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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
ABC News has just published this article which is titled "Experts argue Obamacare mistake could doom key part of law." I think this information would make an excellent addition to the article. Tones shook 251 ( talk) 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
My addition of the word "tax" to modify "penalty" in the lede has been deleted as being "confusing". IMO the word provides important context. This landmark Supreme Court decision hinges on the single premise that the penalty, which is an essential part of the individual mandate, is constitutional only because it could have been levied under the auspices of the taxing power of Congress, but not under the Commerce Clause. If the penalty is not a tax, then the mandate is unconstitutional, and, arguably, the entire law is unconstitional.
I know that those who wrote the bill went to great lengths to assure that the word tax" appears nowhere in this massive document, but the fact remains that it is a tax collected by the IRS. I know that the fact that it is a tax creates another serious challenge to President Obama's credibility and re-election chances. However, failure to include it is an obvious Pro-Obama POV.
Perhaps "tax penalty" is quasi-redundant (all taxes are penalties, but not all penalties are taxes) If that's the problem, then I vote for dropping the word 'penalty". I think the word "tax" should precede the word "penalty" in every instance in the document.-- Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In any case, the most honest and WP:NPOV-compliant approach is probably to explain that the term "tax" is controversial and politically loaded, and that at various times both Republican and Democratic politicians have embraced and rejected the term. Personally, I don't really feel strongly about how it's described in the lead; I think "penalty", "penalty fee", and "tax penalty" are all adequately accurate, but I also understand the political motivation (both in real life and on Wikipedia) to favor one set of terms or the other.
As a separate matter, since we seem a bit obsessed with the word "tax", the lead needs to mention that insurance purchases are subsidized - with tax credits - for people earning <4x the poverty line. That's a central component of the law, but was strangely absent from the lead until I added it just now. MastCell Talk 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
When you are not in compliance with the PPACA, you are subject to a penalty. The fee or fine for your specific non-compliance has no bearing on others who are compliant with PPACA and, therefore, not subject to a fee or fine like you are. The taxation and finance arm of the Federal government, the IRS, is tasked with collecting the non-compliance with the PPACA fine - so it can be said the 'penalty can be construed as a tax' (construed being the key term that must appear if the word tax is to appear along with penalty And still be correct as far as the supreme court ruling goes) -- George Orwell III ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We should call the thing whatever reliable sources are calling it. If different reliable sources are calling it different things then that fact should probably be flagged in the article. But the bottom line is that proposals to change what we call it should be supported by reliable sources. This whole thread is basically a wash since it doesn't contain a single argument citing a single news article. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To move the conversation forward, I did some research and found very little. As expected the leading news outlets have generally been avoiding using the terms "penalty," "tax," and "tax penalty" since the Supreme Court ruling. The best I could find was this: "The mandate is a central piece of the health care law and is enforceable with a penalty assessed through the tax system." I rather like that description, "a penalty assessed through the tax system." While it's wordy it's educational, and it avoids the hyperpartisan debate of the day.-- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The provisions of the PPACA in question have been enacted, codified and finally upheld by the highest court. Any questions arising from that point on forward are Title 26 and/or Title 42's domain now. The opinion of the court is now precedent. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The only place where the term "tax" becomes remotely associated with "penalty [fee]" is after June 12th, 2012, in one or more of the opinions handed down in the Supreme Court's ruling on the Sebelius case. I understand your point about mandate being mentioned (something I'm against personally; see 3rd run above) but to associate it here with the smallest sliver of tangent association, not from the legislation or the law itself but from the opinion(s) of the Justices of the high court, is wrong imo and gives it undue weight. The term used in the language of the bill, as subsequently enacted into law, is "penalty" or "fee" - or more accurately "penalty fee". Let's talk about removing as many of the 'specifics' in the lede as possible if you want to persist on this - not by adding quantifiers to those specifics (quantifiers given only as judicial opinion rather than part of the actual legislative content & interpreted in full in its own article(s) elsewhere to boot). -- George Orwell III ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal... I'm not sure I agree that the material in question is WP:RECENTISM. The PPACA has been central to partisan political debate since its passage in 2009. The PPACA was a major, if not the major, issue in the Republican mid-term election victories in 2010. The repeal efforts have been ongoing for three years, from the day after the PPACA was passed right up through this month. I think that if we want to write a solid WP:LEAD that covers all relevant aspects of the topic, we can't completely omit the partisan and polarized political response to the Act from the lead. It's been an issue over the entire 3-year-and-counting lifetime of PPACA, not just a recent news item. MastCell Talk 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
An anon IP updated the "Change in number of insured" subsection to reflect today's CBO press release, and it's exposed some gaps or factual inaccuracies. The first sentence says that the CBO's estimate was a reduction of 30 million uninsured. All of the citations for this statement are either dead links or to other reduced estimates released by the CBO in March 2012. This needs to be fixed. Then it says that today the CBO has revised the number from 13 million down to 6 million. W-w-what? What happened to the jump from 30 million to 13 million? This needs to be explained. Someone with a decent understanding of the subject matter should sift through the citations, make sure we're comparing apples to apples, fill in the gaps, and fix the citations appropriately. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick survey of the reporting on today's CBO press release and I can't find any sources that support the CNN's statement that the projected number of uninsured will drop from 13 million to 7 million. Here's an example of what I'm seeing. There seems to be widespread disagreement about the CBO's estimates. Maybe we should remove this stuff entirely until the media manages to sort it out. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
From CBO's latest PDF, footnotes for graphs at end & footnote #1
Interesting. I wonder how many other entities beside the CBO use Affordable Care Act (ACA) to denote the entire amended statute and how many are just abbreviating Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). -- George Orwell III ( talk) 10:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This suggests that the lead should clarify this point in the first sentence. Take care of potential confusion at the first opportunity. I wrote a sentence like that somewhere on this page in the past, not sure where,tho. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 20:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The article uses ACA and Affordable Care Act in quite a few places...without ever explaining them. That name/acronym is used semi-officially as well, as evidenced by Obama using it, etc; it's probably the most-common name other than Obamacare, though I don't have a ref for that :). (And it's not just a re-appropriated pejorative, as with Obamacare.) So, why doesn't this belong in the lede? My edit changed it to "also referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and informally as Obamacare".
If we're using ACA/Affordable Care Act throughout the article, it seems quite reasonable to have it in the lede. I realize it can be confusing, but it IS the common "official" name. If we're not going to do so, then perhaps the article shouldn't randomly mention the ACA, and should strictly refer to the PPACA. (Except that's not a good solution, of course.) – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 03:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the article content should not use the shortened version(s) at all. Unless that is exactly the way its used in a reference source or a direct quote of someone, it sould only be found in the colloquial names field of the legislation info box & nowhere else. I feel the same should be true for Obamacare but I know that is a bridge too far until Obama is out of office one way or the other and the next bunch start tweaking the law under their own names for their own legacies instead. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the ACAs I could find in 1 section basically & agree its pretty clear we're on the same page about this - until someone else feels like speaking up that is.
Though I understand the point you were making overall, using 'the States' was a bad example in this particular case. As far as the PPACA law in general goes (& as it relates to changes being made to Medicaid specifically), there are really 54 to 56 "states", depending on which provision of Title 42 is in question at any given moment. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 22:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with db8 that the subject should be introduced as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and informally referred to as Obamacare." If you do a Google search for "affordable care act" you'll see a bevy of references to that name, ranging from healthcare.gov and the IRS to the Washington Post, CNN, and Forbes. That's just in the first 15 results. In fact, across the board, "Affordable Care Act" appears to be much more broadly used than "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The ability to verify references to reliable sources should not and does not guarantee, nor merit, the inclusion of such references in my view. Your POV may differ. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lead of this article isn't very clear about what the PPACA is, or what it does, or the ongoing issues surrounding it. I took a look at the lead of the DOMA article (Defense of Marriage Act), a similar piece of legislation in many ways. Using that article as a guide, I put together the strawman below. The bulleted format is for brevity/clarity, due to the complexity of the Act. An alternative structure would be to use a bullet/sub bullet to interleave the Intent items with the Means items.
[I appologize that the links and formatting are lost. I edited this in a different program and cut/pasted it here. I'm sure there are errors and omissions in what I state; I am just trying to propose a different look/feel. I think that a reader would find him/herself more completely informed after reading this, compared to the current version. I try to use the words that best describe what the law means to the layman. Your comments are appreciated.]
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 after nearly a year of debate by both chambers of Congress. The law was narrowly approved using the reconciliation process to avoid a Republican filibuster. This law and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act are the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. Collectively they are, at times, informally referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare. [2]
Key features of the legislation include; expanded eligibility for Medicaid, increased federal revenue and spending for healthcare, establishment of national coverage and underwriting standards for private health insurance, and various inducements for individuals to obtain, and private-sector employers to provide, private healthcare insurance.
The intent of the law is to:
The number of uninsured is reduced through:
The number of under-insured is reduced through:
Revenue for government healthcare is expanded by:
The cost of government-provided healthcare is reduced by:
The use of preventive medicine is promoted by requiring that private insurance cover certain preventive measures free of co-pay or deductible.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the PPACA will lower both future deficits[6] and Medicare spending in comparison to previously enacted legislation.[7] The PPACA increases the Gross National Debt. (I don't have a citation, but we all know that it is true...... and then there is the “double counting” issue.....)
The number of uninsured U S residents is expected to decline from 52 million to 22 million when the bill is fully implemented.
Two features of the law have been repealed since passage:
Twenty-eight states, numerous organizations, and a number of private citizens filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA.[8][9] On June 28, 2012, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the law, except for the penalty imposed on States that do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. The court found that the loss of all Medicaid funding was coercive, and should be limited to only those funds associated wth the expansion of Medicaid.[10][11][12]
Numerous Republicans and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney have said they want to repeal this law. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Nstrauss, for pointing to LEAD and BRD, good new reading for me, especially LEAD. I have stripped out the key points from LEAD and use them below to propose an outline of content for the PPACA lead. Perhaps we can agree on the content first, and then flesh out the verbiage later. Here goes:
Paragraph 1: Introduction and Important aspects Introduction:
Most important aspects/aims -
Paragraph 2 Establish context, why is it notable
Paragraph 3 Summarize important points
Paragraph 4, Summarize controversies
Paragraph 5, Developments after enactment
Emphasis should be consistant with importance: This will probably be a challenge, due to different opinions of importance of various aspects.
Everything covered in the lead should be covered in the remainder of the article. Some additional details may be needed, but I think most of it is in there....
Create interest but don't tease the reader. I think there is some teasing in the current lead: e.g. ..number of incentives... Framework of subsidies...upheld the majority....
Avoid more than 4 paragraphs. I think this 2,700 page bill requires something more than a four-pound bag.
Use clear, accessible style with NPV. I think my style is clear, to the point of being blunt. Others will keep me on the NPV train. Hopefully this is a more straightforward approach than my previous effort.Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Pain 67 ( talk • contribs)
Nstrauss Below is what I propose for the descriptive paragraph. It's hard to piece-meal this, and its too large to survive in the Article space, so I put it here for your (and any other's) reaction. You will note there are no citations. If it is accurate and NPV, then can it stand in the lead, because what follows in later parts of the article will amplify on this "summary" with appropriate RS? Thanks for your help
PPACA is aimed primarily at reducing the number of uninsured and under-insured American citizens and reducing the overall cost of health care. Medicaid eligibility is expanded significantly, subject to individual state participation. Inducements, including premium subsidies, tax credits, and financial penalties, encourage the purchase of insurance by individuals and employers. Variability of premiums is reduced by requiring insurance companies to accept and rate all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender, and with limited consideration of age. The issue of under-insurance is addressed by establishment of national standards for the minimum level of coverage and the prohibition of annual and lifetime spending caps. Additional provisions are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining healthcare delivery and administration. The various provisions are introduced over a period of several years.
New taxes and tax rate increases are levied on the healthcare and insurance industries, and the wealthy. Spending for Medicare Advantage is substantially reduced. The Congressional Budget Office projects that PPACA will lower future deficits and Medicare spending. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 05:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nstrauss, The Supreme Court ruling boils down to two important findings.
1. The mandate is constitutional because it can be construed to be a tax.
2. The penalty for failing to implement the Medicaid Expansion is coercive, and must be limited to the new funds, not ALL Medicaid funds.
Nearly a quarter of a million people visited this page the day of the ruling. It is IMPORTANT. Much of the media (and Obama himself) mislead by saying that the court "upheld the statute", with no mention at all of the restriction placed on the penalty. According to LEAD, it is inappropriate to "tease" the reader in the lead. By noting less-than-full acceptance of the statute, but not describing the part not accepted, is this not a tease? 144 characters is a small price to pay for an important piece of the story. Regards Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nstrauss,
Thanks for the reply. I understand the need for brevity. What if we said"...the Supreme court found the "Individual Mandate" constitutional, but ruled the penalty associated with the "Medicaid Expansion" must be limited to the new Medicaid funding."? The Individual Mandate could be Wiki-linked (I think that's the right term for the blue highlighting that takes you to another Wiki article) and Medicaid Expansion could be described in a brief new "stub?" and also wiki-linked. For good style, it would probably be best to use "individual mandate" and "Medicaid Expansion" earlier in the lead to create context. I'm not sure what you mean when you say they didn't rule on the medicaid expansion. Was it not a "ruling" but something else,or do you mean the ruling was about the penalty, but not the expansion itself? Can you find words to say it correctly in the one setence above?
As can be seen elsewhere on this page, I am causing some heartburn by trying to get my oar in the water. I read a lot of things as being half-truths and that makes me want to get the other half-truth "out-there" in the interest of balance, and for what I understand to be NPOV. Is there a better approach? I'm an old dog but not averse to a new trick once in a while. Thanks again Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 20:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
George Orwell III You deleted the following on the basis that the citation was disproven and out of date.
This is the first federal legislation to mandate citizen engagement in commerce. [1]
When I first wrote this I almost didn't include a citation on the basis that it is a simple statement of apparently undisputed fact. I couldn't find a citation that presents an example of an individual federal mandate. (plenty about state mandates, but that's the whole point, you know, tenth amendment, etc.) The individual mandate in perhaps the single most contentious aspect of the law, and deserves a prominent place in the description of the law. It is one of the reasons the law is "notable". Does this simple statement even need a citation, and if it does, what aspect of the statement needs to be "sourced"? Also, please note that I didn't use words like unprecedented or ground-breaking or unpopular, in the interest of NPV. Regards, Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(in response to MastCell) WP:REDFLAG WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. [My claim is not exceptional. Most people that have followed this issue know that it is a true claim. I now have a second, academic, citation that quotes federal judges who say that the mandate is an "unprecedented exercise of Congress' power"] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources ;[This was covered widely in many venues, and was a primary argument in some of the legal challenges] challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; [my sources are secondary sources] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; [Yea, I guess Heritage flip-flopped on this one, but if that is a disqualifier, then most of Washington needs to go home.] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy. You guys are working my like a rented mule, and all I want to do is add a tiny bit of content that might lead an alert reader to think that there might actually be some valid reasons that about half of the American public want this act repealed;>)] Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 03:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(in response to Jstrauss) Do you seriously doubt the truth of the statement? In my view, talking points are generally arguments in which one side either has no counter-argument, or the counter-argument is so politically damaging it can't be made in public. That appears to be the case here, but it doesn't rally matter, because this is significant (notable) simply because, for the first time in 220+ years, the federal government is telling the citizenry what they must do with their money that wasn't confiscated through taxation, and if you won't do what we want, we have another special tax for you.] WP:LEAD, [Notable] WP:UNDUE, [very brief] and WP:NPV. There is no reason that the Big Government types can't point to this as a great accomplishment, a newly discovered method of doing what is best for you. (Thank you John Roberts!)
(in response to George Orwel III) My edit says nothing about the mandate being unconstitutional. (It doesn't even use the M word.)Regarding flood insurance, you don't have to live in a flood plain, and as far as I know, it is the state that "encourages" folks to buy it, but I'm not up to speed on that subject. A discussion for another day(or night). Regards to All (Ooops, I see now that interleaving my remarks, in italics, doesn't work so well, as far as being clear as to who is saying what... I'll do better next time. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
As for a previous example of a federal mandate, look up the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. It was the 111 year-old law on the books before the creation of the National Guard in 1903 that required all able body males to secure firearms and gear at their own cost for possible militia service. Never Consitutionally challenged (and never really prosecuted after technology outpaced the requirements either). Still - its an example of the goverment not merely suggesting what you do with your money but commanding you what do with it specifically under penalty of lock-you-up-and-throw-away-the-key law and not just some deduct-a-fee-from-your-tax-refund-check law. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very reasonable request of MastCell, I have done my best to undo the mess I created with my interleaved comments. In the course of this exercise I see some other foul-ups in my comments, so in the hope of regaining some credibility I'll make the following mea culpae:
108.73.112.111 ( talk) 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead section of the 3rd paragraph is getting ridiculous with all of the political stuff about the Tea Party and repeal efforts and now legislative history. All of this stuff is WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM and does not conform with WP:LEAD. You will not find any comparable passages in the lead sections of any other passed legislation. Back on July 25 I reverted the addition of the first sentences about Republican opposition, and then NuclearWarfare re-reverted by adding the material back in. I'm removing it again, since no one has engaged in this discussion since then. I sincerely hope that we can have a meaningful discussion about whether this material should be included without ending up in an WP:EDITWAR. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 07:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Besides that, you've got your facts mixed up a bit. Only a super-majority of (60) Senators voting in the affirmative can "repeal" the Act in its entirety; no Budget Reconciliation bill required. A simple majority of Senators (well 50 Senators and a vice-president tie breaker in the worst-case scenario) can only defund (or re-fund?) elements of the statute to some degree or another using the Budget Reconciliation process but cannot technically repeal anything; whatever they do - it must strictly be related to the budget (i.e. must be something that can be scored a la Congressional Budget Office per Budget Control & Impoundments Act of 1973/74). Please note: 46 to 41 is still a simple majority with 13 Senators pulling a Scarborough for a Budget Reconciliation bill to still pass. Also note: anything passed under the Budget Reconciliation process expires in 10 fiscal-year's time unless equivalent legislation is passed under normal congressional procedures/rules within that time in order for the legislation to truly become permanent. It may be extended beyond the 10 year limit but will always expire at the end of that extension unless repeated however. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The way things are with it being an election year; a lame-duck session of Congress regardless of who wins and with a divided Congress with each majority in control of their respective congressional schedules for now - the chances of any meaningful movement on this is not very likely to happen until at least early next year if at all. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 07:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Still would love to see some updates on this page. For example, why no discussion about Obama's "double counting" of the $716 Billion dollars in reduced spending on Medicare that then gets shifted over to "savings" to help his health care plan sound more fiscally appealing? Anything? Or, what about the latest CBO (2012) which now suggests that the true costs of Obamacare once it actually goes into effect (from 2014, not 2012) is double the initial costs sold by the ACA's supporters back at its signing? (You know what I'm talking about: CBO now says costs will be $1.76 Trillion Dollars, not the $940 Billion originally touted? http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html)
And while you're at it, can you address the following claims also made in the above link? "Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016. Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year (2011)." And "By 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."
This is all relevant to the discussion here, and leaving your cost estimates woefully under-reported or neglecting to discuss the many accounting sleights of hand done to get the original bill passed does little to educate those in search of the political spin-free truth. Thanks 114.148.175.172 ( talk) 03:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Question: I have seen several commentators state that illegal immigrants will get free medical under the law. Is that true and can you quote me the page to read about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.105.235 ( talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I find it shocking there's zero mention of the late Senator Edward Kennedys role in seeing this healthcare bill through before his death. Even as his health floundered, he continued to push through and attend Senate meetings to see this healthcare bill through to completion. He didn't quite make it. But he was one of the strongest backers. CaribDigita ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a bit of confusion over which bill initially introduced for a different purpose actually became the vehicle for PPACA in the end. What matters here is the number assigned to a bill in the chamber of Congress it is first introduced in. The "short title" designated within most legislation only becomes effective & binding when the bill is signed into law. Before that; it is only happenstance that a pending title trumps or mirrors the weight of the number assignment.
So... the PPACA law owes its origins to H.R. 3590, a bill first introduced on September 17, 2009 with the purpose... To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. It was proposed that the short title for this legislation should be forever known (if passed) as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (no apostrophe here).
The bill was passed in the House on October 8, 2009, sent to the Senate on the same day and placed into the calendar on October 13, 2009 (still no apostrophe).
In a 3 day span between November 19th to the 21st, the bill was closed from further debate, moved to be considered, attained cloture, and then considered for amendments. At this point, Sen. Reid proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill and that was the death of anything to do with service members, home-ownership, taxes and the like and the birth of the PPACA. (apostrophe still MIA). The fact that it passed the House that way meant little - in effect it could have died much the same way as being scheduled but never acted upon after that.
All the stuff that was in the bill prior to being wiped clean and re-used for health care reform was reintroduced in the House on the same day the above bill passed the House, October 8, 2009, as H.R. 3780. Its purpose was...To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain Federal employees serving on extended duty.; its proposed short title: Service Members' Homebuyer Tax Credit Extension Act 2009 (Bingo - there is the apostrophe). This bill died in committee however.
So hopefully, we can now better see the time line of events & the reverts made back to the right bill without the apostrophe is both proper and legitimate. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
NOT an informal term, instead a racist term used exclusively by ACA's opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.103.50 ( talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that I could contribute something along the lines talking about the informal name of Obamacare. I do not believe that this term is racist, it is just linking an act passed by the president of the United States. I do believe however that it is putting blame on him for passing this bill and has caused him to lose credibility. Trying to fix the healthcare system has only added to the problems and it has hurt people by raising the cost in most situations and not actually providing more care which is what it sought out to do in the first place. finally it has also caused for the quality of the services provided in a sense to be downgraded. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dalton.stogner (
talk •
contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone with a reliable source explain on the main article what exactly is meant by a "household," as it applies to the PPACA. Spouse and dependents listed on your income tax return? Four unrelated guys renting a house? Something in between the two? Thanks, Ncepts ( talk) 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)
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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
ABC News has just published this article which is titled "Experts argue Obamacare mistake could doom key part of law." I think this information would make an excellent addition to the article. Tones shook 251 ( talk) 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
My addition of the word "tax" to modify "penalty" in the lede has been deleted as being "confusing". IMO the word provides important context. This landmark Supreme Court decision hinges on the single premise that the penalty, which is an essential part of the individual mandate, is constitutional only because it could have been levied under the auspices of the taxing power of Congress, but not under the Commerce Clause. If the penalty is not a tax, then the mandate is unconstitutional, and, arguably, the entire law is unconstitional.
I know that those who wrote the bill went to great lengths to assure that the word tax" appears nowhere in this massive document, but the fact remains that it is a tax collected by the IRS. I know that the fact that it is a tax creates another serious challenge to President Obama's credibility and re-election chances. However, failure to include it is an obvious Pro-Obama POV.
Perhaps "tax penalty" is quasi-redundant (all taxes are penalties, but not all penalties are taxes) If that's the problem, then I vote for dropping the word 'penalty". I think the word "tax" should precede the word "penalty" in every instance in the document.-- Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In any case, the most honest and WP:NPOV-compliant approach is probably to explain that the term "tax" is controversial and politically loaded, and that at various times both Republican and Democratic politicians have embraced and rejected the term. Personally, I don't really feel strongly about how it's described in the lead; I think "penalty", "penalty fee", and "tax penalty" are all adequately accurate, but I also understand the political motivation (both in real life and on Wikipedia) to favor one set of terms or the other.
As a separate matter, since we seem a bit obsessed with the word "tax", the lead needs to mention that insurance purchases are subsidized - with tax credits - for people earning <4x the poverty line. That's a central component of the law, but was strangely absent from the lead until I added it just now. MastCell Talk 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
When you are not in compliance with the PPACA, you are subject to a penalty. The fee or fine for your specific non-compliance has no bearing on others who are compliant with PPACA and, therefore, not subject to a fee or fine like you are. The taxation and finance arm of the Federal government, the IRS, is tasked with collecting the non-compliance with the PPACA fine - so it can be said the 'penalty can be construed as a tax' (construed being the key term that must appear if the word tax is to appear along with penalty And still be correct as far as the supreme court ruling goes) -- George Orwell III ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We should call the thing whatever reliable sources are calling it. If different reliable sources are calling it different things then that fact should probably be flagged in the article. But the bottom line is that proposals to change what we call it should be supported by reliable sources. This whole thread is basically a wash since it doesn't contain a single argument citing a single news article. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To move the conversation forward, I did some research and found very little. As expected the leading news outlets have generally been avoiding using the terms "penalty," "tax," and "tax penalty" since the Supreme Court ruling. The best I could find was this: "The mandate is a central piece of the health care law and is enforceable with a penalty assessed through the tax system." I rather like that description, "a penalty assessed through the tax system." While it's wordy it's educational, and it avoids the hyperpartisan debate of the day.-- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The provisions of the PPACA in question have been enacted, codified and finally upheld by the highest court. Any questions arising from that point on forward are Title 26 and/or Title 42's domain now. The opinion of the court is now precedent. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The only place where the term "tax" becomes remotely associated with "penalty [fee]" is after June 12th, 2012, in one or more of the opinions handed down in the Supreme Court's ruling on the Sebelius case. I understand your point about mandate being mentioned (something I'm against personally; see 3rd run above) but to associate it here with the smallest sliver of tangent association, not from the legislation or the law itself but from the opinion(s) of the Justices of the high court, is wrong imo and gives it undue weight. The term used in the language of the bill, as subsequently enacted into law, is "penalty" or "fee" - or more accurately "penalty fee". Let's talk about removing as many of the 'specifics' in the lede as possible if you want to persist on this - not by adding quantifiers to those specifics (quantifiers given only as judicial opinion rather than part of the actual legislative content & interpreted in full in its own article(s) elsewhere to boot). -- George Orwell III ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal... I'm not sure I agree that the material in question is WP:RECENTISM. The PPACA has been central to partisan political debate since its passage in 2009. The PPACA was a major, if not the major, issue in the Republican mid-term election victories in 2010. The repeal efforts have been ongoing for three years, from the day after the PPACA was passed right up through this month. I think that if we want to write a solid WP:LEAD that covers all relevant aspects of the topic, we can't completely omit the partisan and polarized political response to the Act from the lead. It's been an issue over the entire 3-year-and-counting lifetime of PPACA, not just a recent news item. MastCell Talk 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
An anon IP updated the "Change in number of insured" subsection to reflect today's CBO press release, and it's exposed some gaps or factual inaccuracies. The first sentence says that the CBO's estimate was a reduction of 30 million uninsured. All of the citations for this statement are either dead links or to other reduced estimates released by the CBO in March 2012. This needs to be fixed. Then it says that today the CBO has revised the number from 13 million down to 6 million. W-w-what? What happened to the jump from 30 million to 13 million? This needs to be explained. Someone with a decent understanding of the subject matter should sift through the citations, make sure we're comparing apples to apples, fill in the gaps, and fix the citations appropriately. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick survey of the reporting on today's CBO press release and I can't find any sources that support the CNN's statement that the projected number of uninsured will drop from 13 million to 7 million. Here's an example of what I'm seeing. There seems to be widespread disagreement about the CBO's estimates. Maybe we should remove this stuff entirely until the media manages to sort it out. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
From CBO's latest PDF, footnotes for graphs at end & footnote #1
Interesting. I wonder how many other entities beside the CBO use Affordable Care Act (ACA) to denote the entire amended statute and how many are just abbreviating Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). -- George Orwell III ( talk) 10:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This suggests that the lead should clarify this point in the first sentence. Take care of potential confusion at the first opportunity. I wrote a sentence like that somewhere on this page in the past, not sure where,tho. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 20:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The article uses ACA and Affordable Care Act in quite a few places...without ever explaining them. That name/acronym is used semi-officially as well, as evidenced by Obama using it, etc; it's probably the most-common name other than Obamacare, though I don't have a ref for that :). (And it's not just a re-appropriated pejorative, as with Obamacare.) So, why doesn't this belong in the lede? My edit changed it to "also referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and informally as Obamacare".
If we're using ACA/Affordable Care Act throughout the article, it seems quite reasonable to have it in the lede. I realize it can be confusing, but it IS the common "official" name. If we're not going to do so, then perhaps the article shouldn't randomly mention the ACA, and should strictly refer to the PPACA. (Except that's not a good solution, of course.) – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 03:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the article content should not use the shortened version(s) at all. Unless that is exactly the way its used in a reference source or a direct quote of someone, it sould only be found in the colloquial names field of the legislation info box & nowhere else. I feel the same should be true for Obamacare but I know that is a bridge too far until Obama is out of office one way or the other and the next bunch start tweaking the law under their own names for their own legacies instead. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the ACAs I could find in 1 section basically & agree its pretty clear we're on the same page about this - until someone else feels like speaking up that is.
Though I understand the point you were making overall, using 'the States' was a bad example in this particular case. As far as the PPACA law in general goes (& as it relates to changes being made to Medicaid specifically), there are really 54 to 56 "states", depending on which provision of Title 42 is in question at any given moment. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 22:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with db8 that the subject should be introduced as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and informally referred to as Obamacare." If you do a Google search for "affordable care act" you'll see a bevy of references to that name, ranging from healthcare.gov and the IRS to the Washington Post, CNN, and Forbes. That's just in the first 15 results. In fact, across the board, "Affordable Care Act" appears to be much more broadly used than "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The ability to verify references to reliable sources should not and does not guarantee, nor merit, the inclusion of such references in my view. Your POV may differ. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lead of this article isn't very clear about what the PPACA is, or what it does, or the ongoing issues surrounding it. I took a look at the lead of the DOMA article (Defense of Marriage Act), a similar piece of legislation in many ways. Using that article as a guide, I put together the strawman below. The bulleted format is for brevity/clarity, due to the complexity of the Act. An alternative structure would be to use a bullet/sub bullet to interleave the Intent items with the Means items.
[I appologize that the links and formatting are lost. I edited this in a different program and cut/pasted it here. I'm sure there are errors and omissions in what I state; I am just trying to propose a different look/feel. I think that a reader would find him/herself more completely informed after reading this, compared to the current version. I try to use the words that best describe what the law means to the layman. Your comments are appreciated.]
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 after nearly a year of debate by both chambers of Congress. The law was narrowly approved using the reconciliation process to avoid a Republican filibuster. This law and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act are the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. Collectively they are, at times, informally referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare. [2]
Key features of the legislation include; expanded eligibility for Medicaid, increased federal revenue and spending for healthcare, establishment of national coverage and underwriting standards for private health insurance, and various inducements for individuals to obtain, and private-sector employers to provide, private healthcare insurance.
The intent of the law is to:
The number of uninsured is reduced through:
The number of under-insured is reduced through:
Revenue for government healthcare is expanded by:
The cost of government-provided healthcare is reduced by:
The use of preventive medicine is promoted by requiring that private insurance cover certain preventive measures free of co-pay or deductible.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the PPACA will lower both future deficits[6] and Medicare spending in comparison to previously enacted legislation.[7] The PPACA increases the Gross National Debt. (I don't have a citation, but we all know that it is true...... and then there is the “double counting” issue.....)
The number of uninsured U S residents is expected to decline from 52 million to 22 million when the bill is fully implemented.
Two features of the law have been repealed since passage:
Twenty-eight states, numerous organizations, and a number of private citizens filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA.[8][9] On June 28, 2012, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the law, except for the penalty imposed on States that do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. The court found that the loss of all Medicaid funding was coercive, and should be limited to only those funds associated wth the expansion of Medicaid.[10][11][12]
Numerous Republicans and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney have said they want to repeal this law. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Nstrauss, for pointing to LEAD and BRD, good new reading for me, especially LEAD. I have stripped out the key points from LEAD and use them below to propose an outline of content for the PPACA lead. Perhaps we can agree on the content first, and then flesh out the verbiage later. Here goes:
Paragraph 1: Introduction and Important aspects Introduction:
Most important aspects/aims -
Paragraph 2 Establish context, why is it notable
Paragraph 3 Summarize important points
Paragraph 4, Summarize controversies
Paragraph 5, Developments after enactment
Emphasis should be consistant with importance: This will probably be a challenge, due to different opinions of importance of various aspects.
Everything covered in the lead should be covered in the remainder of the article. Some additional details may be needed, but I think most of it is in there....
Create interest but don't tease the reader. I think there is some teasing in the current lead: e.g. ..number of incentives... Framework of subsidies...upheld the majority....
Avoid more than 4 paragraphs. I think this 2,700 page bill requires something more than a four-pound bag.
Use clear, accessible style with NPV. I think my style is clear, to the point of being blunt. Others will keep me on the NPV train. Hopefully this is a more straightforward approach than my previous effort.Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Pain 67 ( talk • contribs)
Nstrauss Below is what I propose for the descriptive paragraph. It's hard to piece-meal this, and its too large to survive in the Article space, so I put it here for your (and any other's) reaction. You will note there are no citations. If it is accurate and NPV, then can it stand in the lead, because what follows in later parts of the article will amplify on this "summary" with appropriate RS? Thanks for your help
PPACA is aimed primarily at reducing the number of uninsured and under-insured American citizens and reducing the overall cost of health care. Medicaid eligibility is expanded significantly, subject to individual state participation. Inducements, including premium subsidies, tax credits, and financial penalties, encourage the purchase of insurance by individuals and employers. Variability of premiums is reduced by requiring insurance companies to accept and rate all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender, and with limited consideration of age. The issue of under-insurance is addressed by establishment of national standards for the minimum level of coverage and the prohibition of annual and lifetime spending caps. Additional provisions are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining healthcare delivery and administration. The various provisions are introduced over a period of several years.
New taxes and tax rate increases are levied on the healthcare and insurance industries, and the wealthy. Spending for Medicare Advantage is substantially reduced. The Congressional Budget Office projects that PPACA will lower future deficits and Medicare spending. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 05:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nstrauss, The Supreme Court ruling boils down to two important findings.
1. The mandate is constitutional because it can be construed to be a tax.
2. The penalty for failing to implement the Medicaid Expansion is coercive, and must be limited to the new funds, not ALL Medicaid funds.
Nearly a quarter of a million people visited this page the day of the ruling. It is IMPORTANT. Much of the media (and Obama himself) mislead by saying that the court "upheld the statute", with no mention at all of the restriction placed on the penalty. According to LEAD, it is inappropriate to "tease" the reader in the lead. By noting less-than-full acceptance of the statute, but not describing the part not accepted, is this not a tease? 144 characters is a small price to pay for an important piece of the story. Regards Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nstrauss,
Thanks for the reply. I understand the need for brevity. What if we said"...the Supreme court found the "Individual Mandate" constitutional, but ruled the penalty associated with the "Medicaid Expansion" must be limited to the new Medicaid funding."? The Individual Mandate could be Wiki-linked (I think that's the right term for the blue highlighting that takes you to another Wiki article) and Medicaid Expansion could be described in a brief new "stub?" and also wiki-linked. For good style, it would probably be best to use "individual mandate" and "Medicaid Expansion" earlier in the lead to create context. I'm not sure what you mean when you say they didn't rule on the medicaid expansion. Was it not a "ruling" but something else,or do you mean the ruling was about the penalty, but not the expansion itself? Can you find words to say it correctly in the one setence above?
As can be seen elsewhere on this page, I am causing some heartburn by trying to get my oar in the water. I read a lot of things as being half-truths and that makes me want to get the other half-truth "out-there" in the interest of balance, and for what I understand to be NPOV. Is there a better approach? I'm an old dog but not averse to a new trick once in a while. Thanks again Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 20:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
George Orwell III You deleted the following on the basis that the citation was disproven and out of date.
This is the first federal legislation to mandate citizen engagement in commerce. [1]
When I first wrote this I almost didn't include a citation on the basis that it is a simple statement of apparently undisputed fact. I couldn't find a citation that presents an example of an individual federal mandate. (plenty about state mandates, but that's the whole point, you know, tenth amendment, etc.) The individual mandate in perhaps the single most contentious aspect of the law, and deserves a prominent place in the description of the law. It is one of the reasons the law is "notable". Does this simple statement even need a citation, and if it does, what aspect of the statement needs to be "sourced"? Also, please note that I didn't use words like unprecedented or ground-breaking or unpopular, in the interest of NPV. Regards, Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(in response to MastCell) WP:REDFLAG WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. [My claim is not exceptional. Most people that have followed this issue know that it is a true claim. I now have a second, academic, citation that quotes federal judges who say that the mandate is an "unprecedented exercise of Congress' power"] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources ;[This was covered widely in many venues, and was a primary argument in some of the legal challenges] challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; [my sources are secondary sources] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; [Yea, I guess Heritage flip-flopped on this one, but if that is a disqualifier, then most of Washington needs to go home.] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy. You guys are working my like a rented mule, and all I want to do is add a tiny bit of content that might lead an alert reader to think that there might actually be some valid reasons that about half of the American public want this act repealed;>)] Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 03:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(in response to Jstrauss) Do you seriously doubt the truth of the statement? In my view, talking points are generally arguments in which one side either has no counter-argument, or the counter-argument is so politically damaging it can't be made in public. That appears to be the case here, but it doesn't rally matter, because this is significant (notable) simply because, for the first time in 220+ years, the federal government is telling the citizenry what they must do with their money that wasn't confiscated through taxation, and if you won't do what we want, we have another special tax for you.] WP:LEAD, [Notable] WP:UNDUE, [very brief] and WP:NPV. There is no reason that the Big Government types can't point to this as a great accomplishment, a newly discovered method of doing what is best for you. (Thank you John Roberts!)
(in response to George Orwel III) My edit says nothing about the mandate being unconstitutional. (It doesn't even use the M word.)Regarding flood insurance, you don't have to live in a flood plain, and as far as I know, it is the state that "encourages" folks to buy it, but I'm not up to speed on that subject. A discussion for another day(or night). Regards to All (Ooops, I see now that interleaving my remarks, in italics, doesn't work so well, as far as being clear as to who is saying what... I'll do better next time. Thomas Pain 67 ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
As for a previous example of a federal mandate, look up the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. It was the 111 year-old law on the books before the creation of the National Guard in 1903 that required all able body males to secure firearms and gear at their own cost for possible militia service. Never Consitutionally challenged (and never really prosecuted after technology outpaced the requirements either). Still - its an example of the goverment not merely suggesting what you do with your money but commanding you what do with it specifically under penalty of lock-you-up-and-throw-away-the-key law and not just some deduct-a-fee-from-your-tax-refund-check law. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very reasonable request of MastCell, I have done my best to undo the mess I created with my interleaved comments. In the course of this exercise I see some other foul-ups in my comments, so in the hope of regaining some credibility I'll make the following mea culpae:
108.73.112.111 ( talk) 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The lead section of the 3rd paragraph is getting ridiculous with all of the political stuff about the Tea Party and repeal efforts and now legislative history. All of this stuff is WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM and does not conform with WP:LEAD. You will not find any comparable passages in the lead sections of any other passed legislation. Back on July 25 I reverted the addition of the first sentences about Republican opposition, and then NuclearWarfare re-reverted by adding the material back in. I'm removing it again, since no one has engaged in this discussion since then. I sincerely hope that we can have a meaningful discussion about whether this material should be included without ending up in an WP:EDITWAR. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 07:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Besides that, you've got your facts mixed up a bit. Only a super-majority of (60) Senators voting in the affirmative can "repeal" the Act in its entirety; no Budget Reconciliation bill required. A simple majority of Senators (well 50 Senators and a vice-president tie breaker in the worst-case scenario) can only defund (or re-fund?) elements of the statute to some degree or another using the Budget Reconciliation process but cannot technically repeal anything; whatever they do - it must strictly be related to the budget (i.e. must be something that can be scored a la Congressional Budget Office per Budget Control & Impoundments Act of 1973/74). Please note: 46 to 41 is still a simple majority with 13 Senators pulling a Scarborough for a Budget Reconciliation bill to still pass. Also note: anything passed under the Budget Reconciliation process expires in 10 fiscal-year's time unless equivalent legislation is passed under normal congressional procedures/rules within that time in order for the legislation to truly become permanent. It may be extended beyond the 10 year limit but will always expire at the end of that extension unless repeated however. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The way things are with it being an election year; a lame-duck session of Congress regardless of who wins and with a divided Congress with each majority in control of their respective congressional schedules for now - the chances of any meaningful movement on this is not very likely to happen until at least early next year if at all. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 07:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Still would love to see some updates on this page. For example, why no discussion about Obama's "double counting" of the $716 Billion dollars in reduced spending on Medicare that then gets shifted over to "savings" to help his health care plan sound more fiscally appealing? Anything? Or, what about the latest CBO (2012) which now suggests that the true costs of Obamacare once it actually goes into effect (from 2014, not 2012) is double the initial costs sold by the ACA's supporters back at its signing? (You know what I'm talking about: CBO now says costs will be $1.76 Trillion Dollars, not the $940 Billion originally touted? http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html)
And while you're at it, can you address the following claims also made in the above link? "Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016. Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year (2011)." And "By 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."
This is all relevant to the discussion here, and leaving your cost estimates woefully under-reported or neglecting to discuss the many accounting sleights of hand done to get the original bill passed does little to educate those in search of the political spin-free truth. Thanks 114.148.175.172 ( talk) 03:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Question: I have seen several commentators state that illegal immigrants will get free medical under the law. Is that true and can you quote me the page to read about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.105.235 ( talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I find it shocking there's zero mention of the late Senator Edward Kennedys role in seeing this healthcare bill through before his death. Even as his health floundered, he continued to push through and attend Senate meetings to see this healthcare bill through to completion. He didn't quite make it. But he was one of the strongest backers. CaribDigita ( talk) 23:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a bit of confusion over which bill initially introduced for a different purpose actually became the vehicle for PPACA in the end. What matters here is the number assigned to a bill in the chamber of Congress it is first introduced in. The "short title" designated within most legislation only becomes effective & binding when the bill is signed into law. Before that; it is only happenstance that a pending title trumps or mirrors the weight of the number assignment.
So... the PPACA law owes its origins to H.R. 3590, a bill first introduced on September 17, 2009 with the purpose... To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. It was proposed that the short title for this legislation should be forever known (if passed) as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (no apostrophe here).
The bill was passed in the House on October 8, 2009, sent to the Senate on the same day and placed into the calendar on October 13, 2009 (still no apostrophe).
In a 3 day span between November 19th to the 21st, the bill was closed from further debate, moved to be considered, attained cloture, and then considered for amendments. At this point, Sen. Reid proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill and that was the death of anything to do with service members, home-ownership, taxes and the like and the birth of the PPACA. (apostrophe still MIA). The fact that it passed the House that way meant little - in effect it could have died much the same way as being scheduled but never acted upon after that.
All the stuff that was in the bill prior to being wiped clean and re-used for health care reform was reintroduced in the House on the same day the above bill passed the House, October 8, 2009, as H.R. 3780. Its purpose was...To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain Federal employees serving on extended duty.; its proposed short title: Service Members' Homebuyer Tax Credit Extension Act 2009 (Bingo - there is the apostrophe). This bill died in committee however.
So hopefully, we can now better see the time line of events & the reverts made back to the right bill without the apostrophe is both proper and legitimate. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 06:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
NOT an informal term, instead a racist term used exclusively by ACA's opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.103.50 ( talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that I could contribute something along the lines talking about the informal name of Obamacare. I do not believe that this term is racist, it is just linking an act passed by the president of the United States. I do believe however that it is putting blame on him for passing this bill and has caused him to lose credibility. Trying to fix the healthcare system has only added to the problems and it has hurt people by raising the cost in most situations and not actually providing more care which is what it sought out to do in the first place. finally it has also caused for the quality of the services provided in a sense to be downgraded. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dalton.stogner (
talk •
contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone with a reliable source explain on the main article what exactly is meant by a "household," as it applies to the PPACA. Spouse and dependents listed on your income tax return? Four unrelated guys renting a house? Something in between the two? Thanks, Ncepts ( talk) 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(
help)