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.

All this back-and-forth about the "Threats of violence" and "Legal challenges" raises an important question: can we come to consensus of the scope and purpose of this article?

I don't mean to overstate the obvious, but I think some contributors to the article are losing sight of the fact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the "reconciliation bill" signed by the President today, is now the law of the land. Let me say that again: IT IS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND.

In fact, it is the law of the land:

• unless/until any legal challenges to the law succeed, and
• regardless of threats of violence, and
• regardless of whether (God forbid) someone is injured or killed because of how they voted, and
• regardless of negative views of the law, and
• regardless of positive views of the law, and
• regardless of public opinion before the law was passed, and
• regardless of public opinion after the law was passed, and
• regardless of public opinion on the eve of the 2012 or 2014 elections, and
• regardless of economic analysis, opinions, and views, and
• regardless of whether the goals articulated by supporters of the law are met, and
• regardless of whether predictions of doom, gloom, and Armageddon come true, and
• regardless of whether the CBO's deficit reduction projects are correct, and
• regardless of claims by some on the left that rainbows, unicorns, and eternal peace are about to descend upon the land, and
• regardless of claims by some on the right that black helicopters and tyranny are about descend upon the land, and
• unless/until it is amended by the current Democrat-controlled Congress, and
• unless/until it is amended by some eventual Republican-controlled Congress, and
• regardless of whether you or I like it or not.

Simply put, further debate about the pros and cons of this law is moot at this point. Because of that, I would argue that none of the information currently in the "Impacts" section even belongs in this article. I'm a bit agnostic about whether the "Legal challenges" section belongs here at all, but I believe strongly that arguments for and against the legal challenges don't belong here.

• Want to write ad nauseum about predictions (because that's ALL there is at this point) of public policy impacts? Then, please, start a new article titled, "Public policy impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
• Want to write ad nauseum about political impacts? Then, please, start a new article titled, "Political impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
• Want to write ad nauseum about threats of violence? Then, please, start a new article titled, "Threats of violence related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
• Want to write ad nauseum about arguments for and against the legal challenges? Then, please, start a new article titled, "Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

We can link to all those others article in this article. But, please, stop writing ad nauseum about these topics in this article. This article should focus primarily on what is in the law - along with, yes, of course, the current brief intro... and, yes, I suppose, a brief discussion of legal challenges.

In the meantime, however, I will continue to be vigilant about poorly-sourced additions/edits to this article, even if I don't think the topic belongs in this article. I'm sure others will too.

Thanks. -- MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When sections get too long, at some point they will be split off into new sub-articles with a short summary here. See WP:SS. I don't think the article is so long yet that we need to start worrying too much about this yet; when it happens, it will happen naturally, we don't need to pre-emptively curtail additions. (PS. It's spelled ad nauseam.)

The question about the "threats" section seems different, in that there the question is the extent to which the recent spate of threats can be clearly tied to the passage of this bill (as opposed to just random lunatics; every public figure gets threats now and then). There is a recentism argument for waiting a little bit longer to see if the benefit of hindsight sheds some light on the matter. I'm ambivalent, myself, but the lack of clarity may be an argument for keeping that particular section short. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 03:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but, though I believe you are acting in good faith, you are mischaracterizing my argument. I am not making an argument that we "pre-emptively curtail additions." I am arguing that these topics should not be in this article because these topics do not fit with the scope and purpose of this article. Similarly, if someone made an addition about "The History of United States Health Care Reform Since 1776," I would argue that such an addition was outside the scope and purpose of this article. In addition, by the way, I believe the article is now so long that we need to start moving this stuff to sub-articles. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 17:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree, but I think your interpretation – as I understand it – of the scope and purpose of the article is a bit narrow. Granted this is now the law of the land, and we should include its important provisions. But people can go to Findlaw to research these things, probably with better authority behind the statements. In an encyclopedia article, circumstances surrounding debate and passage of the Act also need to be presented. But we are suffering from issues of undue weight, recentism, and attempting to be a crystal ball. In particular:

• Background needs to be trimmed a bit; some of the content seems to belong in the more general Health Reform in the U.S. article, and some detail could be deleted.
• Impacts needs to have much of the prediction of results removed. The CBO estimates, as part of the legislative consideration, probably could be compressed and moved to background.
• Public opinion (including the threats section) is relevant, but needs a major reduction; the threats area especially lends itself to heavy summarization, leaving only facts reliably attributed to issues concerning the bill (affecting either party), possibly limiting mention of specific incidents to those resulting in actual harm,or at least filing of federal charges. A suggestion above regarding making it a two-liner might go too far, but it's close.
• Legal challenges also need to be reflected, but need to be cut back. Suits were filed by state governments, based on certain issues. Significant.
  23,155,472,438 different "legal experts" have opinions on whether the suits will be successful. Not encyclopedia material.
  When the nine people whose opinion on the suits matters finally render that opinion, the significance can be judged in historical context. Until then, we're bloviating.

Fat&Happy ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:FACR, an article must "neglect no major facts or details"—and the scope of this article should presumably be similar to that of other major U.S. legislation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1968, National Industrial Recovery Act, and No Child Left Behind Act. Overall, it seems likely that we can all agree on the necessity of improving comprehensiveness while retaining all (albeit less detailed) relevant facts.   —  C M B J   19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not arguing that any "majors fact or details" should not be included in this article. It seems to me that there is not consensus about what facts or details are "major" and I am arguing that we should come to consensus on what is "major" and what is not. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, take a closer took at those 4 laws you raised as examples. I see some "Criticisms" sections, but I don't see endless, partisan-inspired back and forth. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say the scope should include the following with roughly equal coverage within the article:

• Political debate leading up the passage of the bill
• The procedural methods used to pass the bill
• The details of the contents of the act
• The goals proponents of the act intent to accomplish through the act
• Impact of the act at a high to moderate level
• Analyst of the act by the third parties
• Public and politic reception and reaction to the act
• Political implications and effects of the act

I think those items encompass fairly broadly what the article should cover. Most of which are currently covered, in varying degree. I don't think there is any particular part of the article that need completely removed as it is currently, just some part that should probably be cut back, while others expanded. — Charles Edward ^{( Talk |  Contribs)} 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a sample structure based on Charles Edward's interpretation:

==Background==

• Political debate leading up the passage of the bill
• The goals proponents of the act intend to accomplish through the act

==Legislative history===

• The procedural methods used to pass the bill
• + One to three lines explaining unambiguously relevant threats

==Provisions==

• The details of the contents of the act

==Impact==

• Impact of the act at a high to moderate level

==Independent analyses==

• Analyst of the act by the third parties

==Public and political reception==

• Public and politic reception and reaction to the act
• + Pending lawsuits

==Political implications==

• Political implications and effects of the act

==See also==

• Related articles

==References==

• reflist

==External links==

• Reduced overall number of external links

Copy this with proposed additions/omissions/restructuring of details notated accordingly and we'll all go from there.   —  C M B J   00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable start and will contribute more on this later. For now, though, on "the procedural methods used to pass the bill" all I can say is that it's much ado about nothing. It's a myth that there's anything "exotic" about the procedures used.

• The Constitution says that for a bill to become law, it must first be passed in identical form by both the House and Senate and then signed by the President - and that's exactly what happened. That said, I have no problem with a sentence or two that says exactly that.
• No, a "conference committee" was not used, but there's nothing about conference committees in the Constitution (there's nothing about the Filibuster in the Constitution either, by the way).
• Yes, the reconciliation process was used in the Sentate to pass the Reconciliation bill ( Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) that amends this law, but so what? It was done in accordance with the rules of the Senate: the Constitution gives the Senate to power to make its own rules of operation. One of those rules that the Senate imposes on itself is the Filibuster. Another rule that the Senate imposes on itself is that the reconciliation process can be used to go around a Filibuster.
• Also, the Reconciliation bill was even modified according to a ruling by the Senate Parlimentarian that two provisions didn't fit because they didn't directly impact the deficit. Moreover, the Democratic majority could have overruled the decision of the Parlimentarian, but they did not do that either.
• By the way, the history section of the article about the Reconciliation bill covers the "procedural methods" used to pass it very well.
• Also, the House toyed with the idea of using "Deem and pass" for the reconciliation bill but then did not use it. (And some even say that Pelosi never even intended to use it, but just floated the idea as a smokescreen to distract the opposition - tho who knows?)
• No, Scott Brown didn't get a chance to vote on this, but so what? Once a body of a Congress (in this case, the Senate of the 111th Congress) votes on a bill, it's done. There's nothing in the Constitution about "re-do's" - the legislative process does not operate according to kiddie playground rules.
• In short, there's not much to say about the "procedures used" to pass PPACA other, "yep, the bill became law in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution in 1787" MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article already covers the procedures of the passage of the bill very well. I think the point of this thread though is to establish what parts are outside the scope of the article and to attempt to organize it as well as possible. The areas most lacking are the critical analysis of the bill, as well as the political debate leading up to its passage, and the political implications of the bill. There are studies ongoing now that will soon yield results, and be able to determine if the bill will be able to fulfill the aims of its proponents. The article focuses heavily on the positive aspects of the bill, while skirting the less positive and negative aspects of the whole issue. These things will all play out in the next election though, no doubt, and will yield more sources to expand the article farther. Without a doubt the Democratic Party will pay a heavy political price for the passage bill unless something significant changes within the next six months - that is in many sources. — Charles Edward ^{( Talk |  Contribs)} 18:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are your political opinions and you are entitled to them. However, no one is entitled to use Wikipedia as a tool to try to make the case for their opinions. Moreover, this is not a "bill" - it is the law of the land. As such, it is outside the scope and purpose of this article to go into speculative analysis of the new law's impacts - time will tell the impacts, not "studies ongoing now." Detailed discussion about political debate prior to PPACA becoming law is largely irrelevant to this particular article because, again, this article is about a law - not a proposal, not a bill, not an idea, but a law. There are other articles those seek to cover the history of the debate and so forth. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 17:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are not my political opinions, they are simply facts and observations. And yes they form an important integral part of this article if it is to be seen in full context. And yes, published studies in reliable sources are perfectly acceptable to use as sourcing on an article like this. It is not using Wikipedia as a tool, it is simply cataloging the events and scope of the law. No, there are no other articles that detail the full scope of the debate leading up to this bill. (If there are such articles, they are certainly not linked from this article) And yes it is appropriate and is common in other such articles like this to include the political debate surrounding the bill. I do agree, time will tell and make more sourcing available. It is very likely this bill will be extensively altered by subsequent legislation over the course of the next years anyway. It seems like you are the one approaching this article with a bias.. I don't disagree with any of your points earlier in this thread, I am just stating items that should be included to make the article more complete. 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edward ( talk • contribs)

Yes, my bias is toward citable facts and information that I believe is within the scope and purpose of an article about a law, and against citable facts that are more within the scope and purpose of an article about a broad theme like "health care reform." I know that it's hard to track all changes that another user has made, but I believe I've tried to weed out non-fact bias from both the pro and con sides. Forgive me if read your comment, "Without a doubt the Democratic Party will pay a heavy political price for the passage bill," as political bias on your part. Although I personally think that's true and we could find 1,000 sources to support that view, I believe it's an extraneous fact. I don't see how that extraneous fact should influence what goes in this article. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sounds like we just differ on content. :) I support your recent edits to the article, there are areas that difinetly need pared back. I've been occupied with other things lately and haven't had a chance to work on this article much. Most of the flurry edits are passed now that its not on the main page anymore. Things have cooled to where we can make a good measured determination of how the article should look. I think overall its going in the right direction now. If I can get some free time to research, I will spend some more time working on the article. — Charles Edward ^{( Talk |  Contribs)} 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A major item of controversy and concern for many Americans is the relationship of the bill to abortion. It would be good to have a clear, well-sourced subsection of the Provisions section explaining what the bill does and does not do in this regard. Right now, the only mention we have of the issue is in regards to the political deals involved in the bill's passage, which doesn't really address the issue directly or inform readers who want to know precisely what the bill means (or doesn't mean) for the abortion issue.

For example, the article needs to explain how exactly coverage for abortions is segregated from federal funding in the exchanges, the requirement that the exchanges contain plans that do not cover abortions as well as those that do, the relationship to the Hyde amendment, and the various other special abortion-related provisions in the bill (of which there were several last I checked).

As a first step, it would be good to collect a few reputable secondary sources on the abortion provisions of the bill. e.g. this PolitiFact article or this one or this CNN article.

There are also many pro-life criticisms of the bill on abortion grounds; because of the prominence of many of these criticisms, it seems clear that they should be neutrally presented as well in the article (balanced in some cases by sources like PolitiFact that offer a counter-analysis of the bill's provisions); e.g. here or here.

— Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 04:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tread carefully here, or it can turn into a 20 paragraph section of more ad nauseum back-and-forth. Obviously needs to be very brief and very carefully cited. I wouldn't try to go too much into the weeds about the segregation issue and such. Better to let fact check organization references address those. Maybe something like this:

==Provisions addressing abortion==

Proponents of the law argue that it does not deviate from the Hyde Amendment... cite language of the bill... mention executive order...

===Arguments that the law is more permissive than the Hyde Amendment===

Arguments by U.S. Conference of Bishops, pro-life members of Congress, etc... and then debunking, if any, by fact check organizations.

===Arguments that the law is more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment===

Arguments by NARAL, pro-choice members of Congress, etc... and then debunking, if any, by fact check organizations. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The section "Challenges by private organizations" alleges that Liberty University filed suit against provisions of this bill, but the citation given is not valid. The citation as it currently exists in the article is:

"Liberty Counsel files health care reform bill lawsuit". Huffington Post. March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2010.

but the actual article at the link is titled "Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate" and does not mention Liberty University at all. Additionally, a quick search of Huffington Post failed to yield any article by the title "Liberty counsel files health care reform bill lawsuit" nor any article specifically about a lawsuit by Liberty University filed in 2010 against this bill. This citation needs to be adjusted to match the correct article, if it exists, or removed (along with the associated claim) if it does not.— Kbolino ( talk) 08:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the article exists somewhere. I've known people who have gone to Liberty, and this sounds like something the folks running Liberty would definitely do. But your right, as it currently exists it is definitely a problem. :) Ink Falls 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Alleges?" I think I put that citation in and must've copied-and-pasted the wrong url. Looks like it's been corrected so that the link is to the announcement on Liberty U's on website. The liberty.edu link was what I intended, otherwise I wouldn't have used the exact same headline as on their site. I was putting in a lot of citations that week. Sorry for the goof. MeatheadMathlete ( talk)

What if you refuse to pay the fine? Like flat out refuse to buy insurance, pay the fine or anything else. Will they throw you in jail for not being financially responsible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.95.189 ( talk) 13:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is exemptions for religious reasons and financial hardships, I suspect that people will take advantage of that to avoid the fine. Otherwise it would be treated as an unpaid tax and the government would levy bank accounts, take it out of your tax refund, etc. I can't find any reliable secondary source that discusses this, only the verbage of the bill. It shouldn't be added to the article until such a source exists. — Charles Edward ^{( Talk |  Contribs)} 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, where's the bright line defining what's a religious belief? The Rastafarians have had no luck getting marijuana usage recognized as a spiritual rite. I suppose only popular religions get exemptions for "religious reasons"... not exactly the egalitarian ideal we're led to believe in, hmm? Also, I think people in financial hardship ought to have sense enough to realize how much more they need coverage; when your survival depends, not on capital gains or a stock portfolio, but on an hourly wage, an untreated injury or illness can result in homelessness. I suppose people who are both poor and very foolish may turn up their noses... pity. - Kasreyn ( talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ReignMan's comments, if you're talking about the possibility of throwing someone in jail for failure to pay the monetary penalty for failure to maintain "minimum essential coverage" as provided in the Act, you should be made aware that subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (g) of Internal Revenue Code section 5000A (as enacted by section 1501(b) of the Act) provides as follows (in part):

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Hope that answers your concern. Famspear ( talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, editor Charles Edward is correct that there is a long list of exemptions (such as religious, hardship, incarcerated individuals, taxpayers with low income, etc.) in section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, as enacted by the Act. Famspear ( talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sounds better anyway. I always like the idea of a new program being optional. But, then again, no tax is negotiable. So, what do they do if you refuse to pay? They can't toss you in jail, prosecute, or penalize you, so what's to keep people from refusing? ReignMan ( talk) 01:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's confusion on this point. If you don't pay all the taxes you owe, the U.S. Government can impose fines and penalties, garnish wages, etc. We do not now (and as far as I know, have never had) debtors prisons in this country, either for public or private debts. People go to jail with respect to taxes only when they commit fraud. This "fine" for not having health insurance is a tax. In other words, if you don't have health insurance (and are not exempted from the requirement) then the amount of the fine will simply be added to your federal income tax obligation. So, if you'd normally be due a $1,000 tax refund, but you have a $695 fine for not having health insurance, then you're only going to get a $305 tax refund. If you are not due a tax refund, then you're going to get a bill from Uncle Sam for the amount of the fine. If you don't pay the fine, IRS is going to treat it in the SAME WAY as any unpaid federal income tax. End of story. -- MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 06:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware of most of our tax laws. I guess I must have caught a glimpse of mainstream news. You know, this bill will make them kill your grandmother, etc. This fine thing sounds quite reasonable actually. ReignMan ( talk) 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Maybe not in a timely manner, but ultimately you will have to pay the fine or else they will result to the usual methods of getting taxes paid(wage garnishing, going into your bank accounts, etc). Ink Falls 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is like Social Security, then in order to opt out on religious grounds, one must belong to a religious body that existed before 1950, which affirms as a group that they are opposed to public insurance, and which has a long-standing practice of caring for their own sick and elderly members, as verified by the local SS office. The language was designed with the Amish and Old Order Mennonites in mind. 118.165.204.105 ( talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

why 1950?-- 174.45.157.36 ( talk) 05:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that this "existed before 1950" standard is correct, then that date (1/1/1950) is either established in prior federal statute related to Social Security, or is perhaps established in case law. Assuming 1/1/1950 is correct, no matter how the date was established, it's probably a good guess that the same date would be applied to this new law. Why? Because since Congress didn't specifically address this issue in detail in the new law, the issue will at some point go to court. A court is likely to look at how this issue is addressed in other statutes or case law. Then again, a court could interpret it in completely different way. Time will tell. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 18:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that significant portions of this legislation are based on ideas originally proposed by Republicans. Is this true and what is the history behind the ideas incorporated into this legislation?

I would think that's outside the scope and purpose of this article too. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were true it would be within the scope of the article, origins of law are important when discussing a law-- 174.45.157.36 ( talk) 05:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The legislative history is certainly relevant. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that individual mandate was promoted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Apparently they were for it before they were against it. Go figure. And here's a series of 4 different news clips of Mitt Romney (former Republican governor) promoting the individual mandate: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/video/see-mitt-romney-promote-an-individual-mandate/ Nevertheless, this is still outside the scope and purpose of this article. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be in the article:

On March 24, 2010, the Senate voted 57-42 to reject an amendment proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) which would have prevented federal funding from being used to pay for Viagra for convicted rapists and child molesters. ^[1] Source -- Captain Lance Murdoch ( talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think not. This is merely a minor amendment that became sensationalisitc due to its nature. Let's not give it undue weight. - kur ykh 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it was a minor amendment with the sole purpose of blocking the entire bill. If we listed every procedural trick used on this bill, this would be a Very Long Article.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus you have to ask yourself how anybody could introduce an amendment on March 24th to a bill that was signed into law on March 23. The Colburn Amendment in question was for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, not the PPACA. Also, the proposed amendment was never given an up or down vote to be incorporated into that bill; therefore simply claiming "it was rejected" could lead to incorrect conclusions by the reader. It was tabled or simply postponed from being formally considered at all. George Orwell III ( talk) 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we could add this, but then we'd need to also add all the hundreds of other amendments that were voted on... including in committee. MeatheadMathlete ( talk) 18:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake Tapper has reported on a revised cost estimate by the CBO. Any ideas of how and where to add it? †TE† Talk 20:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding it is problematic without providing the underlying concept of discretionary spending as well - which is what the CBO is actually reporting [1] here. It is "possibly in addition to" the original estimates and not an actual "revision of the scoring" itself. Such discretionary spending is not typically part of scoring because these numbers are soft in comparison to direct spending outlined within the legislation (now a law). George Orwell III ( talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of talk of the new 1099 reporting requirements recently. Seems like we should expand this section.

From what I've read, the real change right now is that if you spend more than $600 someplace, and it isn't exempted on the 1099 IRS form, you submit a 1099. However, the IRS can change what is/is not exempted before 2012.

Seems like this section should be given a little more love :) desk003 ( talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have talked to local IRS about it. They said the 1099 will only need to be issued for business related payments, so this change only affects companies, not individuals. Under the existing law, businesses already required to issue the Form 1099 to individuals who provided services or property to a business, so PPACA expands this requirement to companies also. There is number of exceptions, for example: payments for retail merchandise, telephone, freight, storage, payments of rent to real estate agents are excepted. They also said that IRS really happy about this change, because a lot of income used to go unreported by dishonest companies, giving them unfair advantage over the good ones. Innab ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Question: "Retail merchandise" Does this include items like office supplies, as in Business A buys staples from Business B (Business A is not reselling the staples, just using them), does Business A have to submit a 1099 to business B? Or does this only include merchandise that is to be sold by Business A? If you read around, most websites are reporting it like EVERYTHING over $600 gets a 1099, however that isn't how I read it. At least currently (unless the IRS changes the exceptions) there are exceptions that most of these sites are saying will be 1099-MISC'd. (Okay, $600 is one hell of a lot of staples, but you get the idea.) It seems like this should be expanded to say that (at least in my reading) the IRS could change the exceptions before this actually becomes active, too. Cameron Conner ( talk) 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, for 1099 purposes merchandise are the good sold when no service, such as installation, training, technical support, customizing, etc., is included in the purchase. So I think staples are definetely a retail merchandise. Currently when business purchase a merchandise from individual (such as hand-made craft), they do not have to file 1099. See this article: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_adviser/20040602a1.asp Innab ( talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are Harry Reid's comments about the act even in this article? He is no expert on finances, and there are no conservative's opinions expressly written in here. I think the proper thing to do is either remove Reid's comments or add a viewpoint from someone on the opposite side of the fence...for impartiality's sake JahnTeller07 ( talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem Reid's comments are in the article because he's the Senate Majority Leader and because his amendment offered significant changes to the legislation. If you have similar coverage of amendments offered by the Senate Minority Leader, feel free to add them. - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have more analysis on what emerged from bipartisan discussion and what Republican proposals were actually implemented in response to their concerns. I noticed one article ( The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill) but it doesn't seem quite detailed enough. I may try to work on this later. I'm not sure about Ezra's analysis of (2) and (4) at the moment. II | ( t - c) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"However, these claims are called in to question by some as grossly inaccurate." The source cited does not say "grossly inaccurate". Rather, it says the claim relies on "iffy math", a claim disputed by the administration. Balance? - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents would be we would need a source that says the words "grossly inaccurate" in the exact same context being used in the article. I'm slightly worried about the political context behind the words either way as they tend to reflect the trend of today's current political extremism and the use of inflammatory words to back up people's dislikes and disagreements. Brothejr ( talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This inappropriate edit:

• 15:50, 30 July 2010 JahnTeller07 ( talk | contribs) (Added in small fact)

  However, these claims are called in to question by some as grossly inaccurate. [2]

cites:

• Associated Press (September 9, 2009). Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge. Speech to Congress contains a variety of oversimplifications and omissions.

An Associated Press fact check article on:

• Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009

not
Congressional Budget Office deficit impact analyses of:

• The Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed by the House on November 9, 2009
• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009, passed by the House on March 21, 2010, signed into law (PL 111-148) by President Obama on March 23, 2010—the subject of this Wikipedia article.

Apatens ( talk) 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Read what I just wrote...that's exactly what the article says. Give me one good reason not to include it JahnTeller07 ( talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. Copy and paste the sentence that says that the CBO's projections are grossly inaccurate.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In a speech to the joint session of congress, Obama said that the law would not drive up the deficit; however, this is disputed by some sources. ^[2] That was my inclusion, and that is what the source says. It is impartial, it is unbiased, and it is relevant. It should be included. JahnTeller07 ( talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is NOT referring to the Act this article is about. Further, no source calls is "grossly inaccurate". Saying the source (referring to a different bill) was referring to this Act and saying someone said it was "grossly inaccurate" (when nothing says that) is grossly inaccurate.

JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD ( talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This information may be superfluous in the summary/introduction of the article. It would probably fit much better in the body of the article and thus shorten the introduction. Myownworst ( talk) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the paragraph as it does not belong in the introduction of an encyclopedia entry but the body of one, of which this article contains. Myownworst ( talk) 08:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should please explain how the bill affects birth control coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.51.140 ( talk) 05:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What type of birth control are you talking about? That's a very broad concept (i.e. Sex Ed, Contraceptives, Abortion). Please clarify. Myownworst ( talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The new Medicare taxes take effect in 2013, not 2014 ~ http://medicare.org/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/medicare-blog/1-latest/249-new-medicare-related-taxes-in-2013 Myownworst ( talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why was my edit deleted? In terms of impact on the 2010 election cycle, several House democrats have run political ads highlighting their "no" votes on the bill, while there have not been any political ads highlighting a "yes" vote since April, when Harry Reid ran one. ^[3] Under the public opinion impact section (or whatever it was called)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHOisterrible10 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I read through the Massachusetts health care reform article the other day, and it's not in very good shape. Just wanted to mention it, in case any of you are interested. You're help would be invaluable.-- Dark Charles ( talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there some provision on lifetime maximums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.119.241 ( talk) 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. I added it yesterday-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are there no references to deem-and-pass, also known as the Slaughter Solution?

because it isn't at all relevent-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Link 41, linking to the part of the act referring to dependents under 26 is dead. Can someone find another link? 12.172.67.7 ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone fixed it, currently link 42. This comment is to save others from having to check. Allreet ( talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the recent federal court ruling dismissing a suit by Michigan's Thomas More Law Center. Initially, I included this at the end of the State Challenges section, where it fit rather nicely. Then I saw the section on Private Challenges, so based on the header, my addition would belong there. When I moved it, I noticed the existing text mentioned the Thomas More suit. I could carpet the two together but wanted feedback on the following:

• The Liberty University source mentions only Commerce Clause concerns with no specific reference to religion other than "concerns of...religious institutions." Likewise, the Thomas More source only mentions general constitutional issues, with no reference to either the Commerce Clause or religion.
• The More source does provide a link to the law center's complaint, which raises a slew of issues, including specifics on Commerce Clause and 1st Amendment concerns. Here is where the religion-related details may have come from, but why someone would focus on just that is beyond me.
• It strikes me that the Liberty/More paragraph is too detailed and that the three subsections confuse things somewhat. For one, the State Challenges section probably already took into account the More/Liberty suits in mentioning the suits in Michigan and Virginia.

Best, I think, would be to name the main section Legal Issues, change State Challenges to Court Challenges and drop the Private Challenges subsection (which if retained, should be second and not last). Then there won't be any confusion over private suits mixed in with the state-initiated cases. As for the More/Liberty paragraph itself, I believe it lacks notability and general substance (by just highlighting religious issues). No other suit gets this much attention, nor is there room for detailing all the suits. Feedback? Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 19:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable -- give it a try and see how it works. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I renamed and re-did the section, focusing on recent federal court rulings. I did so expecting subsequent rulings to be added. Eventually, as more develops on the legal front, much of this will need to be re-worked. For now, it provides information on the latest developments. I decided to drop the Liberty University information, as well as the original Thomas More material, based on notability, plus the material had become somewhat dated. Allreet ( talk) 05:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a shot at cleaning up this section, then became concerned about the use of cites and information. One citation, for example, was to a blog, an opinion column by a newspaper reporter. I've removed the quote from the column as unreliable and violating NPOV. Also, the NY Times quote from the White House official, though legitimate, appears to be somewhat out of context and extraneous. It's not quite a non sequitor, but in my opinion, it was dropped in, as was other material, to make a political point. In addition, other statements were worded to color the situation as more negative than what the sources indicate. Please compare my changes with what was here, and let me know what you think. I'd like to re-work the section, including adding and straightening out details and bringing in a couple other sources. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 06:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be a section discussing how this will effect what a typical person will pay for healthcare. It should compare cost before the program and after.( Mil112 ( talk) 15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

The article addresses individual and busines impact, but seems to leave out the policy impact.

Reinsurance Community Health Centers Community Mental Health Centers Reducing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Title IV. Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health Title V. Health Care Workforce Investing in Primary Care Increasing the Supply of Primary Care Providers in Underserved Communities Increasing the Supply of Nurses Strengthening the Public Health Workforce Innovations in Health Care Workforce Planning Supporting the Next Generation of Health Professionals Expanding Community Health Centers Title VI. Transparency and Program Integrity Title VII. Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies Title VIII. Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act) -- Annestacia ( talk) 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Go add them then!-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a section in the article dedicated to the impact of the bill (i.e. the legal changes and rhe financial aspect of the bill). But included in this is a further subsection called Threats of Violence which is really out of place because it is talking about threats made to members of Congress as intimidation, presumably to make them vote in a different way to the way they might otherwise have voted.

This text surely does not belong in the "impact" section and given that the article now is really about a piece of passed legislation and not its complicated birth pangs, I feel inclined to delete the section and replace it with a reference to intimidation during passage in the "politics" section. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. You can move that section into " Health care reform debate in the United States" article. Innab ( talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I added CBO numbers and quotations, but Hauskalainen deleted them. [3] Obviously I disagree with the deletion and especially the edit summary (HK deleted the final numbers but summarized by saying only the final numbers - which HK had deleted - matter), and long experience has taught me that discussion with Hauskalainen never leads to agreement, but I would like to hear from other editors on this before escalating it to a different forum. TVC 15 ( talk) 21:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I will say that the figures that were in the article some time ago when I last looked at before making that last edit was that the figures showed the CBO estimates for the bill(s) as passed. When I looked more recently there was text that said the CBO had changed the figures many times, but there was no explanation as to why. This gave, I thought, a false impression that the figures were highly uncertain. But as far as I know, the figures have been modified over time only as the bill has progressed and been put to the CBO for a re-assessment given changes in the content of the bill. I can think of only one minor occasion when the estimate was adjusted because of an error. This repeated modification of estimates as bills are modified in write up is, I believe, normal practice and therefore it was misleading to give the impression that the numbers for the final legislation as enacted has constantly changed. The only figure that really matters is the figure as it was when the main bill and the reconciliation bill were passed. Now as for the claim that the bill does not include the so called Doc Fix, that is quite true. But it is also misleading. The Doc Fix may or may not happen. It usually does but it is costed separately each time it is enacted. That is a cost associated with the doc fix and IS NOT RELEVANT to this bill. It is therefore misleading to say that you have to include it, because you don't. It is another issue altogether and not relevant for this bill (though of course some politicians like to say it should be). The author of the other article I deleted tries to do this because the institute that employs him has a POV position. Wikipedia is not here to repeat POV position using unfounded connections. It is OK for WP to present POV positions but they have to be countered. They cannot be inserted in way that does not provide balance. It is wrong to say as the article did, that "CBO was required to exclude from its initial estimates the effects of concurrent "doc fix" legislation (see above) that would increase Medicare payments by more than $200 billion from 2010-2019", because that makes it sound as if someone had told CBO "hey, don't include the doc fix because that would make the numbers seem awful". CBO did not include the doc fix because THAT REQUIRES SEPARATE LEGISLATION and therefore CBO was doing EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES WITH EVERY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I did not look to see who included the doc fix claim into the article (and I still have not), so if this was you, don't take it personally. I was just doing what every good editor should do. Check the relevance to the article, check the sources, and check the text for NPOV and accuracy, and remove anything that could mislead or present a POV as being neutral. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CBO's changing intermediate estimates, I will leave the defense of their inclusion to the editors who added them. However, the final estimates, including doc fix etc., are obviously notable. Doc fix is relevant because the authors of ObamaCare required CBO to score it based on the false assurance that "reform" would replace doc fix, even though the very same people did in fact pass and sign doc fix legislation on their usual installment schedule. And yes, their apparent motive was to avoid the fact that the actual numbers are awful. That is a principal reason why Paul Ryan is the incoming Budget Committee Chair in the House of Representatives. (He is the same Paul Ryan who asked CBO for the combined estimate.) Hauskalainen, most American voters, the CBO, and the incoming House Budget Committee chair, all disagree with you, so I have no hope of persuading you, but someday perhaps you will consider the possibility that even you can be wrong sometimes. Meanwhile, I still hope to hear from other editors. TVC 15 ( talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no input so far from other editors, I've made a compromise edit, leaving out CBO's intermediate estimates that HK deleted while restoring the final combined estimate. I still hope to hear from others so that we can work towards consensus. TVC 15 ( talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For here, I agree with Hauskalainen - adding in numbers from separate pieces of legislation isn't right for this article. Adding it to larger health reform article makes sense. I'm leery about combining numbers from different acts because it because too easy to cook the numbers anyway somebody wants. By saying just this law only, it limits how much "cooking" can be done. This does need to get resolved one way or the other. I've gone ahead and removed same note in the Effects on national spending section. If it's decided to keep the mention, it should be in one section or the other, not both. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction - I did not remove the mention. It seems a bit intwined with the para, and I'd prefer not to mess that up at the moment. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The new law contains the word "mandate" in several places but these all relate to the coverage that health insurance companies must satisfy to meet the minimum coverage standards. This is legally correct. A mandate is an order to do something. An insurance company cannot claim that a policy meets the standards under the law if it does not meet these mandated standards. If it does so, it is in breach of a mandate. This is simply not so with the tax imposed on people who opt not to have health insurance. People who do not have coverage may be exempt from the tax or they may be covered by the tax. Being declared liable to pay a tax does not mean you have broken the law because having insurance is not a mandate. The situation is similar to the law in Virginia regarding third party liability insurance for auto insurance. There is no third party liability motor insurance mandate, but a person who has neither bought insurance nor placed a bail bond with the DMV surety has to pay a tax of $500 a year. The tax is an incentive to do something which some people might otherwise not do. Just as special taxes on cigarettes in Europe are an incentive to give up smoking. There is no "mandate" forbidding smoking, and there will be no mandate in the USA forbidding people not to have health insurance.

Clearly what has happened is that certain politicians have labeled this "a mandate" when it really is not. The press in the USA it seems has been lazy and has been calling it what some politicians have called it. Clearly this has been done for political reasons. I read through the judgment in the Virgina case recently and the judge did not at any time refer to the requirement to have insurance OR pay a fine as a "mandate". There simply is not a mandate. So the next question has to be whether we reflect, uncritically, what the press has been saying, or whether we reflect reality. My preference is to reflect reality and refer to what the law calls it, which is a tax on those who are insured. That section of the law has a preamble which makes it perfectly plain that the law makers were imposing this tax because being uninsured adds costs onto the rest of the community as reflected in higher prices on insured persons today and on the government which pays a price for uncompensated care. The article should not use the term "mandate" without putting it in quotation marks and explaining why it is not really a mandate. It would be appropriate for that to happen once in the article and all references thereafter should be to the tax on uninsured persons and not to "individual mandate" or "mandate". For this reason I reverted a simple usage of the term without a proper explanation. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. Still, it doesn't matter one bit. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says to call it what the source calls it. WP:MOS 1.3 Follow the sources. Further, the Act itself does not call the IM a tax, but does call it a penalty. Also, EACH and EVERY judgment that has come down so far with regard to PPACA legal challeges have dismissed the government's argument that the IM is a tax. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Semantics wins again? - technically using mandate is wrong; using tax is wrong as well -- but that's how lame-stream media has whittled down this complexity so that it can fit unto a 2 page blog or a 3 minute segment without most folks tunning out/clicking away. Hooray for perpetual ignorance I suppose... but the reality is simply that the legislative language constitutes wjat is considered a penalty for not obtaining one degree of coverage or another by a certain point in time. This penalty is to be collected in the same manner, by the same gov't entity (IRS) and at the same time as personal income taxes are collected. Doing otherwise could be considered 'inefficient'. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 02:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What we are talking about in this article is the law. We should stick to what the law calls it. Earlier drafts of this law did call it a tax, but I will go with penalty. I would ask Foofighter20x why he rejects the idea that the article should explain that it is not strictly speaking a mandate to have insurance, and why we should not call it a penalty instead? What is he afraid of? -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 02:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with that... though the taunting isn't really needed to support the notion that the correct term should be 'penalty' IMHO. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 03:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, Haus, quit assuming bad faith. It's unfortunate for you that in this instance WP policy is in opposition to your stance. No need to take it out on me, however: don't shoot the messenger as it only make YOU look bad. Secondly, I would suggest you go read the judgments handed down. They explain a lot about why it's not a tax, and in some instances cite cases going back over 100 years. I'm just as happy as you to call it a penalty, just not a tax penalty. The court opinions, recalling off the top of my head, made statements to the effect that it is actually a regulatory penalty in its structure (which only returns the point at issue to the conflict over whether it is actually a valid exercise of the Interstate Commerce Clause in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause), but I'd stick with the language of the act, which is simply penalty. Thirdly, this is the crux of your problem: find an independent and reliable third-party source ( WP:RS and WP:VER) that make the characterization you are making, else you are engaging in original research ( WP:OR) and information synthesis ( WP:SYNTH), both being against WP policy. Until then, it needs to remain as individual mandate since that is what the source given has called it. Now, go out and actually do the work before making unilateral changes apparently based only on what you think but for which you haven't provided any cites. Peace out. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You avoided the issue by accusing me of assuming bad faith and focusing on the issue of tax versus penalty. What I am asking you is why it is that you seem not to want the article to explain that it is not a mandate in the normal sense. In my understanding of the English language a mandate is an order and is not negotiable or avoidable. There is thus a conflict between normal usage and this specific usage. Not everyone that reads Wikipedia will be familiar with this peculiar usage for a mandate that is avoidable by alternative paying a "fine" (another weird usage of language because unlike normal fines there is no penalty for non payment.) It really does seem to me that you are using the argument of hiding behind the sources rule to avoid the quite reasonable issue that I have raised. I have not said that we should not use "mandate", but rather that the particular usage needs to be explained.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 07:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is laughable. I've avoided nothing by returning the discussion to what Wikipedia Policy is and pointing out that your edits have been in violation thereof. And the fact that you've assumed bad faith isn't something that occurred only to me: George pegged it for childish taunting above before I responded the second time. Seems there's a small consensus about that running against you... But if you really want to argue semantics, fine.

• First, the etymology of mandate is the Latin word mandamus which means "we command." So in the sense that a mandate is an order, you are correct.
• Secondly, it appears the media have chose the word/phrase not necessarily for the form of the requirement, but instead for the practical end effect. Criminal and regulatory statutes are hardly ever written in the positive sense of what the legislature wants its citizens to do. In fact, they are typically written to describe the behavior that is prohibited and then describes the penalty for acting in a manner that fits the description of the prohibited act. In this case, the prohibited behavior is going without medical insurance. The penalty is a fine determined by one's income, and is not imposed solely because one has earned an income (which means it's not a tax).
• Thirdly, you are pushing a fallacious argument known as a distinction without a difference. Traffic laws mandate one not exceed posted speed regulations, under penalty of a fine, license points, or license revocation. It doesn't matter that such laws don't necessarily command one to obey, but instead merely describe the prohibited activity of exceeding the posted speed regulation. The end result is the same either way. Point being: it's the end effect that matters, not the form of its prescription. Whenever government places anyone under threat of force (whether by death, by imprisonment, or by fine or forfeiture of property) for doing or not doing any action, that's a mandate. It's implicit. To avoid the penalty, one must do or not do, respectively, the prohibited action or omission.

I think it's that third point which is most important, and also helps reveal your idiosyncratic perspective on the semantics involved. The falsity of your perspective is revealed through simple before and after analysis. BEFORE the law: one had a free choice over whether to purchase or not purchase private medical insurance. If one did not purchase, no monetary penalty was paid to government. The person could pocket the cash saved and then do whatever they wanted with it. AFTER the law: one must purchase private medical insurance or pay a penalty. Either way, the person has to pay something to some other party. In essence, some of the cash they could pocket before from remaining inert now, at the least, must be given to government if not paid to an insurance company for a government-approved insurance plan. Whether its called a tax or a penalty is irrelevant to the fact that one MUST (that is, is required to do something of necessity) hand over some monetary amount where one did not have to before. That's the mandate placed on the individual, hence "individual mandate."

Finally, no one here is saying the concept cannot be explained, but instead are only asking you provide an independent and reliable source that is verifiable for any explanation you might offer. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thought out but nevertheless an assumption since all this has not been put into practice yet nor has the complimentary regulations been finalized yet. Unless this caveat is added it still comes off as subjective tea-leaves reading rather than objective analysis at this stage of implementation. This jibes with other yet to be realized notion of the hiring of tens of thousouds of new IRS employees to investigate and enforce the new mandate/penalty/tax -- something which has also not happened but has been assumed to be a truth in spite of any evidence of such hirings taking place. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I do realize that my explanation is based squarely on legal theory and that application of the statute itself is for now somewhat tentative. Still, the intent of the legislature, in this instance, is manifest, and since my analysis conforms to that legislative intent, my point stands. Further, despite the tentative nature, every court that has heard the case has found the plaintiffs to have standing, which means the threat of injury is real enough that the courts could reach the merits of the case. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not going to be doing any hiring until they have been funded to do so. This has not happened, and may not happen if Republicans "defund" parts of the bill in order to kill it. Arzel ( talk) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Obama administration has changed (and continues to change) what it is that they are calling it. During debate the Obama administration stated that it was not a tax, but a Mandate. They did not want to use the word Tax because Obama had said, and continues to say that no taxes will be raised on those making less than $250K. After the law was passed and the legal challenges began the Obama administration changed their line to now claim it is a tax. Since congress has the ability to levy taxes for pretty much anything, they get past the constitutional hurdle of forcing a person to buy something under the commerce clause. It doesn't help that they continue to blur what it is depending on the audience, however it is quite clear. You will be forced (mandated) to purchace health insurance. If you do not you will have to pay a penalty (tax) through your tax return. If you really want to see if it is not a fine and a legal obligation all you will have to do is set up your tax witholding so that you don't get a refund and then not buy health insurance. Don't pay the extra "fine" for health insurance (which would normally come out of your refund) and see what happens. My guess is you would be fined and then have to pay a penalty on the taxes you did not pay making this both a mandate and a tax. :) Arzel ( talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem with legislation and legal statutes in general on WP. Unless some after-the-fact entity acurately describes the legalese language found in the original Act or legislation faithfully, one can easily dismiss the original language as being 'original research' when there is no secondary entity using that original language. As we all know by now, they tend to paraphrase or simplify it for the supposed benefit of the reader at large. IMHO, there is no place for subjective anything under specific articles (such as this PPACA one) but should be used in concepts (health reform in the United States) instead.

This is not the case in traditional encyclopedias as they usually quote the content from the original and then supply a breakdown of definitions of the day for any words or phrases typically not considered "common" in the content. They leave out any subjective analysis of the content while Wikipedia relies on this subjective analysis otherwise it is in conflict with the principle of 'original research'. Unless one can find a source who happens to be a lawyer or versed in legal terms I'm afraid all you will find on wikipedia is paraphrased or over-simplified blogosphere-like analysis and the catch-phrases or buzzwords they have used rather than objective article content. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a Mandate. The Tax is the Penalty for not purchasing health insurance. It cannot be a penalty as you were stating earlier. A penalty is the punishment for not doing what you are supposed to do. In this case the penalty is a Tax (or fine depending on what audience the gov is talking to). The action which is subject to the penalty is the Mandate. Arzel ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the bill/Act? The only thing approaching any mandate has to do with the reporting of qualified coverage or the lack thereof. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 18:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for the specific word "mandate" it may not appear, I have not read the whole bill. However, the RS's available refer to it as a "mandate" most, if not all, of the time. That it is a mandate is quite clear, but obviously you don't like the word "mandate". Perhaps you could explain the problem you have with that word. Arzel ( talk) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy. Not having insurance in 2014 will not be illegal. Ergo it is not mandatory. Mandatory things come from mandates. There is no mandate. The press gets around this in part by saying (usually) that the law "mandates that every adult should have insurance or else pay a fine". This is broadly correct, but this does not mean that the law contains a mandate to have insurance as mandates do not have an opt out clause. If there is a free choice (to have insurance or pay a fine) then this is a choice and not a mandate. There are mandated things in the law but they relate to compulsory orders on insurance companies not on individuals. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So we have a choice of either buying insurance or being punished? And this is not a mandate how? I don't think punishing yourself would be considered an opt out. I think you have a strange concept of free choice when both choices are not free. Ironically you are also mandated that you must buy a certain type of insurance, that it is first mandated onto the insurance companies is really just sematics, as is your argument against using the word mandate in the first place. Arzel ( talk) 06:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be getting the point that this debate is over the wording of provisions that become effective in 2017 and the option of state waivers (Section 1332 in the bill - NOT so much Section 1501). We properly used "penalty" when describing the law (Section 1501) in the Effective January 1, 2014 section but strayed from the law in the Effective January 1, 2017 section by referring to the waiver option (Section 1332) with the addition of some Huffington Post article and it's use of the term "individual mandate" as an example of something that can be waived. Section 1332 of the bill makes no specific mention of any particular provision just the outline of parameters that must be met to secure a waiver at that point. Section 1332 (the possible waivers starting 2017 part) makes no reference to Section 1501 (the "penalty" stuff starting 2014) -- some jiblet from the Huffington Post made the association based on assumptions not yet close to playing out (i.e. no state has come out with getting a waiver as far as I know to supersede the "mandate" or whatever you want to call it). -- George Orwell III ( talk) 13:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. You don't like the word Mandate for apparently political reasons and you are trying to make a Distinction without a difference. Arzel ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No I don't like the inclusion of ANY provision possibly associated with section 1332 (the waivers starting 2017 part) because no provision is specified in the law. The law merely opens the possibility for certain provision to be waived if States' are able to provide comparible replacement for any such provision. The way it is worded makes it sound like the sole reason for section 1332 is to provide a way to circumvent section 1501 (your madate, penalty, tax or whatever) when that is one alledged possibility as stated by one politician. The reality is we don't know what provisions may or may not be waived because no regulations have been prescribed by HHS yet outlining what can and what can't fall under qualifying for a waiver. Wrong is wrong. Subjective assumption should be noted and worded as a subjective assumption - not as the word of the law. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 01:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That states can opt out, thus negating the federal mandate, is of no importance when states are required to meet or exceed the federal law. In other words, there is no distinction to an individual person. From a person's point of view they either have a federal mandate or a state mandate. What is the difference?

Is there a consensus in the reliable secondary sources (especially more recent ones) for how it's described? Ravensfire ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mandate Arzel ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) @( talk) Of course, the law has been designed to give people every encouragement to get insured (i.e. widening Medicaid eligibility for the very poor, subsidies for those on higher incomes, and the choice of a legally unenforceable penalty for choosing not being insured). I have no doubt that some will argue (as you do) that it is not a choice at all. The choice may be limited but it is not a Hobson's choice. What we have here is this

"a mandate on those without insurance to get insured with a free opt-out (for some) and an opt-out at the cost of a fine (or none if you choose not to pay the fine) for everyone else"

The press and some politicians thus use the term "individual mandate" because calling it "a mandate on those without insurance to get insured with a free opt-out (for some) and an opt-out at the cost of a fine (or none if you choose not to pay the fine) for everyone else" at every usage would be untenable. That is perhaps fine in the United States where the new usage may be understood. But Wikipedia is read worldwide. Wikipedia should not use colloquial English but should explain the individual mandate fully and then use it thereafter in quotation marks. That is all that I am suggesting. Our job as editors is to explain and not to deceive.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 13:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Our job as editors is to accurately reflect what our content sources say. You may very well be correct in your own analysis, but it's yours. That's Original Research and does not comply with Wikipedia Content Policy. As I've been saying all along: find an independent, reliable, and verifiable source for this explanation. I seriously doubt that is asking too much. Do the work. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Who says that it is legally unenforceable? I certainly think it will be if anyone cares to take it that far, but at this point it must be assumed to be legally enforceable and thus a mandate. Really, I don't understand why you are trying to wordsmith this. The basic premise of this bill is not workable unless everyone buys into the plan. Obama knows this, the Dems know this the GOP knows this, everyone knows this. That is why it is almost universally referred to as a mandate in RS's. I don't see any deception in calling it what the the vast majority of RS's call it. The law was designed to force everyone to purchase a specific government approved form of health insurance, and if you don't you have to pay a fine which would in effect cover your cost if you had purchased that insurance. You are correct though, it is not a Hobson's Choice. It is a Morton's fork.

New editor, but a long-time tax pro. The Child Tax Credit is not refundable, though the Additional Child Tax Credit is. A better example is the Earned Income Credit. Changing on article next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaghettus1 ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new law as amended would reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the first decade and in the decade after that by an amount equivalent in a broad range between one quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. ^[4]" From the introduction because it does not belong there. If you want to add it to the section on IMPACT then do so.-- The Trucker ( talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The introduction has been badly damaged. There is information about the public option and "free market prevailing" in the introduction which not only compromises the neutrality of the article, but if anything should be in the body of the article. I urge immediate changes to this. Myownworst ( talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've edited it down.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 02:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited further. Both the public option and exchanges are described and discussed in the body of the article. The introduction should be as short as possible. Myownworst ( talk) 04:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the public option in the introduction is unnecessary and the way it is worded compromises the neutrality of the article. Myownworst ( talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I disgree strongly. The lede summarizes the article so it is expected that the lede will mention topics in the body of the article. Both are key elements of the law and need to be in the lede. The issue of the "mandate" was raised on this page and at the noticeboard for reliable sources where it was agreed that the mandate needs to be explained. It is not really a mandate but a penalty on people without insurance. That was not properly explained in the article and as the mandate is mentioned in several places without a proper explanation it needs to be mentioned early on and the lede is as a good a place as any given that it does not deserve its own section. I do not see how it "compromises neutrality" to explain what it is.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 06:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The way it is worded makes it sound as though the public option ought to be demeaned, which compromises neutrality. Also, the introduction is very long. Parts that are in the introduction that one may feel should be there would probably be best moved to the body of the article to keep the intro as short as possible. The public option and statement on the mandate should be moved to the body, and the introduction should be abbreviated considerably. Myownworst ( talk) 11:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it demeaned? I read it as saying the some people wanted it and the vote was lost in the Senate. As I read it, it is both accurate and neutral. We should not spend much time discussing what is NOT in the law. The lede is supposed to give a "heads up" as to the content so it is natural that the lede is brief with more to be found down below. I did cut the lede quite considerably as you suggested but it cannot be stripped of useful summary.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no public option in Public Law 111-148. Why or how that came to be should be, at the very least, in some other section if included in this article at all. That non-option should be raised over in one of the 'health care reform in the United States' type articles IMHO.

Also, the so-called individual mandate probably needs to be explained somewhere in this article but also feel it does not belong in the intro. The nuance or mis-conception surrounding the "mandate" is only reinforced by introducing it prior to better explaining the mis-conceptions/nuances away in detail in the body somewhere. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged "mandate" is mentioned in several places in different guises but none of them explained it fully. Therefore we had terminology being used in several places with no explanation of what it meant. The mandate is one of the main points of contention so its importance is high. This is why I think it should be in the lede and explained there.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am in agreement that the usage and explaination of the term "[individual] mandate" is/was lacking and your blurb attempting to resolve that was a great start. In my view, the placement of both the percieved contention and the nuances attempting to expand on it anywhere in the intro/lede (as well as anywhere before the summary of provisions) "betrays" the desired neutrality expected in most well-written WP articles and inadvertently gives the percieved point of contention undue weight.

If we mention "individual mandate" in the intro but not the complimentary employer responsibilities & requirements, we are moving perception towards one provision over the others. If you try to balance that by adding an employer's compliment, then we have moved weight away from the tax-breaks and subsidies a portion of these employer's recieve for compliance in return - never mind the list of possible exclusions to Subtitle F involving religous beliefs, American Indians, native Alaskians, etc, etc.

I understand the desire to expand upon the usage of the term mandate but doing so in the lede and/or before the summary of the 10 Titles' provisions, skews its relationship to the many other facets of the law (injecting undue weight; introducing bias and so on in the process).

Plus, having it mentioned so early on and at the same time trying to clarify its usage in one or two sentences isn't really doing the issue any justice IMHO either. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 23:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the employer mandate also needs to be in the article though not in the lede. It is very similar to the Individual mandate. Lets add it. I would accept that having specific mention of the individual mandate in the lede gives it extra weight but I would not say that this is "undue weight". Surely it is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" that is causing so much of an issue in the courts and why it is mentioned in several places in the article. If we did not explain it in the lede where else should it be explained?-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the focus this particular month/week/day/hour or minute happens to revolve around the most recent court actions doesn't make it OK to usurp the neutrality a WP article strives for, be it the intro or not. We'd wind up playing the role of a common blogger instead of free online encyclopedia if we bend and sway to appease every latest development. I'm totally not saying that it shouldn't be addressed somewhere in the article - just that doing so that early on in the article only compounds issues of bias, neutrality, etc., when the flavor of minute switches back to costs/deficits/administration as it once did not too long ago. You may have observed in similar WP articles that such shifts in focus tend to push "upwards" in the document-tree; and, in an attempt by contributors to compete with, then overtake the prior point of focus, the intro/lede morphs back into another "meaty" analysis that should be occuring somewhere after the intro and basics have been outlined for readers first.

My gut instinct is that once "Constitutionality" falls from the top of the news cycles, we'd be stuck going through the same issue/edit wars as this article is going through now. Rather than dumping "upwards", I think the intro, background/legislative history should be lean & limited in scope; squeezing a new section ('Key components'?) before/into/after(?) the summary of Provisions (which is also all over the place IMHO. Should follow the progression of Titles as laid out by the enrolled legislation's table of contents and as the Congressional Research Service has done in their summary [4] as well). I know the above isn't much in the way of a solution but I hope it helps further the debate at least -- George Orwell III ( talk) 07:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a continued attempt to downplay the requirements that people are required to have a federally approved health insurance policy. There also appears to be a strong effort to remove any mention of the word mandate or try to imply that there really is no mandate. The time for wordsmithing what this law requires needs to end. Arzel ( talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with the "requirements" (as you call them) prescribed by this law (and have made no such edits pro or con against them btw) but I think they have no business being a.) in the intro/lede paragraphs nor do I think that any analysis of said requirements b.) belongs in the outline of provisions/effective dates section either. Acknowledging that there rightly seems to be little where else to currently expand upon such details, the only place to expand/analyize such requirements is on their own mainspace articles (which in theory should point-back/refer to the specific provision(s) here in the PPACA as needed) is all I'm saying. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 19:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Arzel. Where has anyone added text which "downplays" the issue? I added a reference to it in the lede and to the main changes in the law. I would say though that there is no "mandate" to have Federally approved health insurance because there are several examples of alternatives NOT to have federally approved health insurance. One legal way to avoid it is to pay the penalty. If we explain why the fine exists, and what the other alternatives are, how can this be "playing down" the issue? Surely it is explaining the issue.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The individual mandate (or tax for not buying something, whatever you want to call it) is so crucial to this legislation yet that does not really come out the way the article is currently structured. It could do a better job of that. For example, without the individual mandate, insurers cannot realistically be required to accept pre-existing conditions. Yet the pre-existing conditions provision is mentioned way before any mention of the individual mandate.

That's just one example, don't you think the entire article could use an overhaul, though?

Along the same lines, just about all of the constitutional challenges in court right now are around the individual mandate as well, and as mentioned before, if that fails, most of the entire law fails. It's a huge deal but that's not very apparent from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.149.81.190 ( talk) 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely but it's probably going to be reverted very soon. It's also very good and HOW AN ENCYCLOPEDIA INTRODUCTION OUGHT TO BE. Put all the info you want in the BODY of the article. It makes it flow so much better. Myownworst ( talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I used my best law school skills and poured through the actual act. Individual mandate is never mentioned nor is mandatory individual insurance. An explanation for this provision is not mentioned either. I cited information from law-writers as to the purpose of mandatory individual health insurance.

Myownworst ( talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The act is written in statutory language, while dry, is important to interpret correctly. The best source for official, actual, provable information is from the act itself. Myownworst ( talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - I really appreciate your help with fine-tuning the semantics of the summaries. I believe we, and others, can effectively work to make it sound as neutral and 'encyclopedia-like' as possible. Friendly discourse is the best means to collaborate on Wiki and all editors should take it to heart without inputting their own opinions/original research. Myownworst ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - not everyone has to buy insurance. This is true and stated in the statute. The alternative to not purchasing insurance is paying a penalty. This is directly from the law. Let me know what you think. I genuinely want your opinion and feedback. We should really work to improve this to the best it can be. Thanks, Myownworst ( talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION - there is a mention of a fine (see SEC. 1555). However, penalty is used more frequently, so it perhaps would be more efficient to use this term Myownworst ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)