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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I cannot understand why this article makes no mention of the fact that the final bill was crafted in secret behind closed doors, that few if any of the Democrats voting for it had read it, that Speaker Pelosi had famously uttered, "But first we have to pass the bill so that we can see what is in it" and the very real and now emerging evidence that when The President repeatedly declared directly to the American People that, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" he was not telling us the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just trying to point out what I considered to be viable areas of controversy regarding the representations made about the bill and the manner of its passage into law. Common sense needs no citation for the engaged, comprehending reader (more on this later), thus it does not take a specific citation to substantiate the fact that the bill was around 2,400 pages (depending upon font, Republicans apparently being a bit far-sighted) and that the final version was only available to legislators hours, not days, before the votes on passage without debate, and the idea that a human could even read all the words, let alone understand the net effect of the myriad of circular, internal and external references to arcane statute is, in my opinion laughable. In other words, even if any claimed to have read it and understood it, as far as I know a number that is at present even less than that of the sole non-reader citation of Mr. Baucus, such a claim would seem impossible... though of course I cannot directly back it up with a citation, On the other hand, using common sense in concert with an indirect citation, perhaps from the Guinness Book of World Records, I might be able to substantiate my argument. Indeed, having been clocked at 25,000 words per minute, Mr. Howard Berg could shoot through the entire 420,000 word ACA in less than half an hour, but for the average reader at 200 WPM it might take a tad longer, two full days of non-stop reading that would make Mr. Cruz envious. And that is without even factoring in a presumed requirement for comprehension of the Act by those voting for it, an understanding which so far appears to have defied the grasp of millions of collective reading hours of insurers, providers, "navigators", ordinary citizens and their legislators, made even more daunting if one dares to tackle the order of magnitude greater statutory codification and regulatory enactment thereof.
As to Ms. Pelosi, I can only say that the real controversy began after the fog cloaking the reef was lifted and Americans were able to see the dangerous shoals toward which they were headed.
Finally, The President's solemn promise given in unambiguous phraseology prior to and since the passage of the ACA. Right now millions of Americans are receiving letters from their insurers informing them that their existing policies are not in compliance with ACA, and the plans are either being modified to include coverage not necessarily desired by the subscribers or being cancelled outright. I have such a plan myself, I like it, and I am not going to be able to keep it. Instead, I will be forced to enroll in a new plan costing almost triple the premium for the same deductible and including coverage for things that are at odds with my gender, my age and desire. To try to nuance that issue (that it's not a lie but merely another "questionable statement", presumably to be lumped in with "Read my lips..." and "I did not have sex with that woman...") claiming that "the law doesn't force [insurers] to drop coverage" is a bit silly unless one seriously thinks that an insurance company would continue to underwrite policies that are essentially illegal even if not specifically stated to be so. For example, it is now law that insurers cannot screen for or discriminate against pre-existing conditions, which with my limited knowledge of law and common sense would suggest to me that continuing to offer rated policies such as mine, where such discrimination is in fact desired by the healthy consumer who "likes" being in a lower risk pool, would indeed be illegal. To suggest that it is not the government or the law that is responsible for the loss of my policy but instead the fault of the nasty insurance company being unwilling to flaunt the law on my behalf seems to border on the absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This lack of legislative "mark-up" understanding is why folks ran with the claim the bill was ~2,000 plus pages too-long-to-read when in reality, a third to a half of the content at that point was redundant strike-outs and italics & the rest was the exact same language found in the bill(s) passed months earlier. When all that interim mark-up jive was formatted out for the bill's final passage into law, it wound up being less than 1,000 pages total. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 08:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, where is the citation or set of "facts" supporting the following sentence from the article:
"The ACA aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government."
Is it just from the preamble of the bill, propaganda of the folks who were imposing it, or the author's original research? How can we know the real "aim" of the legislation or motivation of the masterminds behind it? I could have instead written, "The ACA aims to make for a more egalitarian society by using taxation, coercion, subsidies, a regulated health insurance market and managed delivery of care as the means to transfer wealth from the healthy, wealthy and wise to those who are less so", and it would be equally as "factual" as the original.
There are many declarative statements in the article devoid of "facts" behind them, theoretical or otherwise, and I doubt that as real facts emerge to the contrary they will ever be corrected or revised, for example if in a few years we find that little if any of those "aims" have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In the box in the top right corner of the article, it is written INCORRECTLY that PPACA passed the House on October 8th, 2009, on a 416-0 vote, and a link is given. The link is to the passing of "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" in the House.
Could somebody please correct the information and the link?
Judging by the article itself, the House passed the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" on November 7th, 2009, on a 220–215 vote, and then accepted PPACA as part of the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act" of 2010 on March 21, 2010, on a 220-211 vote.
132.76.61.23 ( talk) 08:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Inna, 15-Oct-2013
My understanding of the shutdown came from Thomas Sowell, to quote:
"There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare. This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record."
The article writes:
"House Republicans, supported by Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, refused to fund the federal government unless accompanied with a delay in the ACA, resulting in a government shutdown." (Four articles as sources)
This talks about a delay, but doesn't necessarily contradict Sowell. The story as I understand it is that the process has gone from "we won't fund ACA" to "we will only fund ACA if accompanied with a delay" to "we will only fund ACA if you remove certain provisions".
What concerns me with regards to NPOV is the language used. One side (including Sowell) could argue that congress has the right to legislate by appropriation and that it is the Senate's fault for refusing to accept funding 95% of government just because they didn't get the 5%. The other side could argue--as I recall Obama doing in his latest press conference--that this isn't how laws should be changed, that the Senate shouldn't be expected to give in to tactics considered unacceptable.
So the question is how to phrase it. For now I have changed it to:
"House Republicans, supported by Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, initially voted to fund all of government except the ACA, which the senate refused to authorize. Shortly before the deadline, they offered to fund government, including the ACA, if it was accompanied with a delay in the ACA. The senate refused to authorize this, resulting in a government shutdown."
That seems more accurate to me, but I am not a Democrat, so if other users believe the bias has been shifted the other way, then it may call for a discussion. J1812 ( talk) 06:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody here is interested in a "neutral" view on the shutdown or anything else, otherwise they would not have completely failed to mention the disastrous roll-out of the Healthcare.gov web site and exchanges over the last two weeks during the already included shutdown. Rush to press on the "Republican" shutdown? Of course. Provide an update on the dysfunctional exchange web sites and dismal sign-up progress so far, something much more directly related to the topic of the article and the alleged "aim" of the ACA? Nothing but crickets. Doubtless not "notable", and widely reported rumors in all the press and media about millions being unable to create accounts or log on cannot be "verified". InterpreDemon ( talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
At the same time, I'm with DrFleischman in that I'm unwilling to reward the behavior of InterpreDemon ( talk · contribs), who seems dedicated to misusing this talkpage as a platform for his personal views of the ACA. MastCell Talk 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with language like, "voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare", "voted to fund all of government except the ACA, which the senate refused to authorize", "refusing to accept funding 95% of government just because they didn't get the 5%", and so on, is that this phrasing makes it seem like Congress was being requested to "authorize" funding of Obamacare, i.e. that their active assent was required, and they merely passively refused to provide this authorization. This is false: Obamacare funding was already authorized, which is why e.g. the exchange rollout (bugs notwithstanding) went forward despite the shutdown. (The shutdown only affected discretionary spending, not mandatory spending like the ACA funding.) The Republicans were demanding that it be defunded (and later modified this to a request for delay) which is a quite different thing. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 20:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the decision to include or not include information about the roll-out should not have anything to do with the "rewarding" or "punishment" of somebody as irrelevant as me, and by any of the measures to be utilized in determining what is "notable" or relevant content as such would doubtless prove neither. I just felt that if the shutdown, certainly "recent" and as Mr. Johnson pointed out above having little actual effect upon the ACA were to be deemed relevant, the progress of and problems with the roll-out to date would also be at least as relevant. As to my behavior and abuse of this space as a newcomer, I understand the viewpoints of all and offer my sincerest apology. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we allowed to endorse a YouTube video, like the YouToons one by the Henry J Kaiser foundation? It seems unencyclopedic to tell our readers to go watch a video instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDiala ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Initial enrollment results:
Officials: 476,000 Obamacare applications filed http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/19/obamacare-applications-health-exchange/3071661/
5 things that have happened since Obamacare launched http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/19/health/obamacare-enrollment-launch-overview/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.231 ( talk) 10:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says that most of the law was upheld in NFIB v. Sebelius, but this is incorrect. The individual mandate provision was upheld as constitutional, thus averting the law from being entirely overturned. In terms of number of provisions, this is quite a small aspect, even if it is important to the overall functioning of the law. Also, in the same decision, the state medicare expansion provision was held unconstitutionally coercive and thus modified by the court. Jaykest1 ( talk) 03:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, towards the bottom, it incorrectly mentions that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax. More precisely, the individual mandate was upheld because it could be construed as a tax (due to the lack of criminal sanctions and relatively light fee), not because it was a tax (which the act clearly labels as a penalty). This is made all the more clear by the ruling on the Anti-Injunction Act, which stated that, for purposes of jurisdictional analysis, the mandate was not a tax. Jaykest1 ( talk) 04:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Jaykest1, Fleischman and Prototime are essentially correct, especially on the role of the judiciary, although I wouldn't necessarily use the term judicial "supremacy" (just a quibble on my part). The U.S. federal courts interpret the law (whether constitutional law, common law, treaty law, statute law, administrative law, etc.) in the context of actual cases or controversies. And, in interpreting law, context is almost always important. Just as is the case in life in general, a given word can have multiple meanings in law. Indeed, the very word "law" itself has more than one technical meaning in one particular sentence found in the United States Constitution. Famspear ( talk) 01:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think "supremacy" is the perfect word, and anybody familiar with Marbury v. Madison and "Judicial Review", the self proclaimed right the Supreme court claims to original jurisdiction on all matters Constitutional (despite no such provision in the Constitution), would probably agree. It is only the Supreme court (and only due to its own decision) that can decide if a law is Constitutional, and if not just re-write it to make it so as Justice Roberts did. InterpreDemon ( talk) 03:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is the coverage of the problems with using the Obamacare website? Where is the coverage of the many people who thought that their existing policies would carry over, but then had them cancelled? JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A link was given (then removed) listing certain exemptions. [1] If these are verifiable, why are they not mentioned in at least one of the articles about Obamacare legislation, or have I missed something? While first of all this affects US citizens, there are readers of the article outside the USA who are concerned about the global knock-on effects of the long term budgetary impact of Obamacare, in connection with debt-ceiling, shutdown etc. Qexigator ( talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Spriggs, Hell will freeze over before the masters allow any mention in the article of the "If I like your plan, you can keep it, if you like your plan you can <bleep> it" promise by POTUS, or any mention of IRS Bulletin 2010-29 InterpreDemon ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy concerning whether people can keep their "current" plans is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the article. The controversy has received quite a bit of coverage in the media, and I'd add a line about it to the article myself if the page weren't currently subject to full protection. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a spin section called "myths" where the progressive Wikipedia editors protect Obama with such gems as: "On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin falsely claimed that . . ." Will there now be added a section that says: [On occasions too numerous to count!] Barack Obama falsely claimed that 'if you like your insurance you can keep it!'" ? Didn't think so. "Palin falsely claimed stays in", and "Obama falsely claimed" would never get in. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.14.194 ( talk) 04:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
DrFleischman, I do have a genuine, non-partisan, interest as a citizen in talking about improving the locked encyclopedic content of the Obamacare article by suggesting it be consistent and unbiased in its use of strong language ("falsely claimed"), and that it accurately reflect the fact that the "If you like your plan you can keep it" Obama falsehood is in fact now a major element of Obamacare events. The specific constructive improvement to the content would be to include reference to Obama falsely claiming in excess of 29 times that "If you like your plan you can keep it." It is my understanding that Prototime above is already working on an edit on this subject matter, in accordance with core agreed policies and I look forward to seeing it. My focus is purely on encyclopedia building and to that end I think that if language such as "falsely claimed" is OK for describing conservative Republicans it should be OK for describing progressive Democrats, when the progressive Democrats clearly lie themselves ("If you like your plan, you can keep it."). Perhaps I added some sarcasm in my talk page comment. I don't think it detracts gravely from the positive and directly constructive contribution I was making with my observation. I take editing seriously, but this isn't article editing, it's talk page "editing" so please forgive me for being just a little bit human, in my talking. And yes, all 3 of the 71.190.xxx.xxx's above are me - not trying to sockpuppet here - just that Verizon DSL gives a different IP every time you log on even from the same location. Next step - becoming a registered user - yes, I know. But in the mean time, please forgive me for being human, on the talk page. It's been a while since I felt compelled to contribute to one of these conversations, and I had forgotten how strict you guys are with newcomers to the talk pages. I fully understand that none of us want these talk pages to be clogged with the old Usenet-style political debates. But I think my original point (be consistent with "falsely claimed") is legitimate, if not my "aside" comments on the likelihood of it happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.177 ( talk) 06:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
So IP-person is advised to avoid using "clearly" because it causes "confrontation", says the registered user who uses non-confrontational, professional, encyclopedic language like "please go away" (at 04:40, 6 November 2013 above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.18.159 ( talk)
I know the article's on lockdown now, but it seems that an important component of the ACA is the number of those who have enrolled. CBS News reported a couple of days ago that the 1st day numbers were low. Six. Then by the 2nd day of enrollment the number of enrollees jumped to 248. [2] Maybe add a new section--after lockdown is lifted--on those enrolled in the ACA? Maybe similar to Medicare article demographics [3]? -- Cirrus Editor ( talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I dispute the article with respect to its stated Obamacare approval ratings. I believe the article as it stands in Wikipedia currently (I have not modified the article) is biasing readers towards the sentiment that most citizens generally feel Obamacare is good, and they will only increase their belief it is good- just like with Medicare.
Here are poll results that clearly show most citizens do NOT generally feel Obamacare is good for them: http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/100313-673712-obamacare-opposition-to-obamacare-reaches-new-high.htm http://www.american.com/archive/2013/october/top-10-takeaways-public-opinion-on-the-affordable-care-act http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/oct/16/gallup-obamacare-little-less-unpopular/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.3.124 ( talk) 15:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There should be a section about how the law is doing, which parts came online when and which will be pushed back. I think it should be call "implementation", or something like that. I read that only 6 people enrolled on the first day and woul like to know if that is true, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.101 ( talk) 18:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"The idea goes back as far as 1989, when it was initially proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer health care."
The above statement is untrue.
The statement in quotes is a reference to a lecture series presented by Stuart Butler. There is a disclaimer prior to text presented by Butler, “Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation...”
Here is a link to Butler’s presentation: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf Horsappl ( talk) 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, we'll try this one, from a scholarly article out of NYU: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html
"After World War II, the effort to rebuild Japan gave new impetus to the achievement of universal coverage. In 1958, the 1938 law was revised to include the remaining 30 percent of the population not previously covered. This revision broke the precedent of extending health insurance to occupational groups by calling for universal coverage on the basis of residence. Every government jurisdiction, whether city, town or village, was required to provide health insurance to every uncovered resident by 1961. Since 1961, virtually all Japanese have been covered by either employers or the government." "Health insurance expenditures in Japan are financed by payroll taxes paid by employers and employees and by income-based premiums paid by the self-employed. In contrast to the United States, where the federal, state and local governments finance roughly 42.9 percent of all health care expenditures and out-of-pocket payments contribute another 22 percent, in Japan, only 31.7 percent of national health care expenditures derive from national and local public funds and 12.2 percent from out-of-pocket payments. The largest share of health care financing in Japan is raised by means of compulsory premiums levied on individual subscribers (34.6 percent) and employers (21.7 percent) InterpreDemon ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I'm finished with it. If I ever see the phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or a discussion of the grandfather rule changes buried in the Federal Register a few months after passage, or their present impact upon millions of Americans, two items of far more significance to the public interest than the Heritage Foundation, appear anywhere in the article, maybe I'll reconsider. I was alerted this article by a national forum as an example of bias and my impression remains in agreement. Have fun with it. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the subject matter will need to be included at some point.
I don't think it deserves quite as huge a section as it got.
But the problems with the rollout of healthcare.gov have been going on for over a month, I think my toned-down version was not terrible. I think it could still be made better, but I know my personal opinions may get in the way here since I think the website problems will be a transient thing.
The "if you like your healthcare you can keep it" seems like a manufactured controversy to me, we could remove all those quotes probably. But it is notable that many plans are being dropped due to not meeting minimum requirements. It would be less biased to report how many of those were then replaced with similarly priced, compliant plans as well. Assuming, of course, that information is available.
If rates in general have gone up, that's probably notable as well. "Rate shock" is a terrible section title of course. Still my personal opinions may hinder me here, since I think personally that we can't say much about rates of health care under the Affordable Care Act until after the individual mandate is actually in place for long enough to impact rates as planned.
All in all the added content probably had some good info and relevant links, but should NOT have been presented as a list of inflammatory quotes under biased "headline" style section titles. I tried cleaning it up a bit before you deleted it but it was a big task. It probably would have taken several more edits to get into shape. Should we try again editing on this talk page or some other place before putting it live?
-- Fritzophrenic ( talk) 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so how about getting it looking nice here and then going live:
The high-profile healthcare.gov website did not work properly during its October 1, 2013 launch. [1] CNN reporter Elizabeth Cohen reported being unable to apply for coverage after two weeks of trying, experiencing difficulties such as not being able to create a user ID or password, slow response times, and more. [2] During the first 24 hours after the website had gone online, only six people had successfully used the website to enroll. [3] CBS News likewise quoted Luke Chung, an online database programmer, as saying the healthcare.gov website was "not even ready for beta testing", citing a poor design, implementation, and apparent lack of testing. [4] Indeed, integration testing on the completed product was not even started until a few weeks before the site went live, and was performed by government agencies instead of the involved software companies. [5]
President Obama said in 2009 while the ACA was being debated, "If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." [6] On October 30, 2013, the Washington Post gave this statement a rating of four Pinocchios. [6]
In February 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance. [7] As late as 2013, about half of the active individual health care plans on the market were not meeting the minimum required coverage requirements of the ACA and therefore will be ended or modified when the coverage requirements take effect in 2014. [8] Failure to meet minimum requirements has resulted in insurance customers losing their existing plans, for example at least 146,000 plans in Michigan [9] and 300,000 plans provided by Florida Blue have been ended due to the plans not covering enough medical services. [10]
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Three notes:
1. In the first rollout section you need to add that while phone and paper (navigator) applications can be accepted, and phone banks have been ramped up, all the applications still have to ultimately be processed through the healthcare.gov hub, which remains the principal bottleneck. There were also reports of improper pricing data and garbled or incomplete application data in the interchange between the "hub" and the insurance companies.
2. In the loss of insurance section it needs to be pointed out that the bill as passed in March 2010 included a robust grandfather clause, essentially grandfathering almost all existing plans, but the subsequent enabling regulations written by HHS (in June 2010) tightened the grandfather requirements such that their own projections at the time estimated that 40-67% of individual plans and over half of all large and small employer group plans would become ineligible by 2014 (for individuals) and 2015 for employers (due to extension).
The data for above can be obtained directly from the Federal Register in the form of HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001.pdf, directly linked here: https://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23967 A table of their estimates (Table 3) is at the top of page 34553 of that document. Based upon those HHS as well as some IRS data in Bulletin 2010-29, some industry analysts estimate that the total number ultimately affected could be as high as 129 million.
Also on-topic with the grandfather issue but perhaps better covered in the political or even legislative section(s) is the fact that the effect of these stringent provisions was made known (even to those who did not read it before voting for it, find out what was in it after passing it, or bother to follow the HHS rule making thereafter) at least as early as Sept 29th, 2010, when Senator Enzi of Wyoming brought to the floor of The Senate a resolution explaining the impact of the HHS grandfather rules and proposing to overrule them such that the promises of The President and the law's proponents could be kept ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-09-29/html/CREC-2010-09-29-pt1-PgS7673-3.htm ). The resolution was debated and rejected in a vote, 59 Nay (all Democrat) to 40 Yea (all Republican).
3. I agree that section three is (was) anecdotal, the net effect cannot possibly be known for some time, for each one paying more for the freight there are probably five to ten who were uninsured before and now getting it for free, and others of low income paying less thanks to subsidies. The real "rate shock" effect is upon those who were paying the most into the system already and from who the wealth needs to be transferred, the young and healthy fortunate enough to have a good paying job and the middle and middle-upper class, many of the latter who already had plans they felt appropriate to their needs and almost all of who are seeing dramatic increases in premiums for the same or higher deductibles, coverage for things they don't need and much narrower provider networks. It is "only" by those tens of millions that the "rate shock" is being felt, and even there we cannot yet know whether their actual costs will go up at all since many will either not be able to afford it or decide it is not a wise investment... which will drop their actual insurance costs to zero. I fall into that category, a bronze plan in CT would cost me $1530 per month for the same 10k deductible I have now at $580 per month, so when my plan is cancelled at the end of the year I will just pay the fine (actually not, because the IRS never owes me money) and self insure until sanity is restored. The actual "paid" enrolment numbers if and when they come out will tell the story, if nobody is enrolling you can assume they are all saving money. InterpreDemon ( talk) 07:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
However regarding point #2, it seems to me that the secondary source requirement is the instrument by which known, public facts can be deep-sixed at will simply by claiming the secondary source is biased. If the Heritage Foundation points you to the Federal Register, somehow the information therein is not valid due to the bias of the messenger, but if the NYT does it everything is OK. The Heritage Foundation claims the Sun rose today, everybody saw it but the editor of the NYT who was indoors all day, thus the Sun did not rise. To say that a resolution did not exist on the Senate floor because the Federal Register reported it to the public but no other un-biased secondary source did seems to me to be stacking the deck either way. Please show me where I am missing the relevance or value of the secondary source in these circumstances. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
This was a phrase uttered by Obama on countless occasions while attempting to sell the ACA to the public. It turned out not to be true, and the President now seems to have "apologized" for people who aren't able to keep their "sub-par" health plans due to the law. Where does the article talk about this misstatement and the controversy surrounding it?-- Jerk of Thrones ( talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like the quote is worthy of being a sub-section of what ever section about the rollout is eventually written. - Haymaker ( talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I like The Economist because it is not known for having a particularly right-wing or left-wing slant. They have an excellent and concise summary of what a disaster (the subtitle of the article is "Congress hears tales of baffling ineptitude") the implementation of Obamacare has been so far, in case anyone want to use it as a source: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588951-congress-hears-tales-baffling-ineptitude-debacle
They also have an excellent article on how the problems have damaged Obama's reputation as an executive, but that's less relevant to this article. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588929-barack-obamas-supporters-are-worried-he-terrible-manager-whoops -- Jerk of Thrones ( talk) 15:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like there is an emerging consensus that there should be some section covering the rollout. Inside that section I was thinking about making at table with two main categories: how many people enrolled in each state inside the first month, and then whether or not that state agreed to be part of the ACA or whether the federal government was running the exchange in their state. Are there any other columns that would be worth including? - Haymaker ( talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be a real challenge to do on our own, especially for the first month as the data is so scant. I have attempted to find such a running tally (exclusive of gov't vs state exchanges aspect) and they are all over the map, with cumulative totals anywhere from enough to count all your fingers and toes to a million. Perhaps when we see the data released next week by HHS and the level of detail included (state by state and/or other demographic information) such a tally could begin. This is not unlike the problem with figuring out how many have lost their insurance due to cancellations since Oct 1, an equally important and complementary data set that would be nice to have but not really possible until sometime after the beginning of the year when the policy holders (or portion of them) have been enrolled in something to replace those they lost. Right now all of this is basically impounded within the insurance company and HHS databases, and in the case of the former may never become available due to competition and trade secrets. InterpreDemon ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I cannot understand why this article makes no mention of the fact that the final bill was crafted in secret behind closed doors, that few if any of the Democrats voting for it had read it, that Speaker Pelosi had famously uttered, "But first we have to pass the bill so that we can see what is in it" and the very real and now emerging evidence that when The President repeatedly declared directly to the American People that, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" he was not telling us the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just trying to point out what I considered to be viable areas of controversy regarding the representations made about the bill and the manner of its passage into law. Common sense needs no citation for the engaged, comprehending reader (more on this later), thus it does not take a specific citation to substantiate the fact that the bill was around 2,400 pages (depending upon font, Republicans apparently being a bit far-sighted) and that the final version was only available to legislators hours, not days, before the votes on passage without debate, and the idea that a human could even read all the words, let alone understand the net effect of the myriad of circular, internal and external references to arcane statute is, in my opinion laughable. In other words, even if any claimed to have read it and understood it, as far as I know a number that is at present even less than that of the sole non-reader citation of Mr. Baucus, such a claim would seem impossible... though of course I cannot directly back it up with a citation, On the other hand, using common sense in concert with an indirect citation, perhaps from the Guinness Book of World Records, I might be able to substantiate my argument. Indeed, having been clocked at 25,000 words per minute, Mr. Howard Berg could shoot through the entire 420,000 word ACA in less than half an hour, but for the average reader at 200 WPM it might take a tad longer, two full days of non-stop reading that would make Mr. Cruz envious. And that is without even factoring in a presumed requirement for comprehension of the Act by those voting for it, an understanding which so far appears to have defied the grasp of millions of collective reading hours of insurers, providers, "navigators", ordinary citizens and their legislators, made even more daunting if one dares to tackle the order of magnitude greater statutory codification and regulatory enactment thereof.
As to Ms. Pelosi, I can only say that the real controversy began after the fog cloaking the reef was lifted and Americans were able to see the dangerous shoals toward which they were headed.
Finally, The President's solemn promise given in unambiguous phraseology prior to and since the passage of the ACA. Right now millions of Americans are receiving letters from their insurers informing them that their existing policies are not in compliance with ACA, and the plans are either being modified to include coverage not necessarily desired by the subscribers or being cancelled outright. I have such a plan myself, I like it, and I am not going to be able to keep it. Instead, I will be forced to enroll in a new plan costing almost triple the premium for the same deductible and including coverage for things that are at odds with my gender, my age and desire. To try to nuance that issue (that it's not a lie but merely another "questionable statement", presumably to be lumped in with "Read my lips..." and "I did not have sex with that woman...") claiming that "the law doesn't force [insurers] to drop coverage" is a bit silly unless one seriously thinks that an insurance company would continue to underwrite policies that are essentially illegal even if not specifically stated to be so. For example, it is now law that insurers cannot screen for or discriminate against pre-existing conditions, which with my limited knowledge of law and common sense would suggest to me that continuing to offer rated policies such as mine, where such discrimination is in fact desired by the healthy consumer who "likes" being in a lower risk pool, would indeed be illegal. To suggest that it is not the government or the law that is responsible for the loss of my policy but instead the fault of the nasty insurance company being unwilling to flaunt the law on my behalf seems to border on the absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This lack of legislative "mark-up" understanding is why folks ran with the claim the bill was ~2,000 plus pages too-long-to-read when in reality, a third to a half of the content at that point was redundant strike-outs and italics & the rest was the exact same language found in the bill(s) passed months earlier. When all that interim mark-up jive was formatted out for the bill's final passage into law, it wound up being less than 1,000 pages total. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 08:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, where is the citation or set of "facts" supporting the following sentence from the article:
"The ACA aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government."
Is it just from the preamble of the bill, propaganda of the folks who were imposing it, or the author's original research? How can we know the real "aim" of the legislation or motivation of the masterminds behind it? I could have instead written, "The ACA aims to make for a more egalitarian society by using taxation, coercion, subsidies, a regulated health insurance market and managed delivery of care as the means to transfer wealth from the healthy, wealthy and wise to those who are less so", and it would be equally as "factual" as the original.
There are many declarative statements in the article devoid of "facts" behind them, theoretical or otherwise, and I doubt that as real facts emerge to the contrary they will ever be corrected or revised, for example if in a few years we find that little if any of those "aims" have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In the box in the top right corner of the article, it is written INCORRECTLY that PPACA passed the House on October 8th, 2009, on a 416-0 vote, and a link is given. The link is to the passing of "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" in the House.
Could somebody please correct the information and the link?
Judging by the article itself, the House passed the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" on November 7th, 2009, on a 220–215 vote, and then accepted PPACA as part of the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act" of 2010 on March 21, 2010, on a 220-211 vote.
132.76.61.23 ( talk) 08:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Inna, 15-Oct-2013
My understanding of the shutdown came from Thomas Sowell, to quote:
"There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare. This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record."
The article writes:
"House Republicans, supported by Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, refused to fund the federal government unless accompanied with a delay in the ACA, resulting in a government shutdown." (Four articles as sources)
This talks about a delay, but doesn't necessarily contradict Sowell. The story as I understand it is that the process has gone from "we won't fund ACA" to "we will only fund ACA if accompanied with a delay" to "we will only fund ACA if you remove certain provisions".
What concerns me with regards to NPOV is the language used. One side (including Sowell) could argue that congress has the right to legislate by appropriation and that it is the Senate's fault for refusing to accept funding 95% of government just because they didn't get the 5%. The other side could argue--as I recall Obama doing in his latest press conference--that this isn't how laws should be changed, that the Senate shouldn't be expected to give in to tactics considered unacceptable.
So the question is how to phrase it. For now I have changed it to:
"House Republicans, supported by Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio, initially voted to fund all of government except the ACA, which the senate refused to authorize. Shortly before the deadline, they offered to fund government, including the ACA, if it was accompanied with a delay in the ACA. The senate refused to authorize this, resulting in a government shutdown."
That seems more accurate to me, but I am not a Democrat, so if other users believe the bias has been shifted the other way, then it may call for a discussion. J1812 ( talk) 06:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody here is interested in a "neutral" view on the shutdown or anything else, otherwise they would not have completely failed to mention the disastrous roll-out of the Healthcare.gov web site and exchanges over the last two weeks during the already included shutdown. Rush to press on the "Republican" shutdown? Of course. Provide an update on the dysfunctional exchange web sites and dismal sign-up progress so far, something much more directly related to the topic of the article and the alleged "aim" of the ACA? Nothing but crickets. Doubtless not "notable", and widely reported rumors in all the press and media about millions being unable to create accounts or log on cannot be "verified". InterpreDemon ( talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
At the same time, I'm with DrFleischman in that I'm unwilling to reward the behavior of InterpreDemon ( talk · contribs), who seems dedicated to misusing this talkpage as a platform for his personal views of the ACA. MastCell Talk 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with language like, "voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare", "voted to fund all of government except the ACA, which the senate refused to authorize", "refusing to accept funding 95% of government just because they didn't get the 5%", and so on, is that this phrasing makes it seem like Congress was being requested to "authorize" funding of Obamacare, i.e. that their active assent was required, and they merely passively refused to provide this authorization. This is false: Obamacare funding was already authorized, which is why e.g. the exchange rollout (bugs notwithstanding) went forward despite the shutdown. (The shutdown only affected discretionary spending, not mandatory spending like the ACA funding.) The Republicans were demanding that it be defunded (and later modified this to a request for delay) which is a quite different thing. — Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 20:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the decision to include or not include information about the roll-out should not have anything to do with the "rewarding" or "punishment" of somebody as irrelevant as me, and by any of the measures to be utilized in determining what is "notable" or relevant content as such would doubtless prove neither. I just felt that if the shutdown, certainly "recent" and as Mr. Johnson pointed out above having little actual effect upon the ACA were to be deemed relevant, the progress of and problems with the roll-out to date would also be at least as relevant. As to my behavior and abuse of this space as a newcomer, I understand the viewpoints of all and offer my sincerest apology. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we allowed to endorse a YouTube video, like the YouToons one by the Henry J Kaiser foundation? It seems unencyclopedic to tell our readers to go watch a video instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDiala ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Initial enrollment results:
Officials: 476,000 Obamacare applications filed http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/19/obamacare-applications-health-exchange/3071661/
5 things that have happened since Obamacare launched http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/19/health/obamacare-enrollment-launch-overview/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.231 ( talk) 10:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says that most of the law was upheld in NFIB v. Sebelius, but this is incorrect. The individual mandate provision was upheld as constitutional, thus averting the law from being entirely overturned. In terms of number of provisions, this is quite a small aspect, even if it is important to the overall functioning of the law. Also, in the same decision, the state medicare expansion provision was held unconstitutionally coercive and thus modified by the court. Jaykest1 ( talk) 03:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, towards the bottom, it incorrectly mentions that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax. More precisely, the individual mandate was upheld because it could be construed as a tax (due to the lack of criminal sanctions and relatively light fee), not because it was a tax (which the act clearly labels as a penalty). This is made all the more clear by the ruling on the Anti-Injunction Act, which stated that, for purposes of jurisdictional analysis, the mandate was not a tax. Jaykest1 ( talk) 04:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Jaykest1, Fleischman and Prototime are essentially correct, especially on the role of the judiciary, although I wouldn't necessarily use the term judicial "supremacy" (just a quibble on my part). The U.S. federal courts interpret the law (whether constitutional law, common law, treaty law, statute law, administrative law, etc.) in the context of actual cases or controversies. And, in interpreting law, context is almost always important. Just as is the case in life in general, a given word can have multiple meanings in law. Indeed, the very word "law" itself has more than one technical meaning in one particular sentence found in the United States Constitution. Famspear ( talk) 01:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think "supremacy" is the perfect word, and anybody familiar with Marbury v. Madison and "Judicial Review", the self proclaimed right the Supreme court claims to original jurisdiction on all matters Constitutional (despite no such provision in the Constitution), would probably agree. It is only the Supreme court (and only due to its own decision) that can decide if a law is Constitutional, and if not just re-write it to make it so as Justice Roberts did. InterpreDemon ( talk) 03:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is the coverage of the problems with using the Obamacare website? Where is the coverage of the many people who thought that their existing policies would carry over, but then had them cancelled? JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A link was given (then removed) listing certain exemptions. [1] If these are verifiable, why are they not mentioned in at least one of the articles about Obamacare legislation, or have I missed something? While first of all this affects US citizens, there are readers of the article outside the USA who are concerned about the global knock-on effects of the long term budgetary impact of Obamacare, in connection with debt-ceiling, shutdown etc. Qexigator ( talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Spriggs, Hell will freeze over before the masters allow any mention in the article of the "If I like your plan, you can keep it, if you like your plan you can <bleep> it" promise by POTUS, or any mention of IRS Bulletin 2010-29 InterpreDemon ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy concerning whether people can keep their "current" plans is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the article. The controversy has received quite a bit of coverage in the media, and I'd add a line about it to the article myself if the page weren't currently subject to full protection. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a spin section called "myths" where the progressive Wikipedia editors protect Obama with such gems as: "On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin falsely claimed that . . ." Will there now be added a section that says: [On occasions too numerous to count!] Barack Obama falsely claimed that 'if you like your insurance you can keep it!'" ? Didn't think so. "Palin falsely claimed stays in", and "Obama falsely claimed" would never get in. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.14.194 ( talk) 04:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
DrFleischman, I do have a genuine, non-partisan, interest as a citizen in talking about improving the locked encyclopedic content of the Obamacare article by suggesting it be consistent and unbiased in its use of strong language ("falsely claimed"), and that it accurately reflect the fact that the "If you like your plan you can keep it" Obama falsehood is in fact now a major element of Obamacare events. The specific constructive improvement to the content would be to include reference to Obama falsely claiming in excess of 29 times that "If you like your plan you can keep it." It is my understanding that Prototime above is already working on an edit on this subject matter, in accordance with core agreed policies and I look forward to seeing it. My focus is purely on encyclopedia building and to that end I think that if language such as "falsely claimed" is OK for describing conservative Republicans it should be OK for describing progressive Democrats, when the progressive Democrats clearly lie themselves ("If you like your plan, you can keep it."). Perhaps I added some sarcasm in my talk page comment. I don't think it detracts gravely from the positive and directly constructive contribution I was making with my observation. I take editing seriously, but this isn't article editing, it's talk page "editing" so please forgive me for being just a little bit human, in my talking. And yes, all 3 of the 71.190.xxx.xxx's above are me - not trying to sockpuppet here - just that Verizon DSL gives a different IP every time you log on even from the same location. Next step - becoming a registered user - yes, I know. But in the mean time, please forgive me for being human, on the talk page. It's been a while since I felt compelled to contribute to one of these conversations, and I had forgotten how strict you guys are with newcomers to the talk pages. I fully understand that none of us want these talk pages to be clogged with the old Usenet-style political debates. But I think my original point (be consistent with "falsely claimed") is legitimate, if not my "aside" comments on the likelihood of it happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.12.177 ( talk) 06:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
So IP-person is advised to avoid using "clearly" because it causes "confrontation", says the registered user who uses non-confrontational, professional, encyclopedic language like "please go away" (at 04:40, 6 November 2013 above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.18.159 ( talk)
I know the article's on lockdown now, but it seems that an important component of the ACA is the number of those who have enrolled. CBS News reported a couple of days ago that the 1st day numbers were low. Six. Then by the 2nd day of enrollment the number of enrollees jumped to 248. [2] Maybe add a new section--after lockdown is lifted--on those enrolled in the ACA? Maybe similar to Medicare article demographics [3]? -- Cirrus Editor ( talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I dispute the article with respect to its stated Obamacare approval ratings. I believe the article as it stands in Wikipedia currently (I have not modified the article) is biasing readers towards the sentiment that most citizens generally feel Obamacare is good, and they will only increase their belief it is good- just like with Medicare.
Here are poll results that clearly show most citizens do NOT generally feel Obamacare is good for them: http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/100313-673712-obamacare-opposition-to-obamacare-reaches-new-high.htm http://www.american.com/archive/2013/october/top-10-takeaways-public-opinion-on-the-affordable-care-act http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/oct/16/gallup-obamacare-little-less-unpopular/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.3.124 ( talk) 15:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There should be a section about how the law is doing, which parts came online when and which will be pushed back. I think it should be call "implementation", or something like that. I read that only 6 people enrolled on the first day and woul like to know if that is true, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.101 ( talk) 18:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"The idea goes back as far as 1989, when it was initially proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer health care."
The above statement is untrue.
The statement in quotes is a reference to a lecture series presented by Stuart Butler. There is a disclaimer prior to text presented by Butler, “Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation...”
Here is a link to Butler’s presentation: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf Horsappl ( talk) 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, we'll try this one, from a scholarly article out of NYU: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html
"After World War II, the effort to rebuild Japan gave new impetus to the achievement of universal coverage. In 1958, the 1938 law was revised to include the remaining 30 percent of the population not previously covered. This revision broke the precedent of extending health insurance to occupational groups by calling for universal coverage on the basis of residence. Every government jurisdiction, whether city, town or village, was required to provide health insurance to every uncovered resident by 1961. Since 1961, virtually all Japanese have been covered by either employers or the government." "Health insurance expenditures in Japan are financed by payroll taxes paid by employers and employees and by income-based premiums paid by the self-employed. In contrast to the United States, where the federal, state and local governments finance roughly 42.9 percent of all health care expenditures and out-of-pocket payments contribute another 22 percent, in Japan, only 31.7 percent of national health care expenditures derive from national and local public funds and 12.2 percent from out-of-pocket payments. The largest share of health care financing in Japan is raised by means of compulsory premiums levied on individual subscribers (34.6 percent) and employers (21.7 percent) InterpreDemon ( talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I'm finished with it. If I ever see the phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or a discussion of the grandfather rule changes buried in the Federal Register a few months after passage, or their present impact upon millions of Americans, two items of far more significance to the public interest than the Heritage Foundation, appear anywhere in the article, maybe I'll reconsider. I was alerted this article by a national forum as an example of bias and my impression remains in agreement. Have fun with it. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the subject matter will need to be included at some point.
I don't think it deserves quite as huge a section as it got.
But the problems with the rollout of healthcare.gov have been going on for over a month, I think my toned-down version was not terrible. I think it could still be made better, but I know my personal opinions may get in the way here since I think the website problems will be a transient thing.
The "if you like your healthcare you can keep it" seems like a manufactured controversy to me, we could remove all those quotes probably. But it is notable that many plans are being dropped due to not meeting minimum requirements. It would be less biased to report how many of those were then replaced with similarly priced, compliant plans as well. Assuming, of course, that information is available.
If rates in general have gone up, that's probably notable as well. "Rate shock" is a terrible section title of course. Still my personal opinions may hinder me here, since I think personally that we can't say much about rates of health care under the Affordable Care Act until after the individual mandate is actually in place for long enough to impact rates as planned.
All in all the added content probably had some good info and relevant links, but should NOT have been presented as a list of inflammatory quotes under biased "headline" style section titles. I tried cleaning it up a bit before you deleted it but it was a big task. It probably would have taken several more edits to get into shape. Should we try again editing on this talk page or some other place before putting it live?
-- Fritzophrenic ( talk) 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so how about getting it looking nice here and then going live:
The high-profile healthcare.gov website did not work properly during its October 1, 2013 launch. [1] CNN reporter Elizabeth Cohen reported being unable to apply for coverage after two weeks of trying, experiencing difficulties such as not being able to create a user ID or password, slow response times, and more. [2] During the first 24 hours after the website had gone online, only six people had successfully used the website to enroll. [3] CBS News likewise quoted Luke Chung, an online database programmer, as saying the healthcare.gov website was "not even ready for beta testing", citing a poor design, implementation, and apparent lack of testing. [4] Indeed, integration testing on the completed product was not even started until a few weeks before the site went live, and was performed by government agencies instead of the involved software companies. [5]
President Obama said in 2009 while the ACA was being debated, "If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." [6] On October 30, 2013, the Washington Post gave this statement a rating of four Pinocchios. [6]
In February 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance. [7] As late as 2013, about half of the active individual health care plans on the market were not meeting the minimum required coverage requirements of the ACA and therefore will be ended or modified when the coverage requirements take effect in 2014. [8] Failure to meet minimum requirements has resulted in insurance customers losing their existing plans, for example at least 146,000 plans in Michigan [9] and 300,000 plans provided by Florida Blue have been ended due to the plans not covering enough medical services. [10]
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Three notes:
1. In the first rollout section you need to add that while phone and paper (navigator) applications can be accepted, and phone banks have been ramped up, all the applications still have to ultimately be processed through the healthcare.gov hub, which remains the principal bottleneck. There were also reports of improper pricing data and garbled or incomplete application data in the interchange between the "hub" and the insurance companies.
2. In the loss of insurance section it needs to be pointed out that the bill as passed in March 2010 included a robust grandfather clause, essentially grandfathering almost all existing plans, but the subsequent enabling regulations written by HHS (in June 2010) tightened the grandfather requirements such that their own projections at the time estimated that 40-67% of individual plans and over half of all large and small employer group plans would become ineligible by 2014 (for individuals) and 2015 for employers (due to extension).
The data for above can be obtained directly from the Federal Register in the form of HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001.pdf, directly linked here: https://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23967 A table of their estimates (Table 3) is at the top of page 34553 of that document. Based upon those HHS as well as some IRS data in Bulletin 2010-29, some industry analysts estimate that the total number ultimately affected could be as high as 129 million.
Also on-topic with the grandfather issue but perhaps better covered in the political or even legislative section(s) is the fact that the effect of these stringent provisions was made known (even to those who did not read it before voting for it, find out what was in it after passing it, or bother to follow the HHS rule making thereafter) at least as early as Sept 29th, 2010, when Senator Enzi of Wyoming brought to the floor of The Senate a resolution explaining the impact of the HHS grandfather rules and proposing to overrule them such that the promises of The President and the law's proponents could be kept ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-09-29/html/CREC-2010-09-29-pt1-PgS7673-3.htm ). The resolution was debated and rejected in a vote, 59 Nay (all Democrat) to 40 Yea (all Republican).
3. I agree that section three is (was) anecdotal, the net effect cannot possibly be known for some time, for each one paying more for the freight there are probably five to ten who were uninsured before and now getting it for free, and others of low income paying less thanks to subsidies. The real "rate shock" effect is upon those who were paying the most into the system already and from who the wealth needs to be transferred, the young and healthy fortunate enough to have a good paying job and the middle and middle-upper class, many of the latter who already had plans they felt appropriate to their needs and almost all of who are seeing dramatic increases in premiums for the same or higher deductibles, coverage for things they don't need and much narrower provider networks. It is "only" by those tens of millions that the "rate shock" is being felt, and even there we cannot yet know whether their actual costs will go up at all since many will either not be able to afford it or decide it is not a wise investment... which will drop their actual insurance costs to zero. I fall into that category, a bronze plan in CT would cost me $1530 per month for the same 10k deductible I have now at $580 per month, so when my plan is cancelled at the end of the year I will just pay the fine (actually not, because the IRS never owes me money) and self insure until sanity is restored. The actual "paid" enrolment numbers if and when they come out will tell the story, if nobody is enrolling you can assume they are all saving money. InterpreDemon ( talk) 07:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
However regarding point #2, it seems to me that the secondary source requirement is the instrument by which known, public facts can be deep-sixed at will simply by claiming the secondary source is biased. If the Heritage Foundation points you to the Federal Register, somehow the information therein is not valid due to the bias of the messenger, but if the NYT does it everything is OK. The Heritage Foundation claims the Sun rose today, everybody saw it but the editor of the NYT who was indoors all day, thus the Sun did not rise. To say that a resolution did not exist on the Senate floor because the Federal Register reported it to the public but no other un-biased secondary source did seems to me to be stacking the deck either way. Please show me where I am missing the relevance or value of the secondary source in these circumstances. InterpreDemon ( talk) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
This was a phrase uttered by Obama on countless occasions while attempting to sell the ACA to the public. It turned out not to be true, and the President now seems to have "apologized" for people who aren't able to keep their "sub-par" health plans due to the law. Where does the article talk about this misstatement and the controversy surrounding it?-- Jerk of Thrones ( talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like the quote is worthy of being a sub-section of what ever section about the rollout is eventually written. - Haymaker ( talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I like The Economist because it is not known for having a particularly right-wing or left-wing slant. They have an excellent and concise summary of what a disaster (the subtitle of the article is "Congress hears tales of baffling ineptitude") the implementation of Obamacare has been so far, in case anyone want to use it as a source: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588951-congress-hears-tales-baffling-ineptitude-debacle
They also have an excellent article on how the problems have damaged Obama's reputation as an executive, but that's less relevant to this article. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588929-barack-obamas-supporters-are-worried-he-terrible-manager-whoops -- Jerk of Thrones ( talk) 15:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like there is an emerging consensus that there should be some section covering the rollout. Inside that section I was thinking about making at table with two main categories: how many people enrolled in each state inside the first month, and then whether or not that state agreed to be part of the ACA or whether the federal government was running the exchange in their state. Are there any other columns that would be worth including? - Haymaker ( talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be a real challenge to do on our own, especially for the first month as the data is so scant. I have attempted to find such a running tally (exclusive of gov't vs state exchanges aspect) and they are all over the map, with cumulative totals anywhere from enough to count all your fingers and toes to a million. Perhaps when we see the data released next week by HHS and the level of detail included (state by state and/or other demographic information) such a tally could begin. This is not unlike the problem with figuring out how many have lost their insurance due to cancellations since Oct 1, an equally important and complementary data set that would be nice to have but not really possible until sometime after the beginning of the year when the policy holders (or portion of them) have been enrolled in something to replace those they lost. Right now all of this is basically impounded within the insurance company and HHS databases, and in the case of the former may never become available due to competition and trade secrets. InterpreDemon ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)