's campaign,[95] and the Democratic National Committee has vowed to give the money back to charity if this is concluded to be true. It also condemned threats to Cantor and his family.[97]

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart was physically threatened and his colleagues pelted with eggs at an anti-legislation event.[98] Michigan Republican Party officials stated that a brick was thrown through the window of the “Fix Michigan Center” in Genoa Township during the weekend after the legislation's passage. It allegedly read ”Long Live the USA” and “God Bless the USA" in black marker.[99][90]

The Philadelphia incident is part of the healthcare debate around this bill according to The Politico, which is [97]. The quotation from the website makes that clear. [96] is a valid reference from the Washington Post that talks about the details of the incident, but it does not make the connection to the healthcare debate. [95] does make the connection and gives more details. With respect to that link, RedState is to the political right wing basically what Gawker is to the political left-wing. They're both frustrating to read for their ideological slant (for me personally, as a more centrist-y type), but I think that both are okay to cite in Wikipedia rules. We cite Gawker, therefore RedState is fine.

[98] is a direct link to a video of what is being described. It's reasonable enough to say that the video itself can't be a source, cuz we need third-party verification. I'm agnostic on that. [90] says that "vandalism in the wake of the federal health care overhaul hasn’t been confined just to the GOP," which clearly means that that reliable news source does make the connection to the healthcare passage for the brick incident. [99] says "Both Democratic and Republican officials nationally have reported threats of violence in the wake of passage", which makes the connection again and it is also a reliable source. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this being included. It's interesting and certainly pertinent if Republicans are also being threatened. Are we sure Gawker (and RedState) are both considered Reliable Sources? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no way Red State can be considered a reliable source. I've never run into an article sourced from Gawker, but I've seen Huffpost treated as reliable for some things, not for others. YouTube, for the incident depicted, is a primary source. None of the sources on either the Cantor or Breitbart incidents draw a direct connection to this bill. Politico, a blog which like Huffpost has been used for some things and disputed for others, made one offhand comment which goes to timing, not motivation. The longer news articles on the incident make clear the guy making the threats is a certifiable nut job who claims/admits to making 2,000 other YouTube threats in the past and thinks he's God's son, while also commenting on Cantor's Jewish religion. Nowhere has he been described as saying word one about the bill. The Breitbart video establishes (in its primary source way) that his group were Tea Party members, but it doesn't mention protesting the bill. With a secondary source describing the rally as anti-bill, not just anti-Reid, that one would have a more likely relevance to the article than the Cantor one. The Michigan incident, which is a new addition not previously added or reverted, seems a bit clearer; I have no objection to that one as it is. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Redstate is a partisan, political opinion blog. There's no reason to cite that when there are actual journalism articles that can be cited. --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, I'm not a regular reader of Redstate. If there is original reporting in Redstate article (like interviews between Redstate and a politician, for example), then by all means those particular articles would be appropriate to cite. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post has original reporting by on-staff reporters. At least one of them went there after he left Washington Post. Their articles with facts are citable. Opinion puff pieces are only citable to the extent you specify that you're quoting an opinion.MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Threats_of_Violence_to_American_Legislators - Raised the issue here as to whether or not Gawker, RedState, DailyKos, and all the other things that this article currently cites are okay. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gawker, RedState, DailyKos and similar sites are good sources ONLY to the extent that they are the first reporters of facts. These sites almost never have original facts. The mostly cite other sources. If you find something in RedState that seems "citable" then read the RedState article and look for their sources. Link to the original sources, not opinion pieces that cite the original sources. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources on either the Cantor or Breitbart incidents draw a direct connection to this bill. False. The Politico makes the connection clear, as the direct quote shows.

Politico, a blog which like Huffpost has been used for some things and disputed for others, made one offhand comment which goes to timing, not motivation. False. Timing matters and the connection is clear. As well, some of the mentioned attacks on Democratic Party people were done by people of unknown motivation, so all we have there is the timing.

The longer news articles on the incident make clear the guy making the threats is a certifiable nut job who claims/admits to making 2,000 other YouTube threats in the past and thinks he's God's son, while also commenting on Cantor's Jewish religion. And the people who did various bad things to Democrats could be just as looney. What's your point? All people who attack legislators are "nut jobs" by definition. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never run into an article sourced from Gawker Well there's... this article... right here? Are you being mocking and sarcastic in your words here, because I don't understand what you just said. This article cites Gawker.com Do you think that's right, or not? Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The Gawker article has original reporting. It has screenshots that Gawker pulled from the guy's public Twitter feed and the transcript of a Facebook conversation between the guy and Gawker. This is not an opinion article. It has facts. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but timing is not sufficient in tieing a threat to a supposed motive for a threat. You are making a deductive fallacy. (See my "Logic 101" section below.)MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Politico, in the absense of facts (other than timing) tieing the threat to health care form, conflates the threat with health care reform does not mean that, in fact, the threat is tied to health care reform. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think we need to use some "Logic 101" in this section. Let me submit that the following statements are true:

1. Just because someone makes a threat against a Democrat or Independent (Bernie Sanders!) who voted in favor of the new law, does not mean that the threat was necessarily in response to the "yes" vote.

2. Just because someone makes a threat against a Democrat or Republican who voted against the new law, does not mean that the threat was necessarily in response to the "no" vote.

3. Just because someone makes a threat against a Democrat and that person donated to a Republican cause or campaign, does not mean that the threat was necessarily in response to how that Democrat voted on health care reform.

4. Just because someone makes a threat against a Republican and that person donated to a Democratic cause or campaign, does not mean that the threat was necessarily in response to how that Republican voted on health care reform.

Example: crazy whacko in Philly makes threat against Rep. Cantor and his family. Crazy whacko previously donated to Barack Obama. This does not necessarily mean that the whacko made his threat because of Cantor's vote against the law that Barack Obama supported and signed.

5. Just because a threat is made against a politician in March or April 2010, does not mean that the threat is in response to health care reform.

6. Just because a news outlet, in the absense of facts (other than timing) tieing a threat to health care form, conflates a threat with health care reform does not mean that, in fact, the threat is tied to health care reform.

So, if we are going to cite things in an article about this new law that are threats of violence, we need to make sure that there are FACTS to support that the threat was in response to this new law. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Every single thing that you just posted above applies exactly the same to the threats against democrats by people without any context or evidence, except for the timing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Given that Politico is a more reliable source than you or I, because it's written by serious journalists, then I see it as fine to report their linkage of the thing-- provided that it is their words cited to them. That's fine. It's like typing John Stacy stated that in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Personally, I think that on all sides they are just making crap up. Democrats have a brick through their window and they scream "IT'S HEALTH CARE!" when there's no outside evidence except for timing. Ditto for republicans. It's cool with me to report both sides claims, even though I disagree with both sides, because I respect that the fact that that's what the journalists say. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But this is the thing I hate about Wikipedia. Since 99.99999% of the posters here voted for Obama and the Democrats, they accept everything that they say at face value. Thus, Daily Kos and Gawker.com are considered to be okay but their rightwing clones are not. All I'm asking for is fairness and neutrality. As someone who keeps taking it from both sides in all my life, I feel so homeless. I wish that there was just one place in the media where some fair presentation of both viewpoints occurred. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Just try to carefully stick to facts. You've raised some good points. In fact, until I typed out my little "Logic 101" section, I hadn't considered that we need to take a more careful look at these threats against democrats to see if there are facts to support the idea that the threats are tied to health care reform by more than just timing. You're having a positive impact right there. :-) Just cite your contributions more carefully - it's not easy to do, I know myself. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, when Politico, in the absense of facts (other than timing) tieing the threat to health care form, conflates the threat with health care reform does not mean that, in fact, the threat is tied to health care reform. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And sorry, Grandma, but just because the statement "The Politico cited no facts tieing the Cantor threat to health care reform" is inconvenient to one's point of view, it does not mean that the statement is "loaded." MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you see specific examples in this article about threats against democrats tied to health care reform when there are not fact to support tieing the two together, then point that out here. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, stop trolling and corrupting what I type in the talk page. It's childish and pointless, and all it does is make me angry without resolving anything. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Politico stated that, "The arrest is the most serious in a string of threats of violence against lawmakers in wake of the divisive health care vote"; it did not list in the story specific evidence that the Cantor threat occurred due to his views on health care reform is a true statement, worded fairly, and should be okay to include. I find your constant reverts without considering a compromise to be frustrating, but maybe this would work. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop with the loaded terms. I'm not seeing trolling, I'm seeing disagreement. Big, big difference. On to the section - I really think it's starting to get too long because of excessive details. This should not be a trivia list of every possible threat that might be related. Unless the action can be directly connected to this law, it should be removed. If there only references are about the event, and not commenting on the event, it should be removed. Threats and violence that are significan enough to get a mention in outside media are notable enough to include in the article. Beyond that, we just don't need a full, comprehensive list here.

The section has a tremendous number of references (possibly overkill, to be honest). I think some of the specific mentions can be replaced with a sentence generically listing the types of threats seen, referenced to the specific incident. Put the specific incident on the individuals page, not here. Unless we've got a source that specifically says the threat is related to health-care legislation, doesn't even have to specifically be this act, it should be pulled from here. Timing alone is not enough. Honestly, if the source is considered reliable, it doesn't even need to say why they connect it, just that they connect it. We can always preface statements if needed "Action XYZ was taken against target PDQ, an act source ABC says was related to the PPAC", or something along those lines. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't trolling. I don't see much of a problem with Grandma's last edit on this, although perhaps a third person could help us word it a little more smoothly? It's a little clunky (as some of my edits are too). MeatheadMathlete (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing MeatheadMathlete alter my talk page comments here, which is trolling and I consider it to be insulting. But that's a distraction from editing the article itself, which him/her has done a good job on. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your phrase "I'm seeing MeatheadMathlete alter my talk page comments" could be misread by others to mean that I changed and/or deleted the words that you wrote in an attempt to distort your point of view. That is not what happened. I simply, in good faith, formatted things incorrectly - and by the way, I signed every comment that I made. A third user (Ravensfire) pointed out that I made a mistake and he/she formatted my comments correctly. Ravensfire wrote this on my talk page: MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"MeatheadMathlete, when you're making comments on a talk page, please try to avoid inserting your comments in the middle of someone elses post, as you did here. It makes it hard to determine who said what, and can lead to complaints that you're altering posts (as it did happen). It's tough when you are replying to long posts to explain context, but overall, doing so helps keep the talk page organized and the other editors happier. Ravensfire" --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Along the lines of the "Logic 101" section above, I've decided threats between "causation" and "correlation." Anyone confused by the distinction should read this article: Correlation does not imply causation. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Break 2: Undue weight

This section currently has 185 characters explaining eleven threats against Democrats, and 192 characters for two threats against Republicans. Moreover, one of the supposed threats against a Republican cites a less than convincing YouTube video captured during a heated but peaceful protest.   — C M B J   16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. How about something like this? (ref numbers kept, but not the actual refs - this is just quick and dirty) Short, summary and provides refs for the details as needed.

"Following the House vote, an assassination threat against President Barack Obama was made on Twitter,[75][76][77]. Multiple lawmakers received also received threats, [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] resulting in some of them receiving extra protection in the aftermath of the legislation's passage.[90]. Family members of representatives and political commentators have also been threatened. [91][92][98] Members of both parties have been targets. [95] These threats are being investigated by the FBI. Both parties have denounced physical violence as unacceptable and have urged the American people to use the democratic process to change the legislation instead.[93][94][97]

In addition to threats, some Democrat party offices have had windows shattered, including the Democratic Party office in Rochester, New York where the brick had a note attached: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," a rough paraphrase of a quote attributed to Barry Goldwater.[78] Other acts of violence have included grill propane lines being cut. [78]"

Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it would be ideal to fully rewrite the material from scratch.   — C M B J   16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to threats, some Democrat party offices have had windows shattered should be changed to In addition to threats, some Democratic and Republican party offices have had windows shattered since (A)There's no such thing as a 'Democrat Party', it's a 'Democratic Party' and (B)we have vertifiable, factual reports of the same thing happening to a Republican office. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also add As of March 29, about ten Congressional lawmakers are receiving extra protection in the aftermath of the legislation's passage. to the passage that you have there, since it's an important point to make-> e.g. they deserved and got the police protection needed. The readers ought to know that. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Ravensfire 's suggested edit is great. CMBJ, if you think a full rewrite would be better, perhaps you could write a first draft of that? MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GGD, the article has taken a baised turn the last couple days, and will soon warrant a POV tag. The threats is clearly undue weight as its own section; it reality the whole threat incident is not much more than a footnote in the big picture of this bill and the debate surrounding it. We are giving a whole section to threats, but there is not a section on the principled opposition to the bill or the political debate surrounding its passage. The closest thing to that is a rather dull line by line recounting of the events leading up to passage, which I authored. I would argue that the sole balance within this article was wrote by just a couple editors. Its very one sided, and has been all along. Only the positive parts of the bill were discussed initially, I added in all the info about taxing and other penalties. There was no information on the legal challenge section, which I added and was fairly nuetral, but a number of other editors have piled quote upon quote to make the legal challenge look ridiculous, even though almost every expect concedes it is possible for it succeed, although unlikely. But this article paints it as pure partisan politics. There is no discussion about the long term consequences, the loss of freedom issues, etc. Yet a "threats" section is deemed appropriate. I remain at my original position. The threats section needs paired to two sentences and put at the end of the legislative history section. Nothing material has came of these threats, proving their limited informational value. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that "the threats section needs paired to two sentences and put at the end of the legislative history section." MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• However, I don't understand the complaint that the article is too "one sided" since you (and others) have the power to add material. People who are excited about the new law are obviously going to focus on the law's benefits, probably because they've followed news articles about this more closely. Similarly, people skeptical of the deficit reduction impacts and tax issues have probably followed those subjects very closely are so are the best ones to at least start that section. That's the whole "crowdsourcing" nature of wikipedia - people add information that they know or are passionate about (so long as they can provide citations). MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also, if you have sources that show that "almost every expect concedes it is possible" for the legal challenges to succeed, don't complain about their absence - instead, add the citations. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Side discusussion about the legal challenges section

Regarding the legal challenges section, I've repeatedly searched for commentary and every legal expert I've found interviewed in a reputable source has been dismissive of the merits of the lawsuits; if this makes the lawsuits "look ridiculous", that's not Wikipedia's concern. (Of course, any lawyer you speak to will tell you that court cases can never be predicted with certainty, so several admit when asked that anything is possible, and this is quoted too—but there is a big difference between saying that courts can be unpredictable and agreeing with the case on merit.) If you can find an authority on constitutional law quoted in a reputable source concurring with the merits of the lawsuits, by all means add it (with due caution for WP:UNDUE), but complaining of bias is unconvincing without sources. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an its already in the article. You miss my point here - the additions all say, its bad, won't work, etc etc. No one was concerned with actually writing about the legal arguments or pointing out the merits, or lack of merits. Only with piling on that the case was dumb. The only true legal analysis in there is what I added. I can get sources that say it will, I can get sources that say it won't. What it needed was a legal analysis. I added the one from Dorf and Cornell. That really goes to the root of the overlying problem with the article, it is full of points, but very lacking on analysis. There are studies saying some part of this will not work, studies saying there will be adverse economic impact, 70% of the American public are against the bill in one form or another according to the polls cites in the article. Were is the critical analysis? It is not there. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles, something has come of the threats. The threats are an event in and of themselves. Just because someone has not been shot or beaten up does not negate the existence of threats. There is NO undue weight either, considering the actual portion discussing the threats is a small fraction of the whole article. If you want a section on principled opposition to the bill them WRITE IT rather than arguing to bowdlerize another section. Regarding There is no discussion about the long term consequences, the loss of freedom issues, etc. That's because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you can provide reliable, neutral sources that discuss "loss of freedom" or whatever other topics you want to present then write about them! If you can find neutral critical analysis and legal analysis then add it! Gutting well-sourced content for lack of other content is not a solution. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all the policies of the wikipedia. I have been here for years.. The main point of what I wrote above is pointing to why it is undue weight and recentism to include threats as its own section. And yes, having its own section is undue weight and giving it more topical coverage than is merited by the full length of the article, and it is done at the exclusion of other more notable information that should be included. Yes, something more than just a handful of news stories need to happen to make the topic notable enough to merit the coverage it now receives. This article is about the bill, and its impacts. There is no clear connection between the threats and bill itself, it is generally conjecture. And the fact that editors want to pare back the information about threats on Republicans and expand the info threats on Democrats is blatantly biased. Death and violence threats against politicians are common, these just heightened received more coverage than they normally do. Wikipedia is also not a news website which that sections currently read as it is. I concede consensus, albeit thin, is for it to remain in the article, but conesnus changes. I am merely outlining my objection and my rationale. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the legal situation, reporters specifically asked constitutional law authorities for their legal commentary on the lawsuits, which they gave, and generally also conveyed through the reporters a layperson summary of their reasons (e.g. it is structured as a tax, and there is substantial precedent for Congress's ability to enforce tax penalties, e.g. penalties on polluters). The brief summaries reported in the newspapers, and further summarized in our article, may not satisfy you personally - you may want to see the detailed technical arguments that underlie the summary they gave the reporters. But satisfying you personally is not the appropriate standard. The fact is that large numbers of reputable authorities on constitutional law were contacted by the press and almost unanimously (so far) have offered their considered judgement that the lawsuits are without legal merit; this fact is highly notable for any discussion of the lawsuits, it is published in numerous reputable sources, and it is a fact that as far as I can tell you are not contesting. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off the topic of the threats section; I do not dispute that legal consensus is that the challenges have limited merit, but I point out that no other editor was willing to put any information regarding the lawsuts at all until I added it, and then when I clearly stated the legal rationale of both sides, other editors proceeded to add account upon account discrediting the lawsuit, (which I had already done through the legal explanation) but not stating a single explanation as to why the lawsuit has no merit. It is one sided, without explanations. The same as the threat section. I am pointing to the overall bias demonstrating in the editing of this article by omitting anything negative, failing to hardly mention the majority opposition to the law, and ignoring any third party critical analysis of the bill. I have no doubt most of us are here to edit in good faith, but lets look at this article objectively - critical analysis of the bill from third parties is missing from it. It is written piecemeal from new tid bits. These things will work themselves out in time. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• This may seem like a minor point, but the terms "Republic Party" and "Democrat Party" are actually used in offensive/pejorative context often. It's sort of like calling someone by a nickname that's a shortening of their name that they do not like. See this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no one using the term "Republic Party" instead of "Republican Party." I do see "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party," however. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that noone here would ever be offensive just for the fun of it. But I would love to see us preserve the most neutral language. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)