![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
FWIW - seems there may be some recent concern about an edit (January 7, 2014) re relevant comments by Michael Moore - should the following reliably sourced material be mentioned in the main article? - or should the material not be mentioned?
Copied from the "Public opinion" Section:
In an op-ed piece for The New York Times published on December 31, 2013, Michael Moore assessed the Affordable Care Act, calling it “awful” and adding that, “Obamacare’s rocky start … is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go.” Despite his strong critique, however, Moore wrote that he still considers the plan a “godsend” because it provides a start "to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.”< ref name="NYT-20131231"> Moore, Michael (December 31, 2013). "The Obamacare We Deserve". New York Times. Retrieved January 6, 2014.</ref>< ref name="TNR-20140105">Noam Schieber (January 5, 2014). "How Obamacare Actually Paves the Way Toward Single Payer". The New Republic. Retrieved January 7, 2014.</ref>
Seems some may think it deserves to be mentioned, whereas others may think otherwise - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, Michael Moore is not a journalist; he is a propagandist. JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus to remove the Michael Moore reference from the Public Opinion section based on concerns of undue weight and appropriateness. However, it has not been removed, and recently the view of Charles Krauthammer was added. So, I pose this question to everyone: is it appropriate to include any particular individual's opinion in the Public Opinion section? As I mentioned before, quoting individuals does not give readers any sense whatsoever of how the public feels about the PPACA, only what those individuals think. It also gives undue weight to the opinions of those individuals, and it is an inherently subjective choice (for instance, why should Wikipedia emphasize the views of Michael Moore and Charles Krauthammer any more than the views of Glenn Beck or Cornell West?). And doing so may introduce inaccuracies, because individuals have an incentive to portray public opinion as matching their own opinions. Citing to poll data or studies is a much more objective way of demonstrating public opinion. Therefore, my views is that we don't need to, and should not, give special attention to individual talking heads on what their opinion or is what they think public opinion is; let public opinion data speak for itself. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As it is now, one would expect content from political pundits and the like in the section since the section appears under the notion of [what is the ACA's] political impact.
That said, I'd much rather see Public Opinion moved directly up "one" as a sub-section of Impact only and drop any temptation of adding one blowhard or the other's opinion/politics altogether. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Especially because the impact on the deficit is a hot topic, it would be interesting to see the dollar figures for CBO estimates of how much the various tax measures will raise and what the significant expenditures are. As time goes on, we'll be able to see actual figures rather than estimates. -- Beland ( talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Maryland and Nevada extended deadline to give people some time to enroll as soon as possible. But I can't find a place where I must appropriately insert the info. I think I need help. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{anchor|Essential health benefits|EHB}} to the section heading for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards.
Thanks. 67.100.127.227 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The box for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is misleading, in particular, the section titled "Legislative History". The fact that it passed the House by a vote of 416-0 when it was called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" is trivial, bordering on irrelevant. There are 6 bullets points, distinctly divided, and because point 3 is "Passed the House on" and point 4 is "Passed the Senate as", to the average reader (who didn't otherwise know) it looks like the ACA itself passed the House 416-0. Bullet points shouldn't rely on previous bullets points for their meaning. The factoid that it passed the House 416-0 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 could/should be included parenthetically in bullet point 1. The section should go like this:
The ACA is a highly partisan, hotly contested bill. The two HISTORIC votes that really mean something are the 60-39 and 219-212. These should be featured prominently, easy to find. Trailspark ( talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Obama Banks on Sebelius Leaving to Take Heat Off Party Lihaas ( talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
>> Factual Information About The Obamacare Chip Hoax
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
was this written by an obamacare cheerleader what about the crappy website low enrollment numbers what about the LIES? what about the changes to the law?
24.6.89.92 ( talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the politics section of this article is in violation of the "neutral point of view" rule. I would argue that none of the political information is relevant and makes the article subjective instead of objective. Counter arguments need to be offered, or proof from the ACA legal documents to disprove the claims in question. I would propose that the section be removed because it will simply be a point of contention. Quoting other articles that call Sarah Palin a liar isn't objective information it is exactly the opposite. 98.23.105.220 ( talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LW
Hi! I work on a lot of articles about legislation and recently noted the 50th vote to repeal or revise the ACA that was taken in the House. (See ABC News). There are three more bills related to revising portions of the ACA being voted on under a suspension of the rules on the House floor today. (See The Hill). The section in this article on "repeal efforts" is fairly short, considering there have been so many. There also isn't a section (that I could find) addressing attempts to modify the ACA without repealing it entirely.
So, is there any interest in creating a separate article on repeal and revision attempts (and revision successes)? What about a section within this article (even if it is a simple list linking to articles about bills that attempted or succeeded in modifications)? If not, what is the community's criteria for including associated legislation in this article?
For example, the following bills might be included:
These bills aren't identical attempts to repeal it under different names - they are different bills that address different portions of the ACA. They would exempt some religious groups, allow employers not to count veterans with military health insurance on their list of employees, authorize a delay in the employer mandate and the individual mandate, and so on.
Anyway, I'm asking about it to solicit opinions (instead of editing a rather closely watched article without notice). Any ideas? (And yes, I do realize that some of those bill articles could use improvement...). Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is out-of date. It does not address the numerous delays (for large employers and union plans) and ongoing serious issues in implementation. [1] It does not address recent court cases. [2]
The article is not NPOV. I have spent my career writing summaries of legislation for courts (which require NPOV) and I find that the "cheerleading" comment above is valid shorthand for the tone of the article, and not "uncivil" at all.
I will try to return to work through this piece-by-piece, but it is a huge undertaking.
Avocats ( talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Good job George! The 4000 plus edits you made to this page as if it was a full time job repeatedly violating any and all rules regarding NPOV have served this mission well.
Time to archive the bottom talk material though.
I stumbled across this really fine piece of journalism that describes the true story of what happened during the implementation of healthcare.gov. For whoever wants to take this on, it ought to be cited here as well.
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled across? But up until last December you edited this page over 2000 times as if it was a full time job. Then proudly proclaimed you were finished, coincidently as of the end of 2013.
People are already forgetting that Jonathan Gruber's gaffe isn't just what he thinks about the American people, he has also exposed the fraudulent mechanisms behind what lead to the passage of the PPACA in the first place.
In other words, Jonathan Gruber did not just come on camera, say the four words "American voters are stupid", and then go back home. He has said on numerous videos that the lies and trickery that was required to get the PPACA (aka Obamacare) past the American voters, is what makes the American voter stupid.
If that cannot make it into the PPACA's content, considering how important Jonathan Gruber was/is to PPACA, then there is a violation of NPOV somewhere. Everybody is trying to distance themselves from Gruber now, but a few years ago his role was not in doubt.
Just the CBO sections alone need a wholesale re-write, to take into consideration the lies and trickery.
The entire page is a violation of NPOV. It is bought, paid for and monitored for the purposes of promoting the subject material.
No mention of these suits? I realize they are not directly challenging the ACA, but rather the IRS implementation of the ACA, but surely we should link the user over to them? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm new to wikikpedia but got my hours cut from 40 to 29 at a company I've worked at 15 years (call center for a bank) but I'm new to wikipedia however have lots of spare time now. Here's the article, just tell me what to do and I'll add a blurb (1-2 sentences not a whole section) here ya go: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/30/health-law-impact/21067751/ ADWCTA ( talk) 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI I had created redirects to help readers find definitions of Bronze plan, Silver plan, Gold plan and platinum plan, but all four have been deleted. Maybe someone else knows how to help readers without upsetting wiki-rules? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's long overdue for this page to be moved to
Affordable Care Act. The reliable news media came to a consensus to use that name a while back, around when Supreme Court decided
NFIB v. Sebelius. The relevant guidelinepolicy here is
WP:COMMONNAME. Comments please. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (This does not prevent anyone supporting that proposal or a different move from submitting a new RM request.) ( non-admin closure) — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act – WP:COMMONNAME, no opposition a full week after proposal. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) -- Calidum 16:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act →
Obamacare – This request is intended to replace my previous request to move to "Affordable Care Act." Per
WP:COMMONNAME. To my surprise, recent reliable sources are in fact overwhelmingly using "Obamacare" these days. Google News searches:
I understand there are neutrality concerns, but the Obama administration reclaimed the term long ago, and the news sources using "Obamacare" run the ideological spectrum (including NPR, WaPo, and ChiTri). And no, the move requests from 2013 and before do not apply because reliable sources have changed how they refer to the subject. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not be an unbiased person if I were to write about Jonathan Gruber, but I think it is something worth including perhaps in the Criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaendfinger ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This may be a good source of content to add to this article: 5 Years In, 5 Busted Predictions About Obamacare. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 23:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Affordable Care Act" and "the Affordable Care Act" should redirect to this page. I typed it in several different ways only to be told that no such article existed. I finally typed in "Obamacare" and was redirected here, seeing the correct, longer title of the law. Could a savvy editor add that redirect in? I don't know how. -- MattMauler ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Accurate, reliably sourced historical information was recently deleted in this edit, apparently based on two false beliefs stated in the edit summary. This information should be restored (possibly with a clarification of the difference between HR 3962 and the similarly named HR 3590). 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 ( talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ok JKruger13 ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I updated the intro with the correct rate. I don't think I cited everything correctly. I'm terrible, I know. >.< Myownworst ( talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. You said 'opposition' is " WP:BATTLEGROUND", but WP:BATTLEGROUND is about edit warring and trying to "win" a dispute. I wasn't edit warring, was I? -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Source 10 points to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Feuilles mortes ( talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
we describe the 1st open enrollment as "will last from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014" since this is 2015, a little updating is in order.
35.24.32.134 ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A new disambig page, Silver plan, has just replaced my old deleted redirect with the same name. The problem is that the first four entries are actually all the same. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change reference 21's reference link to https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/ Bvansick ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone add in a section about US private sector job creation and the implementation of the ACA?
What do the numbers show from 2010 onwards. Why has US private job creation been sustained for so long? Is there any link from the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.9.30 ( talk) 00:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No one, anywhere, in normal literature uses the name Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to refer to this law. I understand that reasonable folks will differ on whether Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is WP:CommonName. I think ACA is the best title. But PPACA clearly is not. Despite multiple move requests. My reading of the archives is that part of the reason is the PPACA is retained is disagreement on whether Obamacare or ACA is a better name. That is a poor reason for the third best name to be retained.
The issue is not that readers will be 'confused', but that below average intelligence readers (half of us) will need to spend an extra 10s digesting the first sentence and making sure they are in the right place. And, some will be so distracted that they'll actually waste more time posting posts like this.
My two cents. LaTeeDa ( talk) 00:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
First time posting to a talk page on Wikipedia and suggesting edits to an article, so I might be running afoul of some procedure, but I wanted to bring up something substantial, although I don't have time now (or currently enough familiarity with the issue or with how Wiki changes should be made) to make the necessary changes, I may later or someone else may be able to follow my suggestions.
Overall, the details of the legislative history and process to enactment are very garbled, for obvious reasons given the complexity of the process. Some things really jump out in this article as being, if not false, very misleading. For instance, the graphic that summarizes important information about the bill states that it passed the House on 10/8/2009 with a unanimous 416-0 vote. This is correct if this is referring to HR 3590, but wrong if it is referring to what eventually became the law known as the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare/healthcare reform. On 10/8/2009 when it passed the House, it was a different bill about a different matter entirely, and this seems to be a pretty important difference given the significance of a bill passing unanimously vs by only members of a single party. For procedural reasons, this was the bill selected by Dem Majority Leader Reid to act as the "vehicle" for the Senate's legislation for a while.
There is more that could be perfected about the legislative history/process in this article, but this is the biggest and most illustrative example of them. Best source I've found on the truth of these matters is here: http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-105/no-2/2013-7.pdf. 50.245.23.195 ( talk) 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Interested in HCR process
The article would benefit from a section covering the many twists and turns the act has undergone since passage. Things like:
Other things could go in this section that are already covered. Comments encouraged! Lfstevens ( talk) 03:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Completed a copyedit. Feedback encouraged! Comments:
I intend to begin working along these lines. I would much appreciate feedback on the proposal and on the changes already made. Cheers! Lfstevens ( talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
CBO sharply downgrades: enrollment projections and costs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/03/10/cbo-downgrades-obamacares-enrollment-projections-subsidy-costs/
Fed Survey: Obamacare Causing Companies to Cut Jobs http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2016/08/16/fed-survey-obamacare-causing-companies-to-cut-jobs/
Moody's downgrades health insurers citing this "new health-care law". http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/moodys-downgrades-outlook-for-health-insurers/2014/01/23/1a670a32-846f-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html
Although there is a list of 388 employers that have directly cited the ACA as reason for job cuts http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/121913-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm Any search of "jobs cut citing obamacare" returns pages of unique citations yet the article here is still is trying so hard to make believe otherwise.
CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law. The president likewise claimed lower premiums http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html
Any source will show premiums have risen every year since the ACA's passage.
Great job by the obviously not paid shill spinbots. No it is a full time hobby distorting in the name of objectivity.
How many times can one quote Jon Cohn in one piece? He is far, far away from a NPOV, his livelihood is in part selling books based on theoretical socialized healthcare systems. I counted six separate quotes of 100% Cohn opinion based on zero facts. Really good work presenting an encyclopedic article from a NPOV.
The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Tuesday.
The nonpartisan agency’s report found the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.
The CBO is now estimating the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017-2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected. This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs in 2021 by 2.3 million, the CBO said. It had previously estimated the decrease would be 800,000. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf
Negative effects? Where?? not in this Wikipedia article. Here everything is still coming up roses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 ( talk) 00:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The "2015" and "2016" subsections of "Implementation history" need to be rejiggered and moved into another section, probably somewhere under "Impact" The subsections about 2010 to 2014 in "Implementation history" are all about what the section heading says, implementation--the rollout of the law, what came into effect when. But the 2015 and 2016 subsections aren't about that. They're about how the healthcare sector has responded to the law, i.e. impact. Also, I think these sections are a excessively detailed when considered in light of WP:10YT. Since we're an encyclopedia, we should be summarizing the larger trends and the most notable statistics, rather than providing survey results on an annual basis. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: Why remove the MEPS ref? The data is in there. Lfstevens ( talk) 19:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman:
A third opinion has been requested. I am not in a mood to search the article for a tag. If the question can be asked in one or two sentences, I will try to answer. Otherwise, I will leave the request for another editor who has more patience to parse the issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
passages at issue for 3O
|
---|
|
![]() |
Per the WP:CITE content guideline, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Additionally, WP:CITE states an inline citation is " any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." Furthermore, in the information page Wikipedia:Inline citation, we find that "There are many ways to add inline citations to an article. Each is acceptable under Wikipedia's citation style guideline, but a single article should use only one type." RegistryKey (RegEdit) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC) |
@ DrFleischman: Just noticed that you removed a bunch of refs, but left the content. Probably not the best way to improve the article. I've already shown that I will address your concerns, including re-sourcing. Maybe hash things out here first?
You say that the sources you removed are not reliable, but I (obviously) don't see what the problem is. Have they been found to be unreliable in other situations? In particular, the USA Today piece was not an editorial (that's why it's in their News section). Lfstevens ( talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
One of your fv's was over this:
In fact the source states:
I'd sure appreciate some more detail on stuff like this. This is a valid source, so that's not it. It's very time consuming to try and guess what your objection is. Lfstevens ( talk) 05:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“similar to other unsubidized goods” contains a typo. “unsubidized” should be “unsubsidized”, with the added “s”.
RafBM ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The voting record for the House of Representatives is wrong. The voting outcome was 219 (AYES) to 212 (NAYS) - the figures given on the Wikipedia page are 416-0, which is incorrect. The voting record for this bill can be found from the Clerk of the House's Record (link = http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml)
Sladbob1998 ( talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that this statement is still incorrect: The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
It should read "voting for it" not "voting against it." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.201.167 ( talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
FWIW - seems there may be some recent concern about an edit (January 7, 2014) re relevant comments by Michael Moore - should the following reliably sourced material be mentioned in the main article? - or should the material not be mentioned?
Copied from the "Public opinion" Section:
In an op-ed piece for The New York Times published on December 31, 2013, Michael Moore assessed the Affordable Care Act, calling it “awful” and adding that, “Obamacare’s rocky start … is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go.” Despite his strong critique, however, Moore wrote that he still considers the plan a “godsend” because it provides a start "to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.”< ref name="NYT-20131231"> Moore, Michael (December 31, 2013). "The Obamacare We Deserve". New York Times. Retrieved January 6, 2014.</ref>< ref name="TNR-20140105">Noam Schieber (January 5, 2014). "How Obamacare Actually Paves the Way Toward Single Payer". The New Republic. Retrieved January 7, 2014.</ref>
Seems some may think it deserves to be mentioned, whereas others may think otherwise - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, Michael Moore is not a journalist; he is a propagandist. JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus to remove the Michael Moore reference from the Public Opinion section based on concerns of undue weight and appropriateness. However, it has not been removed, and recently the view of Charles Krauthammer was added. So, I pose this question to everyone: is it appropriate to include any particular individual's opinion in the Public Opinion section? As I mentioned before, quoting individuals does not give readers any sense whatsoever of how the public feels about the PPACA, only what those individuals think. It also gives undue weight to the opinions of those individuals, and it is an inherently subjective choice (for instance, why should Wikipedia emphasize the views of Michael Moore and Charles Krauthammer any more than the views of Glenn Beck or Cornell West?). And doing so may introduce inaccuracies, because individuals have an incentive to portray public opinion as matching their own opinions. Citing to poll data or studies is a much more objective way of demonstrating public opinion. Therefore, my views is that we don't need to, and should not, give special attention to individual talking heads on what their opinion or is what they think public opinion is; let public opinion data speak for itself. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As it is now, one would expect content from political pundits and the like in the section since the section appears under the notion of [what is the ACA's] political impact.
That said, I'd much rather see Public Opinion moved directly up "one" as a sub-section of Impact only and drop any temptation of adding one blowhard or the other's opinion/politics altogether. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Especially because the impact on the deficit is a hot topic, it would be interesting to see the dollar figures for CBO estimates of how much the various tax measures will raise and what the significant expenditures are. As time goes on, we'll be able to see actual figures rather than estimates. -- Beland ( talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Maryland and Nevada extended deadline to give people some time to enroll as soon as possible. But I can't find a place where I must appropriately insert the info. I think I need help. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{anchor|Essential health benefits|EHB}} to the section heading for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards.
Thanks. 67.100.127.227 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The box for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is misleading, in particular, the section titled "Legislative History". The fact that it passed the House by a vote of 416-0 when it was called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" is trivial, bordering on irrelevant. There are 6 bullets points, distinctly divided, and because point 3 is "Passed the House on" and point 4 is "Passed the Senate as", to the average reader (who didn't otherwise know) it looks like the ACA itself passed the House 416-0. Bullet points shouldn't rely on previous bullets points for their meaning. The factoid that it passed the House 416-0 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 could/should be included parenthetically in bullet point 1. The section should go like this:
The ACA is a highly partisan, hotly contested bill. The two HISTORIC votes that really mean something are the 60-39 and 219-212. These should be featured prominently, easy to find. Trailspark ( talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Obama Banks on Sebelius Leaving to Take Heat Off Party Lihaas ( talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
>> Factual Information About The Obamacare Chip Hoax
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
was this written by an obamacare cheerleader what about the crappy website low enrollment numbers what about the LIES? what about the changes to the law?
24.6.89.92 ( talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the politics section of this article is in violation of the "neutral point of view" rule. I would argue that none of the political information is relevant and makes the article subjective instead of objective. Counter arguments need to be offered, or proof from the ACA legal documents to disprove the claims in question. I would propose that the section be removed because it will simply be a point of contention. Quoting other articles that call Sarah Palin a liar isn't objective information it is exactly the opposite. 98.23.105.220 ( talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LW
Hi! I work on a lot of articles about legislation and recently noted the 50th vote to repeal or revise the ACA that was taken in the House. (See ABC News). There are three more bills related to revising portions of the ACA being voted on under a suspension of the rules on the House floor today. (See The Hill). The section in this article on "repeal efforts" is fairly short, considering there have been so many. There also isn't a section (that I could find) addressing attempts to modify the ACA without repealing it entirely.
So, is there any interest in creating a separate article on repeal and revision attempts (and revision successes)? What about a section within this article (even if it is a simple list linking to articles about bills that attempted or succeeded in modifications)? If not, what is the community's criteria for including associated legislation in this article?
For example, the following bills might be included:
These bills aren't identical attempts to repeal it under different names - they are different bills that address different portions of the ACA. They would exempt some religious groups, allow employers not to count veterans with military health insurance on their list of employees, authorize a delay in the employer mandate and the individual mandate, and so on.
Anyway, I'm asking about it to solicit opinions (instead of editing a rather closely watched article without notice). Any ideas? (And yes, I do realize that some of those bill articles could use improvement...). Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is out-of date. It does not address the numerous delays (for large employers and union plans) and ongoing serious issues in implementation. [1] It does not address recent court cases. [2]
The article is not NPOV. I have spent my career writing summaries of legislation for courts (which require NPOV) and I find that the "cheerleading" comment above is valid shorthand for the tone of the article, and not "uncivil" at all.
I will try to return to work through this piece-by-piece, but it is a huge undertaking.
Avocats ( talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Good job George! The 4000 plus edits you made to this page as if it was a full time job repeatedly violating any and all rules regarding NPOV have served this mission well.
Time to archive the bottom talk material though.
I stumbled across this really fine piece of journalism that describes the true story of what happened during the implementation of healthcare.gov. For whoever wants to take this on, it ought to be cited here as well.
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled across? But up until last December you edited this page over 2000 times as if it was a full time job. Then proudly proclaimed you were finished, coincidently as of the end of 2013.
People are already forgetting that Jonathan Gruber's gaffe isn't just what he thinks about the American people, he has also exposed the fraudulent mechanisms behind what lead to the passage of the PPACA in the first place.
In other words, Jonathan Gruber did not just come on camera, say the four words "American voters are stupid", and then go back home. He has said on numerous videos that the lies and trickery that was required to get the PPACA (aka Obamacare) past the American voters, is what makes the American voter stupid.
If that cannot make it into the PPACA's content, considering how important Jonathan Gruber was/is to PPACA, then there is a violation of NPOV somewhere. Everybody is trying to distance themselves from Gruber now, but a few years ago his role was not in doubt.
Just the CBO sections alone need a wholesale re-write, to take into consideration the lies and trickery.
The entire page is a violation of NPOV. It is bought, paid for and monitored for the purposes of promoting the subject material.
No mention of these suits? I realize they are not directly challenging the ACA, but rather the IRS implementation of the ACA, but surely we should link the user over to them? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm new to wikikpedia but got my hours cut from 40 to 29 at a company I've worked at 15 years (call center for a bank) but I'm new to wikipedia however have lots of spare time now. Here's the article, just tell me what to do and I'll add a blurb (1-2 sentences not a whole section) here ya go: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/30/health-law-impact/21067751/ ADWCTA ( talk) 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI I had created redirects to help readers find definitions of Bronze plan, Silver plan, Gold plan and platinum plan, but all four have been deleted. Maybe someone else knows how to help readers without upsetting wiki-rules? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's long overdue for this page to be moved to
Affordable Care Act. The reliable news media came to a consensus to use that name a while back, around when Supreme Court decided
NFIB v. Sebelius. The relevant guidelinepolicy here is
WP:COMMONNAME. Comments please. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (This does not prevent anyone supporting that proposal or a different move from submitting a new RM request.) ( non-admin closure) — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act – WP:COMMONNAME, no opposition a full week after proposal. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) -- Calidum 16:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act →
Obamacare – This request is intended to replace my previous request to move to "Affordable Care Act." Per
WP:COMMONNAME. To my surprise, recent reliable sources are in fact overwhelmingly using "Obamacare" these days. Google News searches:
I understand there are neutrality concerns, but the Obama administration reclaimed the term long ago, and the news sources using "Obamacare" run the ideological spectrum (including NPR, WaPo, and ChiTri). And no, the move requests from 2013 and before do not apply because reliable sources have changed how they refer to the subject. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not be an unbiased person if I were to write about Jonathan Gruber, but I think it is something worth including perhaps in the Criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaendfinger ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This may be a good source of content to add to this article: 5 Years In, 5 Busted Predictions About Obamacare. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 23:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Affordable Care Act" and "the Affordable Care Act" should redirect to this page. I typed it in several different ways only to be told that no such article existed. I finally typed in "Obamacare" and was redirected here, seeing the correct, longer title of the law. Could a savvy editor add that redirect in? I don't know how. -- MattMauler ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Accurate, reliably sourced historical information was recently deleted in this edit, apparently based on two false beliefs stated in the edit summary. This information should be restored (possibly with a clarification of the difference between HR 3962 and the similarly named HR 3590). 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 ( talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ok JKruger13 ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I updated the intro with the correct rate. I don't think I cited everything correctly. I'm terrible, I know. >.< Myownworst ( talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. You said 'opposition' is " WP:BATTLEGROUND", but WP:BATTLEGROUND is about edit warring and trying to "win" a dispute. I wasn't edit warring, was I? -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Source 10 points to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Feuilles mortes ( talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
we describe the 1st open enrollment as "will last from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014" since this is 2015, a little updating is in order.
35.24.32.134 ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A new disambig page, Silver plan, has just replaced my old deleted redirect with the same name. The problem is that the first four entries are actually all the same. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change reference 21's reference link to https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/ Bvansick ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone add in a section about US private sector job creation and the implementation of the ACA?
What do the numbers show from 2010 onwards. Why has US private job creation been sustained for so long? Is there any link from the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.9.30 ( talk) 00:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No one, anywhere, in normal literature uses the name Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to refer to this law. I understand that reasonable folks will differ on whether Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is WP:CommonName. I think ACA is the best title. But PPACA clearly is not. Despite multiple move requests. My reading of the archives is that part of the reason is the PPACA is retained is disagreement on whether Obamacare or ACA is a better name. That is a poor reason for the third best name to be retained.
The issue is not that readers will be 'confused', but that below average intelligence readers (half of us) will need to spend an extra 10s digesting the first sentence and making sure they are in the right place. And, some will be so distracted that they'll actually waste more time posting posts like this.
My two cents. LaTeeDa ( talk) 00:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
First time posting to a talk page on Wikipedia and suggesting edits to an article, so I might be running afoul of some procedure, but I wanted to bring up something substantial, although I don't have time now (or currently enough familiarity with the issue or with how Wiki changes should be made) to make the necessary changes, I may later or someone else may be able to follow my suggestions.
Overall, the details of the legislative history and process to enactment are very garbled, for obvious reasons given the complexity of the process. Some things really jump out in this article as being, if not false, very misleading. For instance, the graphic that summarizes important information about the bill states that it passed the House on 10/8/2009 with a unanimous 416-0 vote. This is correct if this is referring to HR 3590, but wrong if it is referring to what eventually became the law known as the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare/healthcare reform. On 10/8/2009 when it passed the House, it was a different bill about a different matter entirely, and this seems to be a pretty important difference given the significance of a bill passing unanimously vs by only members of a single party. For procedural reasons, this was the bill selected by Dem Majority Leader Reid to act as the "vehicle" for the Senate's legislation for a while.
There is more that could be perfected about the legislative history/process in this article, but this is the biggest and most illustrative example of them. Best source I've found on the truth of these matters is here: http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-105/no-2/2013-7.pdf. 50.245.23.195 ( talk) 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Interested in HCR process
The article would benefit from a section covering the many twists and turns the act has undergone since passage. Things like:
Other things could go in this section that are already covered. Comments encouraged! Lfstevens ( talk) 03:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Completed a copyedit. Feedback encouraged! Comments:
I intend to begin working along these lines. I would much appreciate feedback on the proposal and on the changes already made. Cheers! Lfstevens ( talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
CBO sharply downgrades: enrollment projections and costs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/03/10/cbo-downgrades-obamacares-enrollment-projections-subsidy-costs/
Fed Survey: Obamacare Causing Companies to Cut Jobs http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2016/08/16/fed-survey-obamacare-causing-companies-to-cut-jobs/
Moody's downgrades health insurers citing this "new health-care law". http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/moodys-downgrades-outlook-for-health-insurers/2014/01/23/1a670a32-846f-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html
Although there is a list of 388 employers that have directly cited the ACA as reason for job cuts http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/121913-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm Any search of "jobs cut citing obamacare" returns pages of unique citations yet the article here is still is trying so hard to make believe otherwise.
CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law. The president likewise claimed lower premiums http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html
Any source will show premiums have risen every year since the ACA's passage.
Great job by the obviously not paid shill spinbots. No it is a full time hobby distorting in the name of objectivity.
How many times can one quote Jon Cohn in one piece? He is far, far away from a NPOV, his livelihood is in part selling books based on theoretical socialized healthcare systems. I counted six separate quotes of 100% Cohn opinion based on zero facts. Really good work presenting an encyclopedic article from a NPOV.
The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Tuesday.
The nonpartisan agency’s report found the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.
The CBO is now estimating the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017-2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected. This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs in 2021 by 2.3 million, the CBO said. It had previously estimated the decrease would be 800,000. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf
Negative effects? Where?? not in this Wikipedia article. Here everything is still coming up roses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 ( talk) 00:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The "2015" and "2016" subsections of "Implementation history" need to be rejiggered and moved into another section, probably somewhere under "Impact" The subsections about 2010 to 2014 in "Implementation history" are all about what the section heading says, implementation--the rollout of the law, what came into effect when. But the 2015 and 2016 subsections aren't about that. They're about how the healthcare sector has responded to the law, i.e. impact. Also, I think these sections are a excessively detailed when considered in light of WP:10YT. Since we're an encyclopedia, we should be summarizing the larger trends and the most notable statistics, rather than providing survey results on an annual basis. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: Why remove the MEPS ref? The data is in there. Lfstevens ( talk) 19:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman:
A third opinion has been requested. I am not in a mood to search the article for a tag. If the question can be asked in one or two sentences, I will try to answer. Otherwise, I will leave the request for another editor who has more patience to parse the issue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
passages at issue for 3O
|
---|
|
![]() |
Per the WP:CITE content guideline, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Additionally, WP:CITE states an inline citation is " any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." Furthermore, in the information page Wikipedia:Inline citation, we find that "There are many ways to add inline citations to an article. Each is acceptable under Wikipedia's citation style guideline, but a single article should use only one type." RegistryKey (RegEdit) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC) |
@ DrFleischman: Just noticed that you removed a bunch of refs, but left the content. Probably not the best way to improve the article. I've already shown that I will address your concerns, including re-sourcing. Maybe hash things out here first?
You say that the sources you removed are not reliable, but I (obviously) don't see what the problem is. Have they been found to be unreliable in other situations? In particular, the USA Today piece was not an editorial (that's why it's in their News section). Lfstevens ( talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
One of your fv's was over this:
In fact the source states:
I'd sure appreciate some more detail on stuff like this. This is a valid source, so that's not it. It's very time consuming to try and guess what your objection is. Lfstevens ( talk) 05:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“similar to other unsubidized goods” contains a typo. “unsubidized” should be “unsubsidized”, with the added “s”.
RafBM ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The voting record for the House of Representatives is wrong. The voting outcome was 219 (AYES) to 212 (NAYS) - the figures given on the Wikipedia page are 416-0, which is incorrect. The voting record for this bill can be found from the Clerk of the House's Record (link = http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml)
Sladbob1998 ( talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that this statement is still incorrect: The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
It should read "voting for it" not "voting against it." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.201.167 ( talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)