Jump to content

Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Background section

The section comes off reading like a history of the individual mandate. The text itself is great and all, but that's only one of several parts of the bill and it really belongs in the individual mandate article instead. Ideally, the section should be about the history of this entire bill and this bill only, probably except for minor references to Medicare, Nixon's HMO Act, and Clinton's reform attempt. --Kurykh (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article talks about too many things that are not directly relevant to PPACA, and have their own articles. It is not just "Background" only, a lot of the text from "Healthcare debate" belongs to the Health care reform debate in the United States or Health care reform in the United States articles. Text about history of the health care efforts (Medicare, Nixon's HMO Act, and Clinton's reform) should go to the History of health care reform in the United States. Most of the statistics about number of uninsured, and high healthcare cost should be in the Health care reform in the United States. Only short blocks should be appropriate for these loosely relevant things, with a link to the main article. We have here everything loosely related, but throwing away the provisions of the actual law (see discussion above). This makes no sense to me. Innab (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Re:Kurykh - Since the mandate-subsidies-regulation approach is the core of the reforms, it make sense to focus on the preceding proposals that prompted this approach as the history of the whole bill. And rather than the generalized 'individual mandate' (which doesn't just deal with health insurance individual mandate), it deals with those parts of the US health care policy history that are directly relevant to the ACA which would constitute undue weight in the individual mandate article. In contrast, Nixon's HMO Act was largely employer based so it has very little relevance to the PPACA, which is why it isn't included. At least with Clinton's reform, it makes sense to include it not only because of the 1994 Republican Senate alternative proposal, but also the backlash that helped kill Clinton from industry which lead reformers to try to divide industry by winning the support of some of those actors. If you think relevant history of the law is missing, feel free to add, but I would argue that what's there merits being there.
Re:Innab - I strongly disagree. To move content you've cited away from this article wouldn't make sense; either because it can't, unlike the provisions, justify it's own article imo, or if it were transposed to, say, 'health care reform debate' it would give undue weight to PPACA-related debate when it is adequately addressed and contextually appropriate here. And as for statistics included in this article about the number of uninsured and high health care costs - they're not generalized exposition (which is the kind of content I would expect in the general 'health care reform in the US') but more narrow: ACA's impact on them. That's highly relevant - indeed, a clear, concise explanation of those impact is, I would expect, one of the main drivers of traffic to the page. The provisions needed their own article due to the how much there was. Plus, given it was a timeline, rather than summary style, I would argue the impact section is better at conveying the information people are after whereas the provisions show when + details; but for just a relatively clear and concise summary they're not effective. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an overly narrow focus, quite frankly. What of the insurance exchanges? That's completely absent from the section. It's not as if insurance exchanges were first conceived in 2009.
One other issue: the section seems intent on pointing out Republican flip-flopping on the individual mandate, which may explain the disproportionate focus on said mandate. I don't mind that from a partisan point of view, but this is an encyclopedia. I've cleaned up that part a bit along with other language, but there's a ways to go. --Kurykh (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The biggest precedent of the exchanges is the Massachusetts reform. I wouldn't have a problem with you adding more detail on the Health Insurance Connector as a precedent for the exchanges. But as for the Republican stances on the individual mandate - that's completely relevant to show the precedent in support of the policy prior to the debate of the PPACA; is a big part of the reason that said approach was adopted. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why no mention at all to any level of previous Democratic support for the mandate? Why the attention on almost exclusively Republicans, and why the need to identify only certain Republicans who were serving in both 1993 and 2009? The current presentation is extremely problematic: it's more partisan calling out than encyclopedic writing. --Kurykh (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Because aside from the bipartisan support of the Massachusetts mandate, prior Democrats reforms didn't support (which isn't to say they opposed) the individual mandate, but rather if you look at the Clinton plan, or the Kennedy plan circa 1970s, they were employer-based; other Democrats where looking at expanding Medicare. The individual mandate was primarily a Republican alternative initially then became bipartisan (2006 MA, 2007 Senate), before becoming 'Democratic'. If that makes sense. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I get that, but I think you're concentrating on what is factually correct so much that you're missing the broad perception of the section. Sure, what you say is right, but it's reading like a partisan screed. That might get you past GA, but I certainly hope that's not the highest you're aiming for.
Regarding the "having gone through a reviewer": Wikipedia is an ongoing project. I don't think the reviewer brought up the issue of titles, but everyone did talked about length. Adding stuff like "(R-KY)" doesn't add anything substantive to the article; instead, it clutters it up and lengthens it unnecessarily. I'm only doing this and other edits to tighten wording, take out unnecessary stuff, and what comes off as partisan slant. Look, I know the article is in the midst of a GA nom and stability is a criterion, but I don't see how removing titles and unneeded sentences just because the reviewer said nothing about them would detract from the nomination. I've done FLs and made changes without the behest of reviewers, and that wasn't a problem. --Kurykh (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand that that GA, whilst a goal (and a means for improvement), is not the be all end all. I think my point of raising it is more of a 'slow down' these changes aren't as unobjectionable as you seem to think, at least in my mind. For example, in addition to my concern about length (in terms of wondering if notation is actually shorter for readability), it seems necessary information to identify party-membership at several points i.e. Republican strategy was lead by McConnell or noting that the former majority leaders where bipartisan (although on that point I suppose we could forgo identifying each individually so long as we said the group was bipartisan, given the wikilink to each one's own page?).
Also, as for the instances of naming those still in Congress 1993-2009 is because if you say Republicans supported it, now oppose it, it may not be the same individual Republicans. Only by showing that it's the same Republicans do you identify the change in policy/party strategy as opposed to internal disagreements. That too seems like a reasonable fact to convey? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to slow down on the changes, sure, I'll do that.
I've answered the notation part on my talk page, but for the sake of everyone else I'll repeat it here: is there a need to say "Republican senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA)," etc.? First, it merely repeats that they're Republicans and second, what state they're from is immaterial to this article. I'm not saying forgo party ID entirely, but don't pile it on like it's extra frosting.
I disagree that you have to name the senators to identify policy changes. Saying that the idea came from conservative sources and that past Republicans first proposed this bill should be sufficient to convey that idea. --Kurykh (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point about redundancy, and the non-notability of the states given wikilinks. I've restored your edit for that that (and a few of your other tightening changes, some I slightly tweaked). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding titles: my interpretation of WP:JOBTITLE was that if we were saying "Senator Clinton did so-and-so," then the title is capitalized because it is used as if it is part of the name. If we're talking about senators in a way like "proponents included senators Clinton and Obama," it would be lowercase because it is not used as if it is part of the name. --Kurykh (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So, whilst I'm not 100% grammatically sure, I'm happy to work off the distinction: singular = capitalized, plural=not, if I understand you correctly? (I corrected a few changes to be consistent with this interpretation). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly. Let's use Barack Obama as an example. For my interpretation of WP:JOBTITLE:
"Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper spoke with American president Barack Obama today." (lowercase since it's a description of his position)
"Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper spoke with President Barack Obama today." (uppercase since the word "president" is used to address him)
Does that make sense?
Also, I understood "opt-in" and "opt-out" are nouns, but "opt in" and "opt out" are verbs. Correct me if I'm wrong though. --Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
From my reading of it, it would be:
"Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper spoke with American President Barack Obama today." (it's still a title since it precedes his name; in contrast too:)
"Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper spoke with Barack Obama, the American president." ?
And my mistake on the verb usage of opt in/out, and others to which that applies (again, not 100% sure myself, but happy to go along with your benefit of the doubt); I'll change later (unless you get to it first) - I'm just about to shoot off. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll change the opt in/out part, but I'm going to leave the titles with your version; it's not a big deal either way. --Kurykh (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

FDA provisions in PPACA

Most people don't know it but the PPACA included some major reforms to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This includes the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, which created the path for generic biologics, the Menu Labeling Provisions of Section 4205 (that require calorie counts on all restaurant menus to be displayed), the Medical Device Manufacturers Fee, which medical device manufacturers have hated and have continued to fight against. I haven't seen this mentioned in the article. While this shouldn't be discussed extensively, I figured that it should be mentioned in passing. Here is more about the provisions of the PPACA that affected FDA - [1]. Remember (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I now see that these issues are discussed in the Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. Perhaps there just needs to be more disclaimer language in the article that PPACA has lots of provisions and that this article will only focus on certain main provisions. Remember (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition and resistance section

Compared to the other sections, this one is particularly short and fractured. I was thinking of combining the Medicaid rejection and noncooperation sections into one (since they both deal with state-level opposition) and the congressional opposition and repeal sections into one (since they both deal with the congressional level). I would have pulled a WP:BOLD, but thought it would be best to run it through here first. --Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I had considered this in passing before. However, it seemed to me that there's several distinct aspects to the opposition: Legal, Congressional (Repeal and other), and State-based (State Governments + Private efforts). The problem with Medicaid is that it flows on from the legal whilst being State discretion, meaning it didn't easily seem to fit under either. I had trouble thinking how to tighten and combine whilst maintaining the flow AND establishing those distinctions; however, I imagine you have an idea?
As for Congressional opposition and repeal, depending on what you had in mind, I can imagine that being done more easily (and I have at least lowered repeal under Congressional opposition in the meantime).
In either case, the actually substance of what's there (if not the organization you're alluding) seems reasonably settled, although I wanted to note to be cautious of the preceding controversy over the cong. opposition section. Otherwise, I would be interested to hear what you were thinking of doing. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"and some, including Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, have expressed a preference for allowing the federal government to shut down rather than maintaining the law's funding.[331][340][341][342]" ^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.6.5 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC) In this section it is claiming four politicians are advocating a government shutdown, however the sources they cite are either opinion pieces or do not quote the four politicians being mentioned. This part needs to be removed unless a quotes can be found from each of these politicians supporting a government shutdown or default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.6.5 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from the Washington Post article
"Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are leading the so-called Defund Obamacare movement, whose supporters say they won't vote to fund the government if the budget funds Obamacare."
It's not so much that they "expressed a preference" as much as they simply "led the movement". There's no need to cite quote the senators. I have adjusted the wording in the article to reflect what the sources say. - MrX 03:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

Please change this: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R41664.pdf to this: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R41664.pdf

The link has been changed. Thanks!

Erumley (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition and resistance to ACA?

"If a mandate [to health insurance] was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is they don't have the money." (Sen. Obama, 02/05/08) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.218.178 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Text was recently removed from the subsection on [2] about the union representing IRS employees not wanting to leave their current health care plans to join the pools in the ACA. Is there a talk section on why this was removed? Also, other unions have expressed strong reluctance to join in.[3] Shouldn't this also be added to this section on "opposition"? --Cirrus Editor (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That material was removed for two reasons: (1) WP:BE, and (2) see this discussion (deleted per WP:BE). You're welcome to resume the discussion and/or find a new home for the material about the IRS employees. As for the other unions, this already has a passing reference in the "Employer mandate and part-time working hours" subsection, though I agree it probably merits a paragraph in the "Opposition and resistance" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If I have time/strength for it I will. :) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I added the AFL-CIO concerns. There are several more large unions that have concerns, too. More later.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
So instead of modifying the text you simply delete it. It figures. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Modifications vetoed by Obama?

During debates I thought I head one representative saying something like "Congress has passed 12 laws to modify ACA and Obama has vetoed every one." If I misheard, ignore this comment. I only see one mention of a possible veto of repeal. If there were vetoes of any other changes, it would be good to put them in. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but it doesn't seem to be the case: List of United States presidential vetoes#Barack Obama. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kaiser Family Foundation Video in Provisions

Innab recently removed the video I had added to the overview section, saying "the video does not work, does not have copyright or notability." Now, I have restored video so we can test what the issue is (as it works for me when I use the Firefox browser).

  • I downloaded, converted, and uploaded the file following Wikipedia instructions, before testing it myself, to ensure it played properly. However, having tested it on a different browser, I have found the problem that Innab likely encountered: it does not seem to work on Internet Explorer. If anyone knows how to fix this issue, please let me know.
  • In terms of copyright; as I have tried my best to explain on the File page, the video is from KFF, a reliable and non-partisan source. In addition to seemingly being intended for public educational purposes (if given appropriate attribution) - as the video is freely available on KFF's Youtube channel - I also requested and received permission to download and use the video in the exact manner in which I have employed it.

Because I want to be as clear as possible to show that I'm trying to follow WP policy (and because I probably need help fixing it), I thought I'd explain that here and see if anyone else has problems with its inclusion in the overview (possibly on condition that we can get it working for all browsers)? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it technically feasible to take a still screenshot of the video and link it to the video page on KFF's website? That would solve two birds with one stone, by solving the browser/plugin compatibility issues and by relieving remaining copyright concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree... coming from Wikisource where we host a fair number of .ogg/.ogv files, I can tell you from past expierence that IE users are pretty much hosed by these formats without adding an additional player (see MS Forums and Wikipedia:Media_help_(Ogg)) - something most, if not all, are not likely to do. I believe Doc's solution seems the most practical in light of the situation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't able to link the screenshot itself to the video link (i.e. you click the image to be taken to the page) but I added an image to the overview with a link in the caption as the best that I knew how to format? The problems with .ogv are a bit frustrating but at least we have a partial work-around. Thanks for the idea guys. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I reworked the File: and its linkage, syntax, etc. so that clicking the still-image will take you to the desired page now. You might want to re-word the caption to eliminate the redundancy if you think its worth it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I did try to think of a way to rephrase the caption, but actually reconsidered as I can't see how else to indicate that it is an external site, which I think probably needs to be clear to anyone interested so they know to expect that? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


I restored the video after Solntsa90 deleted. I'm pre-emptively replying to note that this is a neutral, reliable source, and the inclusion has not been objected on grounds of substance or NPOV until now. The substance is reasonable, and the clear intent of the video is public information, not advocacy. This goal - and there neutral stance - is explicit: "[O]ur role on the ACA is to inform the debate and give the American people information they can use to understand the law and make the best choices for themselves and their families... But at Kaiser we take no position on the ACA, or any other law or proposal for that matter." In this regard, it's goals and ours, as editors of Wikipedia, are aligned, and for that reason should be acceptable content to include. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the Provisions of the Law

Initial discussion

We really need to write in more details what is actually in the law, it is more important than history or some people opinions about the law. The provision were there for many years, so please do not remove them without of the discussion. Innab (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to expanding the current "Overview of provisions" section and reducing the "Background" section (even moving parts of it to another article, perhaps) in an attempt to balance the article's content, but we did have a discussion in the GA review about moving the "Provisions by effective date" section to its own section given its gargantuan size, and I am not in favor of wholesale restoring the "Provisions by effective date" section or the wholesale removal of the "Background" section (much of which has also been there "for many years"). If you have more targeted suggestions to improve these sections though, I'm sure they'd be appreciated. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
There should of been a normal discussion on the Talk page before the provisions were removed. People come to this page to find out what is in the Law, this is main part of any law article, not the history of the debate or opinions of different politicians and journalists about it. Innab (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@Innab: Your justification for continuing to ignore the discussion on this talk page is nonsensical, there is no Wikipedia definition of a "normal" discussion, and a consensus that develops in the process of a GA review is not invalid because it occurs in that context. I have approached 3RR, but another editor is sure to come along and revert your changes. If you continue to edit war instead of first discussing your proposed changes here, as I have attempted to do with you, then you will likely face disciplinary action. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
GA review is not an appropriate place for discussion. It should have been discussed on the Talk page. Article is about the Law, and what written in the Law is the most important, not what other people think about it. Innab (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You repeating the same thing over and over again does not constitute discussion. There was a consensus on this talk page (in the GA review section, yes, but still on this talk page) to split the "Provisions by effective date" section into a new article, whether you choose to accept that or not is irrelevant; your refusal to engage in discussion on that point before reverting is unacceptable. Furthermore, there was NO consensus to remove the "Background" section, which you have done anyway. Your clear disregard for Wikipedia policies will not go unnoticed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for finally engaging in discussion on this point. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS, while this discussion is ongoing, the article should be restored to reflect the consensus that developed before your recent edits, and as a show of good faith, I'd like to ask you to revert your recent edits (before another editor reverts them, anyway).
Now, as I said before, personally, I am open to expanding the "Overview of provisions" section, but the "Provisions by effective date" content is simply too large; that's why it was originally moved. The concept of the "Overview" section is to summarize a bill that is over 1000 pages long, in accordance with Wikipedia page size limitations. Perhaps the "Overview" section can be expanded to be more detailed, but the "by effective date" section should not be restored. Also, can you please explain more why you completely removed the "Background" section? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
As Prototime has pointed out, the discussion on this talk page (see GAR review above) created consensus (with input from several reviewers) that the article was too long and that the provisions therefore needed to be moved. Now, I did initially make the case on your behalf for retaining the Provisions as a subsection of PPACA, and linked to your previous comments in the talk page archive the last time the section was formatted. But the reviewers persuaded me of the wisdom of changing it. (The discussion must have been there for more than a week).
I'm glad you point out the statistics, as I was about to do the same. In the last 7 days, PPACA has been viewed nearly 80,000 times (78,892), whereas the Provisions article has been viewed 2374 times. Now, having kept the provisions for those interested is great, but the detailed list is clearly not considered, by readers, to be essential to their understanding. For one, in terms of the facts of what the law does, I'd like to the Policy#Impact section satisfies most people; but also if it were so important to the readers of PPACA, I'd expect more cross-over views. Yes, I might expect drop-off, but IF it were so important, it wouldn't be a 97% drop-off (i.e. 3% cross-over, 2374/78892). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The traffic to the articles created by the links which are point to it. All the links on Google and most of the links on the other websites are pointing to this article. The reason why there so may links to it was that for many years this article was the best place to tell people in understandable language what is actually in the Law. So if you remove now any section, even "Impact", the traffic will not fall in one day, it will still come here for a long while, because there are a plenty of the links pointing here. For example, if you type "PPACA" on the Google search, this wiki link will be on the top, and all people who want to find out what is written in the Law will come here, and become disappointed. If person would be ready to buy health plan on the exchange on October 1 this year, he/she would want to know what is actually Law says about the subsidies, not what some random politicians think about it. Innab (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Problem why this article become too big, it because this article talks about too many things that are not directly relevant to PPACA, and have their own articles. It is not just "Background" only, a lot of the text from "Healthcare debate" belongs to the Health care reform debate in the United States or Health care reform in the United States articles. Text about history of the health care efforts (Medicare, Nixon's HMO Act, and Clinton's reform) should go to the History of health care reform in the United States. Most of the statistics about number of uninsured, and high healthcare cost should be in the Health care in the United States and Health care reform in the United States. Only short blocks should be appropriate for these loosely relevant things, with a link to the main article. We have here everything loosely related, but throwing away the provisions of the actual law. This makes no sense to me. Innab (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The statistics don't support your proposition. If people were coming here for the provisions, there is the {{main}} link - if people were looking for the provisions, and came to this page, one would expect many more to make that one extra click. But 97% of people who come here do not go to that page, despite the prominence of the redirect, suggesting that most aren't disappointed with what they find. And, once again, everyone else who was looking at it agreed that that was the most appropriate way to deal with the article - due not only to the length of the Provisions but the difficult readability - being organized by time (as in Provisions) rather than type of effect (as in the Impact section) does not help people find out what the law does. Having the details that the Provisions article has is great but only if you know what you're looking for. I think this was the optimal solution. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Most of the people just do not notice the tiny link to main article, because they use to ignore them in the wiki articles. This will happens with any wiki article that sub-article has much less traffic. Innab (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Innab, there is no consensus for what you're doing wholesale since you're the first and only person to object since the change was made. More to the point simply deleting content which has been worked for quite a while and replacing with copy-pasted material that isn't summarized and has lots of superfluous information doesn't help convey the most important provisions: e.g. the dates the provisions start are not notable enough for an overview - they are almost all about to take effect, making it more important what they are; you add a lot of repetition within that section, and repetition when compared with other places in the article (e.g. exchange details, Medicaid details + list of states, dependents on plans, banning rescission).
Simply put, what's there in the overview summarizes the major provisions much more concisely, without anywhere as much unnecessary and unreadable details; and yet much of the information is covered - not just in the Provisions article, but in various places in the impact section of this article in summary style. So there isn't reason to be concerned of people having to go to another page to get the info you were adding in the overview. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Innab, please discuss before reverting the consensus to reduce the size of the "Overview of provisions" section. Multiple editors oppose what you are doing. If there are specific provisions you would like to expand upon or add to this section, please post your reasons why here, and we can discuss them. You might even convince other editors that some of your ideas are worthwhile ways to improve the article. But your "my way or the highway" approach isn't convincing anyone of anything. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. Innab, I believe your intentions are good, but you can't force your will over consensus. This article is better with a summary of the provisions, and the detail is best kept in the provisions article. If there is something essential that should be in this article, I'm sure we can discuss it and come to a new consensus. - MrX 14:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I cleaned it up a bit, removed the dates. You can clean it more, but the "provisions" section needs to be expanded. Innab (talk)
I'll repeat what Prototime and MrX said: please discuss before making such changes away from consensus.
The only thing I'll add is that you seem to keep implying that that the content you're adding has been 'dropped' if it's not included in the Overview. But this isn't true - much of the content you seem to be concerned with (minus a few details) are included; if not in the Overview, then in the impact section. For example, the <26-yr old dependents - change in number of uninsured; exchanges - insurance exchanges section; Medicaid - (in addition to the overview) State rejections of Medicaid section; banning rescission - change in insurance standards. But rather than being contained in a Wall of Text, they are now organized by effect, but are still included. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Provisions need to be expanded, irrelevant things should be taken out

Provisions need to be expanded, and irrelevant things should be taken out. This article become a dump for anything loosely realated to health care, but things that are directly relevant to the subject of the article are thrown away. Provisions is the main section of any law article. This article is about PPACA, and loosely relevant things like Medicare, Clinton reform, history of health reforms, and high cost of medical care in US - have their own main articles. What is written in the Law cannot be thrown away. I think we should take this issue to the admins. Innab (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure administrative intervention is appropriate? Engage in WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS-building. When those fail WP:DR is an option. But getting admins involved? You'll only piss everyone off. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The question of what-content should go under which-article & why has been an increasingly reoccurring meme around here as the years since PPACA's enactment have gone by. Over time, the PPACA article has steadily grown in content and, as a result, it has expanded well beyond what I'd consider the normal scope of a U.S. law article/stub (i.e. statute) into the realm of a major-reform effort on one side and the opposition to those same reforms on the other (i.e. policy). As it stands today, I'm more & more inclined to start agreeing with Innab - the issue with the PPACA article today is that it has developed well beyond the scope of what I'd consider 'just a piece of legislation enacted into standing law' into some sort of mash-up that now includes the background/history/effort by lawmakers, advocates & the Administration to normalize/nullify health care related reforms as part of accepted U.S. national policy.

I'm not 100% sure what to do about that or how to go about rectifying it but my initial instincts are to follow the CBO's approach when it comes to defining a standard...

"The Affordable Care Act comprises the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and, in the case of this document, the effects of subsequent related judicial decisions, statutory changes, and administrative actions."

— CBO, Analysis of the Administration's Announced Delay of Certain Requirements Under the Affordable Care Act, footnote #1.

So the above CBO defined standard applied to our current content would be depicted graphically somewhat as:

  • Affordable Care Act ( policy )
      • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( statute )
      • Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ( statute )
      • National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ( judicial decisions )
      • Comp. 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011 ( statutory changes )
      • the delay of certain requirements until 2015 ( Administrative actions )
    • fiscal outlook & analysis
    • opposition vs. acceptance
    • etc. etc.
... with additional sub-branches for each as needed. I'm thinking that a move from the current PPACA to ACA, with copy-back of just the PPACA (statute) related portions trimmed from the new ACA back to PPACA would alleviate much of the overlap/good-article issues being raised lately while at the same time, narrowing the focus for each in moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still thinking over this, but my initial reaction is a skeptical one, depending on what you're advocating. I could happily get behind a rename from PPACA->ACA and clarify that the article is looking at PPACA as amended (i.e. including HCERA, NFIBvS, 1099, Admin), but in doing so I don't see the justification for changing/moving a great deal of current content, nor the need to create a separate PPACA article (unless I've misunderstand what copy-back is). Truth-be-told, in retrospect I feel like I've been working off the assumption that the article is the ACA (PPACA as amended), in terms of how I've treated the article and how I thought other editors had viewed it. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ummm... there is no such legal thing as ACA. No such 'Act' was passed by roll-call vote in either CHamber of Congress. No assigned Public Law Number. No mention in the U.S. Code. No citation in the Statutes at Large. Not even a recognized Popular name by the House's Law Revision Council. In other words, there is no [legislative] infobox for ACA - it's a made-up term, broken off from [PP]ACA just like ObamaCare was (without the ~10 point swing in the polls for having Obama's name in it of course). So we would need to both have an ACA article as the primary umbrella article and a separate proper PPACA article falling "under" it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
On your other point, though, about the article expanding beyond the normal scope of a U.S. law article - well, I'd say that most pieces of law aren't this significant (in what they change, their amendments, or their reaction to them), and we're just appropriately dealing with what real life is chucking at us? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 14:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Not blaming anyone - just pointing out that there is an unusually intense ideological and political element to this reform and its of no benefit to it being born the digital age whereas other major reforms enjoy the peace and quiet of being born in the age of newspaper and radio & only poked every decade or so by some supreme court ruling or something. I'm of the mind that its still not a justification to blur the lines for statute & policy is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A major piece of legislation like the PPACA typically has its own Wikipedia article that serves as an "umbrella" article, summarizing subsequent legislative amendments and court cases. Even though this article is large, I disagree with the idea of creating an "Affordable Care Act" article that is separate from PPACA to serve this "umbrella" purpose; it would add only further confusion and disarray for readers, and it would likely spawn even more never-ending debates about what content is appropriate for which particular article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How income is calculated to figure your subsidy

A self employed person with an adjusted gross income of say $45k and a taxable income of half that (due to business deductions) will (more or less) use the $45k as the basis to figure their health care subsidy:

Exchanges will calculate enrollees’ household incomes using Modified Adjusted Gross Income, or MAGI. The MAGI calculation includes such income sources as wages, salary, foreign income, interest, dividends, and Social Security. MAGI calculation does not include income from gifts, inheritance, and Survivors Benefits, and some other income sources are partially excluded. More information on MAGI is available [here]. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Not that this is really the place to discuss this, but I'm reasonably sure this isn't true? MAGI is based on AGI, and if you're a freelancer the income in your AGI comes from your Schedule C, where you deduct your business expenses. In other words, the "input" into AGI from your self-employment is your net profit as a freelancer, and thus already includes those deductions. --Jfruh (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Not if you don't have any Schedule C income, CPAs told me to take business deductions on Schedule A. Anyway, no where in the article is MAGI mentioned, thought I'd bring it up here for someone who would know where this would fit in. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (September 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Obamacare – Per WP:COMMONNAME (Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.).

I really dont think the term "Obamacare" is POV because there's nothing negative about that per se. A similar analogy may be that Reaganomics, named after President Reagan, may be highly controversial but that's still the common name after all and that's why we use it here A1candidate (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - Do you have evidence to show that Obamacare is used more than ACA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA? I'm under the impression that all of these terms are frequently used in our sources. Given that Obamacare redirects to this article, are there other convincing reasons for changing the title? - MrX 12:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We had this discussion less than a month ago, and there was no consensus to move it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – For the reasons (particularly those by BarrelProof, Famspear, and George Orwell III) given at the last move request which ended less than a month ago, but most of all, because there was just a move request less than a month ago. Is there reason to suspect that, in the last 27 days, consensus would have changed so much as to result in a different outcome? Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (Still) Oppose - see recent discussion above for the same requested move's results. And with all due respect to Thargor Orlando, I'd say a consesus was reached clearly opposing the requested move to ObamaCare. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Perhaps I should explain myself more clearly: I am concerned that the previous move was rejected based on the false assumption that "Obamacare" has a derogatory meaning, and may therefore lead to POV issues. This is certainly not the case - even the White House uses it (Obamacare in Three Words: Saving People Money). Take a look at President Obama's speech a few days ago and notice:
Number of times Obama mentions "Affordable Care Act": 22
Number of times Obama mentions "Obamacare": 12
Number of times Obama mentions "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act": 0
And with that, I rest my case. -A1candidate (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Whether the nominator believes Obamacare is derogatory or not, it is simply not the name of the law that is being dealt with. If Obamacare referred to a larger program of which the PPACA was merely one facet, then this argument might have weight. As it is, "Obamacare" has no usage beyond being a shorthand (and overwhelmingly negative) reference to PPACA. Eggishorn (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - I suggest re-propose in the next five years. This is way rushed. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Less than a month since this was last rejected. Zarcadia (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing comment by sock of indefinitely banned user.--Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. On Highbeam for the last two years (excluding press releases), I get 25,362 hits for "Affordable Care Act", 19,777 for Obamacare, and 5,270 for "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Most readers are searching for "Obamacare", and almost no one is typing in "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" as a search term, according to Google Trends. Mound of the Dead (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close: We just had this discussion a couple of weeks ago. Please give it a rest. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Since nearly a full week has gone by and this hasn't been closed, I suppose I must guess that there won't be a speedy procedural close and we'll all be forced to reiterate what we said last time. As noted above, the term "Obamacare" does not refer to a specific institution or government program. It also seems inappropriately informal, and carries particular polarizing connotations. My personal impression is that the term primarily originated as a (mostly pejorative) term for any healthcare reform supported by Barack Obama or the U.S. Democratic Party or anyone generally perceived as "liberal" or "progressive". It may have since been embraced to some limited extent by others, but I would still generally not expect to find it outside of quote marks in sources that try to maintain a dignified encyclopedic tone. Such sources seem more likely to refer to the law in question as the Affordable Care Act, or using some phrase that is not a proper name, such as "the 2010 healthcare reform act". A couple of extra weeks hasn't changed that. This recent edit (and the article that it references) also shows that some respected news organizations have also recently concluded that the term is polarizing and non-neutral. My impression is that the way people on the left have started using the term is they have done so only as a defensive maneuver, not because they actually find the term appropriate (e.g., see Queer). I also have the impression that people sometimes use the term because it is short and will therefore fit into a headline (but we have no shortage of ink on Wikipedia), or because it is polarizing and thus conveys controversy and attracts attention. When writing articles for the Internet, people get paid by the click. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a click farm. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I still haven't seen evidence that "Obamacare" is the most commonly used term "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-GAL). This means, exclude all the op-ed pieces, blog posts, and White House references. If someone can provide evidence of such prevalence then I might change my mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support primarily per my nomination last month, though Reaganomics is a very good analogy. "Obamacare" may be more popular among detractors, but its usage is by no means limited to them, as I believe I already showed, with centrist media and left-wing sources, including Obama himself, using the term as well (I would also argue that WP:POVTITLE applies). If it makes anyone feel better, I'll say that my personal biases are in favor of the president and the law, lest anyone think I'm trying to carry out some sort of political hatchet job. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Not that I mind reopening discussion, but we just had this conversation a few weeks ago, so please see my comments in that discussion here. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - FWIW - official names, rather than otherwise, seem more appropriate to encyclopedic presentations (per WP:NC-GAL, WP:NPOV and related) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You might think so, but this is contradicted by policy. Compare WP:ON and WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@BDD - Thank you for your comment - nonetheless, "the official name will be the best choice" (per WP:ON) seems best to me here as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- it's about affordable healthcare, and that's in the official name of the bill, so we should stay with it. Once Obama is out of office, it's sure to be referred to less and less by the slang title, and more by the official name, so why change it twice when it's already at the right place? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can you withdraw the nomination please? --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - My position is still conditional support: given the current consensus, any change will require time to prove that 'Obamacare' is durable and dominant. As it is, it seems to be in a tie with 'Affordable Care Act' (as an abbreviated version of PPACA). Atm, ACA is less politicized (WP:TONE, WP:POVTITLE); plus Obamacare does redirect to this article (on Google and Wikipedia). But one misperception that I need to emphasis is that Common Names, whilst uncommon, can be used: e.g. Medicare (whose full title is never used - WP:NC-GAL, WP:COMMONNAME). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Even though it's commonly called Obamacare, remember that Obamacare is only three days old (at the time of writing), so we can't really say the name has "stuck" yet. "Reaganomics" is decades old now, so the analogy doesn't quite fit. --Article editor (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Parts of the law have been in effect for a while now, and the subject has been discussed for years prior to its full implementation anyway. You can't just say there's no common name because the law hasn't been implemented long enough. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bipartisan support for changes

The following sentence currently appears in the "Congressional opposition" subsection:

However, a few changes have received bipartisan support.[1][2]

[1]: "AdvaMed CEO: Obamacare device tax repeal has 'broad bipartisan support'". bizjournals.com. September 19, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013.

[2]:"House Vote on Authority for Mandate Delay Act, July, 2013". Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. July 17, 2013.

  • I removed it with the comment: "rm "bipartisan support" sentence as unsupported by reliable secondary sources"
  • Arzel reverted with the comment: "I don't think you read the source. The Medical Device Tax, for example, does."

It's not a matter of whether the change has bipartisan support, it's whether the claim that it does is reliably sourced. The Flook source about the Medical Device Tax doesn't say the tax repeal has bipartisan support; it says a medical device industry lobbyist says the repeal has bipartisan support. Huge difference. Obviously the lobbyist is pushing for the repeal so he's not reliable. The other source is just a roll call. It can't be used because it's not a secondary source and it using it to say there was bipartisan support is original research. Everyone knew the bill wouldn't become law so Democrats could vote however the wished and not have to fear any policy implications. Who knows how they would have voted if their votes actually mattered. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman. In the most recent vote on the device tax, only 17 Democrats voted "yes" while 174 voted "no". Democratic support for a repeal, low to begin with, has been eroding since 2012 ([4]). So it's clearly false to claim that a device-tax repeal has broad "bipartisan support". As DrFleischman points out, credulously repeating a lobbyist's spin is a lapse in editorial judgement which one hopes will not be repeated. MastCell Talk 19:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Here, now revert yourself for not even taking the time to look. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
A title for a blog post that doesn't even use the word "bipartisan" in its body? Seriously? Not to mention that it seems you're retreating on the two sources that are currently cited. Am I correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Myth or not, using "Obamacarefacts.com" as a source doesn't seem really worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(Separate issue. We're talking about "Congressional opposition," not "Myths." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
I simply provided another source since you didn't like the other two, but that is just one example. The CLASS Act had bipartisan support for it's removal as well. The point is that the section "claims" that Republicans have been unwilling to change to fix anything, when that is simply not true. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well if you find a reliable source to support the statement, then by all means let's put it in. In the meantime I'm removing the two (unreliable) sources and adding a cn tag. And if you think the preceding sentence overstates its sources, then we can work on that too. Maybe that's a better way to address your concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the new source, Arzel. Since the article only says the medical device tax has received bipartisan support (rather than "a few") I changed the sentence to reflect that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm more convinced than ever that it's a mistake to describe the device-tax repeal as a bipartisan issue. From today's New York Times: "Any provision to delay or repeal a tax on medical devices—a sticking point in the negotiations—will almost certainly be excluded from the final deal, Senate aides said. Republicans sought to have the tax eliminated or pushed back, but Democrats strongly resisted." It sounds like the device-tax repeal is a pretty clear-cut partisan issue. MastCell Talk 22:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's somewhere in between partisan and bipartisan, as a minority of Democrats do clearly support a repeal, though perhaps not as part of a fiscal crisis deal. Regardless, we must stick with what the reliable sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like Obama's campaign workers wrote it

And how in the hell is this law even legal?

It was originally titled the,"Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009."

They took a completely unrelated bill from the house and totally transformed it into Obamacare to bypass the requirement that revenue-related bills originate in the House.

That's completely against the spirit and letter of the Constitution, but I guess everyone is used to Obama violating the law to do what he wants at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.122.15 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
Kindly fuck off.
95.113.216.6 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, unbiased it isn't. Where are the references to huge corporations cutting spousal insurance from their employee insurance plans, in anticipation of Obamacare? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/health-coverage-spouses-_n_3908786.html 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestions are pretty fucking obvious aren't they? 1. Ban the campaign workers who have obviously written this article. 2. Talk about how this bill is illegal because it violates the Originality clause of the Constitution.
Case in point, ban this SB asshole who says on his user page he is some Barack Obama lackey and who seems to think my suggestions need to be hidden from view.

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have particular changes you'd like to suggest, please do so. If you're here to rant, please review WP:NOTFORUM first. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:71.32.122.15 Your misconduct has been referred to Wikipedia Administrators for personal attacks on my User page, for verbal abuse in edit changes on this talk page, and disregard for policy (WP:Forum). Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Needs section addressing corporate restructuring of insurance to exclude spouses as a repercussion

This article seems incomplete and even biased without addressing the current and probable future repercussions on corporate insurance coverage. Several recent news articles have highlighted UPS (among others) declining continuation of spousal insurance now that Obamacare is being positioned as a viable alternative for uninsured. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2013/08/21/new-obamacare-effect-working-spouses-taken-off-ups-health-plans/ 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't particularly notable when you read the whole story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The link you recommend above leads to a "page not found" error at the time of this talk edit. That UPS and other corporations are dropping spousal support is a notable fact. Each spouse insuring themselves as an individual through separate plans is significantly more expensive for a family than adding a spouse onto an existing plan traditionally has been. It seems this article is avoiding presenting any negative facts or consequences of Obamacare, even those that are valid, documented and newsworthy. This suggests a bias and possible NPOV violation. 172.10.236.215 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm having no issues opening that link. The article points out that Cruz's statement about UPS isn't correct. If a spouse is working at a company that offers insurance the spouse needs to get insurance from that company. If the spouse isn't working, is on Medicare or is working but their company doesn't offer insurance they can continue to get coverage through UPS. Cruz's statement deliberated ignored that point to make a partisan attack. Shocking, really, that Cruz would do that, isn't it? Also worth noting is that many companies well before this would charge extra if you wanted to include a working spouse that was offered coverage at their job. Basically, companies were already penalizing employees under this scenario, well before Obamacare. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sen. Cruz's quasi-myths

Can anyone find more reliable sourcing for this apparent conflict of facts?

Sen. Cruz (R-Tex) claims, "President Obama has already granted Obamacare exemptions to big corporations and Members of Congress."[1] However, re: exemption for Congress, "The ObamaCare Exemption for Congress is a myth. It turns out Congress can't shut down Obamacare and reports that members of Congress will be exempt from ObamaCare are without merit. Members of Congress will have to buy their health insurance on the exchanges along with millions of other Americans including low to middle income individuals and employers."[2] And, re: exemption for big corporations, "The ObamaCare employer mandate / employer penalty, originally set to begin in 2014, will be delayed until 2015. The ObamaCare 'employer mandate' is a requirement that all businesses with over 50 full-time employees provide health insurance for their employees or face a tax penalty. The employer mandate is officially referred to as a 'shared responsibility fee' (as with Romneycare in Mass.), as employers tax will go to help fund tax credits to Americans using the health insurance exchanges and to compensate for unreimbursed emergency health care provided to the uninsured."[3] Attleboro (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/18/house-republicans-question-cruzs-obamacare-defunding-fervor/
2. http://obamacarefacts.com/congress-obamacare.php
3. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate.php
This article isn't an appropriate place to refute each and every individual politician's statements about the ACA. There are simply too many statements/misstatements by members of Congress about the law for each one to be mentioned, let alone discussed. And you'd have WP:BALANCE issues if you included this content without misstatements by other politicians. Thus, even if we were to find reliable sources for you, this content wouldn't belong here. Perhaps it would be appropriate on Sen. Cruz's page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sort of with you, but there's needs to be some formal method of determining whether some particular misstatement is worthy of note. I'd suggest that once it gets a certain number of Google hits, it is, because it's being picked up and repeated. What do you say? Here's the sort of thing I see going around, "...how irresponsible it is for democrats to borrow more money for wasteful big government spending that’s out of control. ...the absolute failure of Obamacare and the increased costs to millions of Americans just on health insurance premiums alone, not to mention lost jobs, cutbacks to part-time work, etc. related to Obamacare. Also, probably need to mention the special exemptions that Obama is illegally extending to large corporations, unions, etc. to selectively enforce the laws of the United States." Attleboro (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd support a content fork to a page called something like Misconceptions about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act... but it sure would be a minefield. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stating increase coverage and overall affordability as fact

Not sure why it is controversial to include that the bill "intends" to increase coverage and overall affordability as oppose to just implying that it "does". It was reverted a few times and I'm not sure if it was intentional or accidental. There are many sources that dispute this (short and long term), so we should qualify it based on the intent (like we do with the word "aims"), which doesn't imply a fact on if it does or does not increase coverage or affordability. Morphh (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and for the inclusion of "(see Effects on insurance premiums below)" in the lead, it's bad WP:MOS. I meant WP:LEAD, not WP:SELF during my earlier revert (sorry). "lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows" The lead is a summary and shouldn't self link to content in the body. Morphh (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
"provides a number of mechanisms to..." already implies "designed to" or "intended to", so specifically including "intended" seems a bit pointy. It would be different if the original wording said "provides a number of mechanisms that..." or "that will...".
(I agree with you on the link from the lead to other parts of the article. Everything on the lead is supposed to be covered elsewhere in the article, so providing a link to just one particular passage is somewhat WP:UNDUE.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can kinda see that. "The ACA provides a number of mechanisms to increase coverage and overall affordability" reads like a statement of fact to me if I don't overly parse the language, that we're saying those mechanisms increase coverage and affordability. I'm having difficulty seeing that "provides a number of mechanisms to" implies an opinion. Morphh (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I like Morphh's "intended" language. There's nothing wrong with a bit of extra emphasis that this is the purpose of the law rather than its effect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
After rereading the sentence prior to this one, it seems we're not being concise and often repeat the same thing. "The ACA aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. The ACA provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges—intended to increase coverage and overall affordability." In these two sentences, we say that it reduces cost / affordability three times and increase coverage twice (though if we consider "lowering the uninsured rate" means the same as "expanding insurance coverage", that's three times as well). I concede that cost is not the same as affordability, but we suffix it with "for individuals" which seems to imply affordability. Then we have unnecessary words, like "expanding public and private insurance" where you could just say "expanding insurance" or extra verbiage like "for individuals and the government" unless we're excluding "business". A sentence later we say "Additional reforms aim to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity..." which again repeats the first sentence. The lead should be concise (WP:LEAD), so this paragraph should probably be reworded. Morphh (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Fat&Happy that the intended language is redundant (as intent is implied + 'aims' covers uncertainly) - especially on the issues of coverage and affordability where there's much less ambiguity about the net-impact (due to insurance expansions and subsidies) as opposed to say health inflation.
However, I think you miss the point of the construction of the lead. The 'aim's sentence says 'here are the goals of the law' and the following sentences of that paragraph refer or allude to specific provisions intended to achieve those goals that the article will elaborate on.
And as for the last two bits - 'public and private' is to emphasize both methods, and 'individuals and the govt' is to explicitly prevent an assumption that this 'only' attempts to address either the deficit or subsidies or inflation. Also, I'd include business under the individuals, mentally - at least in the sense that there's a clear difference between private/individual affordability and public/government deficit reforms (although inflation affects both), and the private affect individuals and business but the benefits to business seem incidental rather than a special focus like the other two, so I thought the construction was sufficient? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know... I think one could, with equal substantiation, write that the "ACA aims to fulfil The President's campaign promise to 'remake America' by adopting the key mechanism of the European socialist states; a compulsory, government controlled health care insurance and delivery system". Why don't you stick to the facts and avoid editorializing? For example, "The Act dictates minimum levels of insurance coverage that must be sold to individuals regardless their needs or desires and imposes tax penalties upon those who the government deems to be of sufficient means and who choose not to purchase it", etc.InterpreDemon (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You could write whatever you want, but if it's going to make it onto Wikipedia then it has to be both verifiable and neutral. Your proposed sentence might not be verifiable and definitely isn't neutral, as it clearly implies certain value statements (e.g. "regardless their needs or desires") and parrots certain ideological talking points. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you agree that if I were to excise "regardless their needs or desires" the sentence would be at least as verifiable, in fact more so, as the original, which for some reason despite its bold claims and obvious lack of neutrality remains without citation?

Fact - The Act dictates minimum coverage requirements. From ObamaCareFacts.com:

"The Affordable Care Act ensures Americans have access to quality, affordable health insurance. To achieve this goal, the law ensures that health plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of Affordable Insurance Exchanges[emphasis added] (Exchanges), offer a core package of items and services, known as “essential health benefits.” EHB must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: 

   Ambulatory patient services
   Emergency services
   Hospitalization
   Maternity and newborn care
   Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
   Prescription drugs
   Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
   Laboratory services
   Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
   Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

Thus, an individual fifty eight year old man such as myself is required to have maternity and pediatric coverage, definitely not "essential" (or even actionable) and "regardless" his needs or desires. I only wonder when the time will come that I pay a penalty if I fail to show up for an annual physical, the gym or other such wellness participation mandates dreamed up by the central planners. I suppose it's just a matter of time.

Fact - Those deemed to be able to pay for coverage and who not do so are subject to a tax penalty. From Healthcare.gov:

"If someone who can afford health insurance doesn’t have coverage in 2014, they may have to pay a fee."

Who decides (deems) that someone "can afford" insurance? The government, not the individual.

So, those are all facts, with direct consequences upon the individual far more "obvious" and demonstrable than the "aim" of the ACA as postulated in the article. But hey... we know what the "aim" is here, you're a very clever guy and it's just amazing how contradictory evidence never seems to quite hit the mark, never seems "notable" to you, which is why I and so many others have difficulty distinguishing this alleged neutral and factual article from many served up by proponents of the ACA on their web sites. Peace be with you.InterpreDemon (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A few things in response:
  • The Act does aim to increase coverage and make coverage more affordable. That's blatantly obvious from the face of law, which requires guaranteed issue and community rating, among other things. How well the Act will achieve those aims is unknown.
  • What you, as a 58 year-old single man, consider to be "essential" is your own opinion—which, no offense, really is not notable on Wikipedia. If you can find sources that dispute the "essential" terminology used in this article, bring them up here and we can discuss them. If you can't, you're not going to get very far in convincing anyone that your personal views merit inclusion.
  • The factors that determine whether someone "can afford" insurance include probably a lot more than just "the individual" or "the government", such as employment, seniority, education, circumstances of birth, mental and physical health, family history, locus of control, possibly even the alignment of the planets. I really fail to see what you're trying to do by bringing this up other than to make a WP:POINT. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I could say that it is "blatantly obvious" the Act is intended to change the relationship between the citizen and his government, given the citizen is now being forced to participate in mandated and defined commerce with another private entity simply by birthright... the equivalent of forcing everybody to buy car insurance whether they own a car or not because, after all, at some point in their life they are likely to be riding in a car that might be involved in an accident, and if the owner is not insured and you end up in the ER "the rest of us" might have to pay (assuming as the left always does that nobody can afford to pay their bills themselves).

It is the government that has determined that a 58 year old, single male must have "essential" pediatric and maternity coverage, not me, and that is coverage that I am going to pay for upon which it is impossible for me to benefit. Unless you have discovered the fountain of youth or the male uterus it should be "blatantly obvious" that that is a fact.

"...such as employment, seniority, education, circumstances of birth, mental and physical health, family history, locus of control, possibly even the alignment of the planets." Doubtless future factors that the masterminds will use to determine what any particular individual "can afford". Thanks for the heads-up. It will not be enough that you don't make enough money to pay for your birthright obligation to feed the healthcare system, now they will look at your education and physical health and decide you "can" be making more. Good to know what's coming, and thanks to the precedents set forth in the ACA there is absolutely nothing perceived by the Left, from their legal and self-righteous perspective, standing in the way from such controls over individual behavior in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument about the role of government in the PPACA has been debated at great length everywhere from the opinion pages of ye olde partisan rag to the Supreme Court. Adding your personal view to the mix here doesn't help, as this talkpage is not a discussion forum nor a soapbox. Save it for your blog, and please constrain your contributions here to specific source-based content proposals, per the talk-page guidelines. MastCell Talk 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
InterpreDemon, I think you're right about your first point - it is blatantly obvious that the PPACA is intended to change the relationship between individuals and the government. The article spells out in detail how this relationship is changing, with ample information on the individual mandate, so I'm not sure what you feel is missing from the article regarding this point. Concerning your second point, you're right again, it is the government that has determined what is "essential". How you or I feel about it is irrelevant to this encyclopedia. Congress could legislate that the word "duck" actually means "cow", and our opinions of this absurdity would also be irrelevant here. Again, if you want to find sources that discuss this terminology, bring them here. If your desire is to just rant, please take it elsewhere. Finally, your third point appears to be little more than soapboxing. If you wish to improve this article, then bring up suggestions on how to improve content and sources. Otherwise, I'm exiting this conversation, and you'll be unlikely to find anyone else here to engage in discussion with you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job, not one thing on the entire page explains how or why healthcare would be expected to be more affordable or higher quality, given the only substative difference is the government being between the insureds and uninsureds whereas before that was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Phone number

Collapsing discussion by sock of indefinitely banned user per WP:BE & WP:DENY. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this should be included in the article, but it's been getting a lot of attention, so I'm posting it here to let people know about it:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-fuckyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/

Xshq5672 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems obviously both not notable enough for inclusion, as well as skirting non-NPOV. It doesn't demonstrates intent and strains to even get it's reading (i.e. it ignores the '1', per it's own article, and is happy pretending that 'You' is spelt without a u. There's no reason to give air to hacks, and it's not prominent enough to warrant refutation. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that the piece has in fact received zero coverage so far, the inflammatory, far-fetched, and highly non-neutral content of the piece (removing a digit? come on), and the profane and inflammatory header Xshq5672 chose, I'm going to go out on a limb, question Xshq5672's good faith, and hat this discussion. I could be wrong, but this seems more like an exercise in bomb-throwing than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. If the piece does end up getting coverage in reliable sources then feel free to un-hat, AFTER changing the header to something more appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Xshq5672 probably just copied the title of the article and I've also seen it references by several sites. I don't think we're at a level of inclusion, but I don't see a problem with Xshq5672 bringing it up. Morphh (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it notable yet? http://worldjournal.com/bookmark/23770152-1-800-F1U-CKYO- Shii (tock) 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2013 to include Vote Totals as a section in Legislative History

Partly done:

Please include Vote Totals as a section in Legislative history like was done for the article on another landmark law, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

  • None [5] [6] [7]
  • Cloture in the Senate: 60–39   (60–39%). [8]
  • The Senate version: 60-39   (60–39%). [9]
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 219–212   (50–49%). [10]

By party

The original House version:

The Senate version: [14]

  • Democratic Party: 58–0   (100–0%)
  • Republican Party: 0–39   (0–100%)
  • Independent : 2-0   (100-0%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House (became law): [15]

  • Democratic Party: 219–34   (87–13%)
  • Republican Party: 0–178   (0–100%)

161.253.101.26 (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine adding this information, but I prefer it be in paragraph format rather than bullet-list format. The bullet list approach will further increase this article's large size and draw undue attention to the vote tallies. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Prototime: formatting the information in this way is not appropriate for this article - the vote totals are included in the text. What I have done is, instead, to add the vote numbers to the images. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Section on rollout

I'm shocked there's no section on the rollout of the new law. This is a pretty big deal, considering the new law affects so many millions of people and, ultimately, ~18% of the U.S. economy. I'll be doing some research, puling cites, drafting text and such, but if anyone wants to get a headstart, be bold. :) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cirrus Editor Speaking for myself, I haven't been motivated to add anything on the rollout because it doesn't seem to be worth adding GIVEN length and impact sections. In particular, the latter covers the effects on "many millions of people and, ultimately, ~18% of the U.S. economy." And my concern with adding a new section explicitly for rollout (which doesn't change any of the facts of the law that, again, seems sufficiently covered by Impact and the 'State rejections of Medicaid') is that it's Template:Recentism. It adds little now and definitely won't be noteworthy latter. What kind of content do you think is both notable and absent? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There is so much information out there that it's a tidal wave on the topic. When I read that Maryland had hired 5,000 people to help users negotiate the new law[16] and that 100 people have now signed up for the new law[17], that's a bizarre ROI of taxpayer funding. And noteworthy.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is your interest motivated by your personal view that the PPACA is a "bizarre" use of federal funds, or by actual reliably sourced coverage of the rollout? The article you've cited makes clear that technical difficulties have limited the number of people who have been able to sign up online thus far, despite widespread interest. It also states that an estimated 250,000 currently uninsured Marylanders will receive coverage through the PPACA by the go-live date of January 1. Given the personal and systemic cost of uninsured care, that seems like a reasonable return on investment - at least, none of the sources seem to describe it as "bizarre". MastCell Talk 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Mast Cell. I understand. My apologies. Never mind. Please do me no harm. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ACA waivers

There's nothing about waivers that the HHS has allowed for the ACA. Maybe add a new subsection titled "Regulatory waivers" under the Legislative History heading? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly notable. Can you post some reliable sources here please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this what you're talking about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Nope. I'm good. Moving along. I understand completely. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Myths vs. contentions

Please stop edit warring over myths vs. contentions. Izuko, if you have a problem with the article then please explain here so we can resolve the dispute in a civil manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment a case could be made that there is still no proof that these issues are considered myths. And since this is a political issue, basic reliable sourcing is no help because sources are usually all over the political spectrum. It's hard to call something a myth that hasn't been tested. This act hadn't even been fully implemented yet. "Contentions" seems to be a very neutral enough word for the moment. JOJ Hutton 21:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The reliable sourcing says these "contentions" are widely held and verifiably false. Myth: "a widely held but false idea or contention." We have more than ample sourcing to establish that these are myths. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And we have sources showing that they are not. You're doing your own cherry-picking, while accusing me of it. Izuko (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Those sources aren't reliable. Tell me what sources you're talking about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the ones I cited. They are as reliable as others in this entire article. If you find them to be unreliable, show me why I should accept that they're not. Also, show me why using a less contentious word, like "contentions" as opposed to "myths" is wrong and worthy of being reverted in the first place. I was the one who went with "be bold." You're the one reverting. Prove to me that you're right. Izuko (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Reliability isn't based on what you're fine with or not fine with; it's based on WP:RS. I added a source-by-source analysis below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And as I said, sources will differ because this is a partisan issue. You can't debate sources because there are sources saying both, depending on what side of the political issue one falls on to. JOJ Hutton 23:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because sources differ doesn't mean all must be given voice, let alone equal voice (per WP:EQUAL). We have to look at the relative reliability of the sources. In this case the much more reliable sources say these contentions are both widely held and false. The sources presented by Izuko are WP:QUESTIONABLE and presented in a biased manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all, your reference to WP:EQUAL is meaningless. Go ahead and read it, rather than just citing it. It does not say what you think it says (or at least what you would need it to say for its inclusion to make any sense at all). Second of all, your swipes at my sources are not juistified by WP:QUESTIONABLE. That page does not list having a political leaning as being disqualifying. In the end, you're violating the crud out of WP:IMPARTIAL. Izuko (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If you wish to discuss, that's one thing. But you're participating in what you call an edit war, even while you demand that others cease. How do you justify that? If you REALLY want a discussion, leave the text that I left in, and then discuss it here. I have expanded the section and added references. All you do is revert. You have no ground to stand on. Izuko (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Read it. Now, feel free to read it, yourself, especially the part on what BRD ISN'T. You shouldn't have given me the free time to browse the rules.Izuko (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's dissect Izuko's sourcing:

  • Viebeck - cited for "While supporters of the ACA were quick to vehemently reject Palin's claims of Death Panels, there have been some who have given credence to it, such as Howard Dean": Nowhere in that article does it say that Dean or anyone else has given credence to the death panel claim. This is pure original research.
  • Lowry & Costa - for long Palin quote: Whether Palin actually said this aside, the issue isn't verifiability as much as neutrality. We don't need a long quote from Palin explaining her position on death panels. Palin said it, and there's a whole article on it. Putting it here heavily skews the WP:BALANCE of our analysis.
  • [http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/popular-fact-checker-misleads-public-on-obamacare/ WND] - for attributed claim to having "fact-checked the fact checker": Since this is attributed as a "claim" its impact is partially mitigated, but the problem is that WND isn't nearly as reliable as the fact checkers it purports to fact check. PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. are basically the gold standards in reliability. These guys have been around forever with a sterling reputation for accuracy and they double and triple check everything. WND is known for pushing conservatively biased material (such as Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Including WND with equal weight as the sources it purports to refute is outrageously unbalanced.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think these sources illustrate the problem; the last two in particular are low-quality, partisan sources. "Death panels" were described as a myth/lie by reputable, independent, non-partisan fact-checking organizations, among others. To "rebut" those high-quality sources, we're being offered the National Review (which, as Dr. Fleischman notes, simply quotes Palin at length) and WorldNetDaily, which is an extreme and unreliable source in virtually any context. It's silly to present these sources as if they're equally weighty as those which call out "death panels" as a myth. As with most Wikipedia content disputes, this one can be solved by adhering to proper sourcing standards as articulated in basic site policy and guidelines. MastCell Talk 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
PolitiFact's role as an unbiased sourced is questionable at best. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on...? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The only truly bad source of those three are WND. Whether the balance is out of whack is a different discussion, but why not just call the section "Myths and contentions" or "Contentions and myths" and thus hit a middle ground? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"Myths and contentions" (or reversed) adds an extra layer of confusion, implies that some of these are myths and some are contentions, and dilutes the fact that these "contentions" are in fact myths, as established by the most reliable of sources. As such, countervailing material should arguably be excluded per WP:FRINGE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that in order to use "contentions" in the title of this section we need references that speak of these subjects (e.g. death panels) as "contentions". Perhaps “Inflamatory claims” might be a useful title. See google search on the subject.--Nowa (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
These claims aren't notable because they're "inflammatory"; in fact, I don't think the sources say they're inflammatory. They're notable because they're widely held and false (and therefore myths). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice circular logic, there. The citations aren't credible because they belive myths. They're myths because no true Scotsman... er, credible website claims them. And thus we can wipe out anything that disagrees.Izuko (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, back from MastCell and DrFleischman's coordinated hit. It seems to me that the question about notability is one that's not being used equally. National Review is widely known as being a responsible publication that happens to lean right. It seems that DrFleischman is trusting in PolitiFact, but does not say why we should accept such trust... It seems that personal bias is being used to determine what is notable. Izuko (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Politifact is a reputable, independent fact-checking organization. The National Review is a partisan publication. Do you see that difference? Because it's key to writing a neutral, encyclopedic article on a controversial topic. MastCell Talk 00:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Izuko, I didn't say that the National Review source was unreliable. I said that including a long quote by Palin in that particular place wasn't neutral writing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this entire section because it doesn't belong in an article about a law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudGamecock (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have reasons why you believe this section, which has been thoroughly sourced and discussed here, should be removed, then post them here for discussion. But please don't remove this section beforehand. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affordable_Care_Act/Archive_8&oldid=1065949962"