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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro ( talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to follow critical comments about ACA's effects on small businesses with
contending this is "Certainly not an 'Un-attributed quote' since the author verifies the conclusion using appropriate cites." and that "The conclusion is well supported in the article." Show cause otherwise. Attleboro ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the likely benefits of Obamacare for small businesses are enormous. To begin with, it’ll make it easier for people to start their own companies—which has always been a risky proposition in the U.S., because you couldn’t be sure of finding affordable health insurance. As John Arensmeyer, who heads the advocacy group Small Business Majority, and is himself a former small-business owner, told me, “In the U.S., we pride ourselves on our entrepreneurial spirit, but we’ve had this bizarre disincentive in the system that’s kept people from starting new businesses.” Purely for the sake of health insurance, people stay in jobs they aren’t suited to—a phenomenon that economists call “job lock.” “With the new law, job lock goes away,” Arensmeyer said. “Anyone who wants to start a business can do so independent of the health-care costs.” Studies show that people who are freed from job lock (for instance, when they start qualifying for Medicare) are more likely to undertake something entrepreneurial, and one recent study projects that Obamacare could enable 1.5 million people to become self-employed.
Even more important, Obamacare will help small businesses with health-care costs, which have long been a source of anxiety. The fact that most Americans get their insurance through work is a historical accident: during the Second World War, wages were frozen, so companies began offering health insurance instead. After the war, attempts to create universal heath care were stymied by conservatives and doctors, and Congress gave corporations tax incentives to keep providing insurance. The system has worked well enough for big employers, since large workforces make possible the pooling of risk that any healthy insurance market requires. But small businesses often face so-called “experience rating”: a business with a lot of women or older workers faces high premiums, and even a single employee who runs up medical costs can be a disaster. A business that Arensmeyer represents recently saw premiums skyrocket because one employee has a child with diabetes. Insurance costs small companies as much as eighteen per cent more than it does large companies; worse, it’s also a crapshoot. Arensmeyer said, “Companies live in fear that if one or two employees get sick their whole cost structure will radically change.” No wonder that fewer than half the companies with under fifty employees insure their employees, and that half of uninsured workers work for small businesses or are self-employed. In fact, a full quarter of small-business owners are uninsured, too.
Obamacare changes all this. It provides tax credits to smaller businesses that want to insure their employees. And it requires “community rating” for small businesses, just as it does for individuals, sharply restricting insurers’ ability to charge a company more because it has employees with higher health costs. And small-business exchanges will in effect allow companies to pool their risks to get better rates. “You’re really taking the benefits that big companies enjoy, and letting small businesses tap into that,” Arensmeyer said. This may lower costs, and it will insure that small businesses can hire the best person for a job rather than worry about health issues.
The U.S. likes to think of itself as friendly to small businesses. But, as a 2009 study by the economists John Schmitt and Nathan Lane documented, our small-business sector is among the smallest in the developed world, and has one of the lowest rates of self-employment. One reason is that we’ve never had anything like national health insurance. In a saner world, changing this would be a reform that the “party of small business” would celebrate.
ui, Attleboro ( talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think a 2009 study forecasting the potential impact of the ACA on small business prior to its enactment makes much sense four years later and three years into the implementation, where surely there must be real data now available on such impact one way or the other. It would have been interesting to see how a Wikipedia article about climate change might have evolved if it began back in the 70's when today's "global warming" proponents were predicting global cooling, the only difference between then and now being the actual data, that we are now to fry instead of freeze, and their pony tails turning gray. As the delayed mandates roll in over the next year the turmoil we have seen over the past few weeks, with millions losing the health care they "liked" that the masterminds deemed unsatisfactory, will increase by an order of magnitude and I am confident we will see a similarly far different outcome from what the progenitors of this master plan were promising as they were selling it five years ago. InterpreDemon ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I reject the premise that "the United States has something to learn from the experience of other advanced economies" regarding entrepreneurship and small business creation, since on both accounts we outperform them all. Which "advanced economy" has a better track record for risk taking, business creation and innovation than ours? Which "appear to have had much better luck promoting and sustaining small-business employment" than we? Those are the postulations that need to be cited with evidence, for without substantiation of those claims the whole article and argument falls flat on its face. Yes, in America health insurance costs for individuals and small businesses may be higher per capita those of large enterprises, but at least prior to the ACA they (individuals and businesses) still had the option to not buy insurance at all, at least until such time as the venture or circumstances enabled them to invest in risk management or to attract a certain type of talent like executives with families, union talent and such. Now, that choice is gone, thus directly or indirectly saddling the start-up or the individuals participating in it with additional mandated costs not there before. As one who has started numerous businesses over decades, I personally benefited from being able to both offer and receive "sweat equity" in the early stages and deal with benefits later on when the venture was proved viable, and I fear the next generation of young, healthy entrepreneurs will no longer have the option to invest that extra four to five grand into their venture instead of insurance they have no need for and stand little chance of being able to collect from. It makes no sense to suggest that by imposing a cost on everybody it improves the opportunity for everybody as well. Put another way, if you have two businesses, one without a health care costs burden and another with, imposing a new cost on the former to partially subsidize the latter will likely result in only one survivor. InterpreDemon ( talk) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
02:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Support deletion (Saw an RfC request and came on over...) I think it's redundant, the fact that the same sentence is basically said twice. That being noted, it doesn't strike me as adding anything to the article - more like an editor is advocating something. That's just how it reads to me. GRUcrule ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro ( talk) 17:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This revert had the explanatory comment, "rv POV argumentation in WP's voice". I have a few concerns.
The main one is that the removed material wasn't in WP's voice, it was attributed to John Arensmeyer and well-cited. The secondary one is that, while it does express an attributed POV, it's not necessarily undue in context.
I'd like to suggest that the revert should be reverted. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Disagreeing with the majority makes it a minority view, not fringe. For example, the majority view is that Rand Paul plagiarized, the minority view (chiefly his own) is that he somehow didn't, and the fringe view is that aliens implanted the same material into his brain and into Wikipedia using zeta rays. You seem to be abusing WP:FRINGE in an attempt to silence a source whose reliability is unquestionable. This seems to be a case of WP:PS, where the goal comes first and the reasons come later. MilesMoney ( talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're collectively muddying the waters by arguing over multiple issues all at once. Issues have been raised about both (a) the reliability of the Surowiecki column and (b) the neutrality of the language used. The section above entitled "ACA & small businesses" has been ongoing and has focused on the reliability of the Surowiecki column. Let's keep that thread going and focus this discussion on other neutrality issues (such as BALANCE, UNDUE, and FRINGE). Also, I haven't seen any objections to the reliability of the CEPR source, but if there are any, let's start a third discussion for that one. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request revert to previous version (16:54, 2 November 2013, Martarius) on the merits of the information contained therein. (Also, request admin opinion of those merits and any other issues related to the way this edit controversy has proceeded. See Talks "ACA & small businesses" and "In our own voice?" just above.) Orthogonius ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Orthogonius ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about Obama's promise has been spread out all over this talk page, so this is a (perhaps counterproductive) attempt to call on everyone to centralize the discussion here. I have added text and sources to the "Myths" subsection about Obama's claim that "if you like insurance, you can keep it". I am open to suggestions for improvement. I believe that the "Change in insurance standards" subsection also warrants mention of this issue, but with more focus on who is losing insurance and for what reasons, and less focus on Obama's claim itself. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Loonymonkey reverted (twice) the material in the "Myths" section with the following explanation: "See WP:AWW regarding "claimed", etc. and WP:SYNTH regarding "However," etc. This text presents a one-sided view. Discuss before adding again". The text was restored by myself and Arzel. Three points that I would like to bring up here in response:
First, and foremost, the use of the word "However" is not original synthesis. If you read the sources provided for this text, which are neutral and reliable (e.g., PolitiFact) you will see quite clearly that the sources themselves directly make the contrast between Obama's promise and the reality that only certain plans are grandfathered in. There is no new claim being made by synthesizing different pieces of information together; the claim being stated is contained in the sources themselves.
Second, per WP:AWW, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." However, the word "claim" is not a weasel word in the context of the "Myths" section; the entire point of the section is to call the credibility of certain statements into question. This same terminology is used to describe other claims in the "Myths" section (for example, the language "Sarah Palin falsely claimed..." is used to describe the death panels claim), and the usage of the word "claim" here makes equal sense.
Finally, to say this should be removed because it is "one-sided" is little more than an argument that it should be removed because it doesn't give undue weight to views that are not contained in most neutral, reliable sources--which clearly agree that Obama's promise is mostly untrue. Removing this material because it is "one-sided" makes as little sense as removing the material that debunks the "death panel" claim because that material doesn't provide undue weight to the view the ACA actually does create death panels. Actually, it makes even less sense, because even Obama himself has recognized the dubiousness of his earlier claim and apologized for it, while some people still continue to make the death panels claim.
With this is mind, I am open to tweaking of the text, but not its wholesale removal--certainly not for the reasons just provided. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Mast, I don't understand your vituperation, I was only using those points to illustrate examples of things that could be included IF one were to pursue the IMHO hopeless task of trying to "balance" sources on either side of controversial issues, especially ones that are not supposed to be true, an effort which I do not endorse. The organ transplant issue was only of note not because it had anything directly to do with the ACA, but because it played into one side's political arguments against the ACA as an example of perceived government control over life and death decisions, in my opinion no different from the apparent relevance of the shutdown, which had no impact on the implementation or provisions of the ACA but for some reason was deemed important to the article. I am not commenting on or advocating either issue, just pointing out that a case could be made that "death panels" do in fact exist in one form or another, depending upon how you interpret the phrase or what you believe Mrs. Palin meant when she said it. Again I ask, just what is the purpose of the "myths" section, supposedly a compilation of proved to be absolutely false information, in an article that is supposed to be about factual information? What IS factual and inarguable is that Sarah Palin said what she said, and her opponents said what they said, but a fool's errand would be trying to find any incontrovertible source(s) that would prove absolutely that either side was correct, and unless we want to have people keep fighting about it endlessly or simply shut down debate and declare the contents true for all time, that is the errand we will be on. I think the energy would be better spent trying to make the article more informative and interesting rather than more controversial, and it IS controversial. InterpreDemon ( talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Try to restrain the tangents and hypotheticals. Instead, focus on a specific piece of content that you'd like to add, remove, or change, and support your proposal with links to independent, reliable sources. If people do that, then the talkpage works. If even a handful of people choose not to do that, and instead post voluminous off-topic musings, then the talkpage doesn't work. I'm asking you to help make this talkpage work. MastCell Talk 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The section ends with the sentence, "On November 7, 2013, Obama apologized for making the dubious claim, promising he would work to help the affected Americans."
The cited source makes no statement or argument that he apologized for making the claim, either to those affected or to the Americans at large, only that he was "sorry that they [those affected] are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from [him]", which is part of his exact words. To those not affected by the policy there was no apology, direct or otherwise. There is also no indication that he admitted the "assurances" were "dubious" or that he apologized for making them. Thus the sentence as written implies two unsubstantiated facts, 1) he apologized to all, and 2) he apologized for his false assurances. My suggestion is the sentence be removed, since for every hundred sources that divine an apology to the American people for the "dubious claim" (something like "I apologize for not telling the truth") there will be another hundred who say he merely expressed sorrow that some are affected, an argument further buttressed by the balance of the NBC interview where he returned to the "vast majority" being unaffected and that those losing their plans are going to be getting a better deal anyway talking points. I have no objection to replacing the sentence with his exact quote and leave the readers to decide the meaning for themselves, just as they did the meaning of, "If you like your plan, you can keep it, period." Finally, I do not feel that "Obama" is the correct way to refer to The President in an article like this. InterpreDemon ( talk) 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?-- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I wanted to alert the editors here that I started a new article about the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013 (H.R. 3350; 113th Congress). This bill is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow (Nov 15) by the House. The bill is intended to keep Obama's promise that people could keep their health insurance if they like it by grandfathering older, pre-existing plans into being allowed in 2014. Some people love it, others hate it, and there's a lot of media attention about it. I saw a lot of debate on this talk page about how to incorporate material about Obama's statement about keeping your plan. This article would be a great place to include information about that, since it is that statement that inspired the title of this bill and the bill's content. The article is still a work in progress (isn't all of Wikipedia?); I'd love to see more people add to it. Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no information on the problems associated with the rollout of ACA. This isn't a politically charged question - I just want to know more about what actually went wrong/ what Obama's "fix" is. I have never seen an article that has ignored such major current events for so long - I've never seen such a questionable bias article on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.170.180 ( talk) 01:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the public opinion segment reads as
Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself remains controversial with opinions falling along party lines; most Democrats favor the law, while Republicans and Independents generally do not. Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013.[301][302] USA Today found opinions were strongly divided by age of the person at the law's inception, with a solid majority of seniors opposing the bill and a solid majority of those younger than forty years old in favor.[303]
I find it puzzling that the relevant information pertaining to actual public opinion on the law, "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." is near the bottom of the paragraph. This segment should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph, where then the rest of the information such as "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" can elaborate on the public view. Clearly, the sentence "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" has less precedence than "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." in a piece regarding how the public views the ACA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.141.208 ( talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
[2] >> Health care signups far below expectations [3] [4] [5]( Lihaas ( talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)).
This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article is locked or this minor edit would have been carried out by my anonymous self.
1 of 2 types of modifications should make the sentence more proper. So either:
A) change "with the goal of increasing" into "with the goal to increase"
XOR (I think this would be better),
B) Current sentence: "The ACA was enacted with the goal of increasing 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."
Should be: "The ACA was enacted with the goal(s) of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowerING the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducING the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. "
The (s) following "goal" is debatable, though the plurality of goal it would indicate seems to me more logically consistent with the fact that the sentence lists more than one goal, or at leasts enumerates three specifics of a parent or primary goal.
many thanks 165.235.73.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand exactly what Pelosi meant by this. I don't see any mention of it in this article. It would be nice to include in case any remotely NPOV version of this comment can be worded. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I see several criticisms of editors and their motives in this discussion, but the only substantive argument I see from those who believe this subject matter is sufficiently notable for inclusion is that it has been brought up by multiple editors on the talk page. Am I mistaken? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that reviewing this article during dispute is not the right time. However, I see edit warring, and I left "GAR request" intact because... well, that would take several weeks to wait for someone to review it. Trust me; there is low participation responding to requests, like that. I know that it has been Good Article for several weeks, but recent attempts to add back and remove content is affecting this article. I don't know much, but I would hope for some compromise. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why must something that is so good for US citizens and the economy be forced on them? Forced by taxes and penalties, enforced by the IRS; this does not seem to indicate the PPACA is a good thing for most people. Most things that are good for people and the economy do not need to be forced into place. I must ask, why go to the extent this act does in order to issue insurance policies to 5 million people, many of whom don't even want them. And to cancel and reissue millions of more expensive policies to those who were happy with their old policies? It's clear that basic health plans could have been offered or even given those of the 5 million that wanted them for far less money and with much less social and political turmoil that currently exists. Indigents and others without plans could have been issued "on the spot" plans when seeking care at hospitals or other facilities to cover the cost of immediate care. Why go to the extent of passing a 2500 page law before you can read it? Unless there is something far more important than health involved? Because there is little more important to the current administration and that the redistribution of one sixth of the US economy's wealth from those who work hard and contribute to society to those who do not. Why do this? It is very simple: Votes. The trade of health insurance for votes and the associated control of the entire health care section of the US economy. If you like you doctor you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare insurance you can keep your insurance. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannoneer1 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
I don't know when it happened but a citation needed challenge was inserted at some point in the second paragraph of the lede (apparently) for the specific sentence...
Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare.
Overall, I have no issue with such requests, but I doubt there will be single source that contains as much so succinctly since (if I recall correctly) the sentence came about...
In short - the once rather detailed nuances (group bidding, attack fraud, preventative care, doctor/hospital incentives to reduce recidivism, close donut-hole, and all the rest) eventually got whittled down to that one line in order to help keep the lede manageable at the price of specificity along with their individual supporting references.
Again, if I remember right, I believe this was acceptable at the "time" based on the premise all those things where going to explained in even greater detail (and properly sourced) in the sections to follow anyway. Fast-forward in time once again and that premise has since been undermined by the fork in the Provisions section into its own article.
All that said, what do we do about it? I don't see too many GAs with citation needed in the lede - that much is for sure. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 02:13, 27 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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro ( talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to follow critical comments about ACA's effects on small businesses with
contending this is "Certainly not an 'Un-attributed quote' since the author verifies the conclusion using appropriate cites." and that "The conclusion is well supported in the article." Show cause otherwise. Attleboro ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the likely benefits of Obamacare for small businesses are enormous. To begin with, it’ll make it easier for people to start their own companies—which has always been a risky proposition in the U.S., because you couldn’t be sure of finding affordable health insurance. As John Arensmeyer, who heads the advocacy group Small Business Majority, and is himself a former small-business owner, told me, “In the U.S., we pride ourselves on our entrepreneurial spirit, but we’ve had this bizarre disincentive in the system that’s kept people from starting new businesses.” Purely for the sake of health insurance, people stay in jobs they aren’t suited to—a phenomenon that economists call “job lock.” “With the new law, job lock goes away,” Arensmeyer said. “Anyone who wants to start a business can do so independent of the health-care costs.” Studies show that people who are freed from job lock (for instance, when they start qualifying for Medicare) are more likely to undertake something entrepreneurial, and one recent study projects that Obamacare could enable 1.5 million people to become self-employed.
Even more important, Obamacare will help small businesses with health-care costs, which have long been a source of anxiety. The fact that most Americans get their insurance through work is a historical accident: during the Second World War, wages were frozen, so companies began offering health insurance instead. After the war, attempts to create universal heath care were stymied by conservatives and doctors, and Congress gave corporations tax incentives to keep providing insurance. The system has worked well enough for big employers, since large workforces make possible the pooling of risk that any healthy insurance market requires. But small businesses often face so-called “experience rating”: a business with a lot of women or older workers faces high premiums, and even a single employee who runs up medical costs can be a disaster. A business that Arensmeyer represents recently saw premiums skyrocket because one employee has a child with diabetes. Insurance costs small companies as much as eighteen per cent more than it does large companies; worse, it’s also a crapshoot. Arensmeyer said, “Companies live in fear that if one or two employees get sick their whole cost structure will radically change.” No wonder that fewer than half the companies with under fifty employees insure their employees, and that half of uninsured workers work for small businesses or are self-employed. In fact, a full quarter of small-business owners are uninsured, too.
Obamacare changes all this. It provides tax credits to smaller businesses that want to insure their employees. And it requires “community rating” for small businesses, just as it does for individuals, sharply restricting insurers’ ability to charge a company more because it has employees with higher health costs. And small-business exchanges will in effect allow companies to pool their risks to get better rates. “You’re really taking the benefits that big companies enjoy, and letting small businesses tap into that,” Arensmeyer said. This may lower costs, and it will insure that small businesses can hire the best person for a job rather than worry about health issues.
The U.S. likes to think of itself as friendly to small businesses. But, as a 2009 study by the economists John Schmitt and Nathan Lane documented, our small-business sector is among the smallest in the developed world, and has one of the lowest rates of self-employment. One reason is that we’ve never had anything like national health insurance. In a saner world, changing this would be a reform that the “party of small business” would celebrate.
ui, Attleboro ( talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think a 2009 study forecasting the potential impact of the ACA on small business prior to its enactment makes much sense four years later and three years into the implementation, where surely there must be real data now available on such impact one way or the other. It would have been interesting to see how a Wikipedia article about climate change might have evolved if it began back in the 70's when today's "global warming" proponents were predicting global cooling, the only difference between then and now being the actual data, that we are now to fry instead of freeze, and their pony tails turning gray. As the delayed mandates roll in over the next year the turmoil we have seen over the past few weeks, with millions losing the health care they "liked" that the masterminds deemed unsatisfactory, will increase by an order of magnitude and I am confident we will see a similarly far different outcome from what the progenitors of this master plan were promising as they were selling it five years ago. InterpreDemon ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I reject the premise that "the United States has something to learn from the experience of other advanced economies" regarding entrepreneurship and small business creation, since on both accounts we outperform them all. Which "advanced economy" has a better track record for risk taking, business creation and innovation than ours? Which "appear to have had much better luck promoting and sustaining small-business employment" than we? Those are the postulations that need to be cited with evidence, for without substantiation of those claims the whole article and argument falls flat on its face. Yes, in America health insurance costs for individuals and small businesses may be higher per capita those of large enterprises, but at least prior to the ACA they (individuals and businesses) still had the option to not buy insurance at all, at least until such time as the venture or circumstances enabled them to invest in risk management or to attract a certain type of talent like executives with families, union talent and such. Now, that choice is gone, thus directly or indirectly saddling the start-up or the individuals participating in it with additional mandated costs not there before. As one who has started numerous businesses over decades, I personally benefited from being able to both offer and receive "sweat equity" in the early stages and deal with benefits later on when the venture was proved viable, and I fear the next generation of young, healthy entrepreneurs will no longer have the option to invest that extra four to five grand into their venture instead of insurance they have no need for and stand little chance of being able to collect from. It makes no sense to suggest that by imposing a cost on everybody it improves the opportunity for everybody as well. Put another way, if you have two businesses, one without a health care costs burden and another with, imposing a new cost on the former to partially subsidize the latter will likely result in only one survivor. InterpreDemon ( talk) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
02:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Support deletion (Saw an RfC request and came on over...) I think it's redundant, the fact that the same sentence is basically said twice. That being noted, it doesn't strike me as adding anything to the article - more like an editor is advocating something. That's just how it reads to me. GRUcrule ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro ( talk) 17:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This revert had the explanatory comment, "rv POV argumentation in WP's voice". I have a few concerns.
The main one is that the removed material wasn't in WP's voice, it was attributed to John Arensmeyer and well-cited. The secondary one is that, while it does express an attributed POV, it's not necessarily undue in context.
I'd like to suggest that the revert should be reverted. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Disagreeing with the majority makes it a minority view, not fringe. For example, the majority view is that Rand Paul plagiarized, the minority view (chiefly his own) is that he somehow didn't, and the fringe view is that aliens implanted the same material into his brain and into Wikipedia using zeta rays. You seem to be abusing WP:FRINGE in an attempt to silence a source whose reliability is unquestionable. This seems to be a case of WP:PS, where the goal comes first and the reasons come later. MilesMoney ( talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're collectively muddying the waters by arguing over multiple issues all at once. Issues have been raised about both (a) the reliability of the Surowiecki column and (b) the neutrality of the language used. The section above entitled "ACA & small businesses" has been ongoing and has focused on the reliability of the Surowiecki column. Let's keep that thread going and focus this discussion on other neutrality issues (such as BALANCE, UNDUE, and FRINGE). Also, I haven't seen any objections to the reliability of the CEPR source, but if there are any, let's start a third discussion for that one. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request revert to previous version (16:54, 2 November 2013, Martarius) on the merits of the information contained therein. (Also, request admin opinion of those merits and any other issues related to the way this edit controversy has proceeded. See Talks "ACA & small businesses" and "In our own voice?" just above.) Orthogonius ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Orthogonius ( talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about Obama's promise has been spread out all over this talk page, so this is a (perhaps counterproductive) attempt to call on everyone to centralize the discussion here. I have added text and sources to the "Myths" subsection about Obama's claim that "if you like insurance, you can keep it". I am open to suggestions for improvement. I believe that the "Change in insurance standards" subsection also warrants mention of this issue, but with more focus on who is losing insurance and for what reasons, and less focus on Obama's claim itself. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Loonymonkey reverted (twice) the material in the "Myths" section with the following explanation: "See WP:AWW regarding "claimed", etc. and WP:SYNTH regarding "However," etc. This text presents a one-sided view. Discuss before adding again". The text was restored by myself and Arzel. Three points that I would like to bring up here in response:
First, and foremost, the use of the word "However" is not original synthesis. If you read the sources provided for this text, which are neutral and reliable (e.g., PolitiFact) you will see quite clearly that the sources themselves directly make the contrast between Obama's promise and the reality that only certain plans are grandfathered in. There is no new claim being made by synthesizing different pieces of information together; the claim being stated is contained in the sources themselves.
Second, per WP:AWW, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." However, the word "claim" is not a weasel word in the context of the "Myths" section; the entire point of the section is to call the credibility of certain statements into question. This same terminology is used to describe other claims in the "Myths" section (for example, the language "Sarah Palin falsely claimed..." is used to describe the death panels claim), and the usage of the word "claim" here makes equal sense.
Finally, to say this should be removed because it is "one-sided" is little more than an argument that it should be removed because it doesn't give undue weight to views that are not contained in most neutral, reliable sources--which clearly agree that Obama's promise is mostly untrue. Removing this material because it is "one-sided" makes as little sense as removing the material that debunks the "death panel" claim because that material doesn't provide undue weight to the view the ACA actually does create death panels. Actually, it makes even less sense, because even Obama himself has recognized the dubiousness of his earlier claim and apologized for it, while some people still continue to make the death panels claim.
With this is mind, I am open to tweaking of the text, but not its wholesale removal--certainly not for the reasons just provided. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Mast, I don't understand your vituperation, I was only using those points to illustrate examples of things that could be included IF one were to pursue the IMHO hopeless task of trying to "balance" sources on either side of controversial issues, especially ones that are not supposed to be true, an effort which I do not endorse. The organ transplant issue was only of note not because it had anything directly to do with the ACA, but because it played into one side's political arguments against the ACA as an example of perceived government control over life and death decisions, in my opinion no different from the apparent relevance of the shutdown, which had no impact on the implementation or provisions of the ACA but for some reason was deemed important to the article. I am not commenting on or advocating either issue, just pointing out that a case could be made that "death panels" do in fact exist in one form or another, depending upon how you interpret the phrase or what you believe Mrs. Palin meant when she said it. Again I ask, just what is the purpose of the "myths" section, supposedly a compilation of proved to be absolutely false information, in an article that is supposed to be about factual information? What IS factual and inarguable is that Sarah Palin said what she said, and her opponents said what they said, but a fool's errand would be trying to find any incontrovertible source(s) that would prove absolutely that either side was correct, and unless we want to have people keep fighting about it endlessly or simply shut down debate and declare the contents true for all time, that is the errand we will be on. I think the energy would be better spent trying to make the article more informative and interesting rather than more controversial, and it IS controversial. InterpreDemon ( talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Try to restrain the tangents and hypotheticals. Instead, focus on a specific piece of content that you'd like to add, remove, or change, and support your proposal with links to independent, reliable sources. If people do that, then the talkpage works. If even a handful of people choose not to do that, and instead post voluminous off-topic musings, then the talkpage doesn't work. I'm asking you to help make this talkpage work. MastCell Talk 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The section ends with the sentence, "On November 7, 2013, Obama apologized for making the dubious claim, promising he would work to help the affected Americans."
The cited source makes no statement or argument that he apologized for making the claim, either to those affected or to the Americans at large, only that he was "sorry that they [those affected] are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from [him]", which is part of his exact words. To those not affected by the policy there was no apology, direct or otherwise. There is also no indication that he admitted the "assurances" were "dubious" or that he apologized for making them. Thus the sentence as written implies two unsubstantiated facts, 1) he apologized to all, and 2) he apologized for his false assurances. My suggestion is the sentence be removed, since for every hundred sources that divine an apology to the American people for the "dubious claim" (something like "I apologize for not telling the truth") there will be another hundred who say he merely expressed sorrow that some are affected, an argument further buttressed by the balance of the NBC interview where he returned to the "vast majority" being unaffected and that those losing their plans are going to be getting a better deal anyway talking points. I have no objection to replacing the sentence with his exact quote and leave the readers to decide the meaning for themselves, just as they did the meaning of, "If you like your plan, you can keep it, period." Finally, I do not feel that "Obama" is the correct way to refer to The President in an article like this. InterpreDemon ( talk) 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?-- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I wanted to alert the editors here that I started a new article about the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013 (H.R. 3350; 113th Congress). This bill is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow (Nov 15) by the House. The bill is intended to keep Obama's promise that people could keep their health insurance if they like it by grandfathering older, pre-existing plans into being allowed in 2014. Some people love it, others hate it, and there's a lot of media attention about it. I saw a lot of debate on this talk page about how to incorporate material about Obama's statement about keeping your plan. This article would be a great place to include information about that, since it is that statement that inspired the title of this bill and the bill's content. The article is still a work in progress (isn't all of Wikipedia?); I'd love to see more people add to it. Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no information on the problems associated with the rollout of ACA. This isn't a politically charged question - I just want to know more about what actually went wrong/ what Obama's "fix" is. I have never seen an article that has ignored such major current events for so long - I've never seen such a questionable bias article on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.170.180 ( talk) 01:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the public opinion segment reads as
Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself remains controversial with opinions falling along party lines; most Democrats favor the law, while Republicans and Independents generally do not. Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013.[301][302] USA Today found opinions were strongly divided by age of the person at the law's inception, with a solid majority of seniors opposing the bill and a solid majority of those younger than forty years old in favor.[303]
I find it puzzling that the relevant information pertaining to actual public opinion on the law, "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." is near the bottom of the paragraph. This segment should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph, where then the rest of the information such as "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" can elaborate on the public view. Clearly, the sentence "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" has less precedence than "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." in a piece regarding how the public views the ACA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.141.208 ( talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
[2] >> Health care signups far below expectations [3] [4] [5]( Lihaas ( talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)).
This
edit request to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article is locked or this minor edit would have been carried out by my anonymous self.
1 of 2 types of modifications should make the sentence more proper. So either:
A) change "with the goal of increasing" into "with the goal to increase"
XOR (I think this would be better),
B) Current sentence: "The ACA was enacted with the goal of increasing 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."
Should be: "The ACA was enacted with the goal(s) of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowerING the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducING the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. "
The (s) following "goal" is debatable, though the plurality of goal it would indicate seems to me more logically consistent with the fact that the sentence lists more than one goal, or at leasts enumerates three specifics of a parent or primary goal.
many thanks 165.235.73.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand exactly what Pelosi meant by this. I don't see any mention of it in this article. It would be nice to include in case any remotely NPOV version of this comment can be worded. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I see several criticisms of editors and their motives in this discussion, but the only substantive argument I see from those who believe this subject matter is sufficiently notable for inclusion is that it has been brought up by multiple editors on the talk page. Am I mistaken? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that reviewing this article during dispute is not the right time. However, I see edit warring, and I left "GAR request" intact because... well, that would take several weeks to wait for someone to review it. Trust me; there is low participation responding to requests, like that. I know that it has been Good Article for several weeks, but recent attempts to add back and remove content is affecting this article. I don't know much, but I would hope for some compromise. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why must something that is so good for US citizens and the economy be forced on them? Forced by taxes and penalties, enforced by the IRS; this does not seem to indicate the PPACA is a good thing for most people. Most things that are good for people and the economy do not need to be forced into place. I must ask, why go to the extent this act does in order to issue insurance policies to 5 million people, many of whom don't even want them. And to cancel and reissue millions of more expensive policies to those who were happy with their old policies? It's clear that basic health plans could have been offered or even given those of the 5 million that wanted them for far less money and with much less social and political turmoil that currently exists. Indigents and others without plans could have been issued "on the spot" plans when seeking care at hospitals or other facilities to cover the cost of immediate care. Why go to the extent of passing a 2500 page law before you can read it? Unless there is something far more important than health involved? Because there is little more important to the current administration and that the redistribution of one sixth of the US economy's wealth from those who work hard and contribute to society to those who do not. Why do this? It is very simple: Votes. The trade of health insurance for votes and the associated control of the entire health care section of the US economy. If you like you doctor you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare insurance you can keep your insurance. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannoneer1 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
I don't know when it happened but a citation needed challenge was inserted at some point in the second paragraph of the lede (apparently) for the specific sentence...
Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare.
Overall, I have no issue with such requests, but I doubt there will be single source that contains as much so succinctly since (if I recall correctly) the sentence came about...
In short - the once rather detailed nuances (group bidding, attack fraud, preventative care, doctor/hospital incentives to reduce recidivism, close donut-hole, and all the rest) eventually got whittled down to that one line in order to help keep the lede manageable at the price of specificity along with their individual supporting references.
Again, if I remember right, I believe this was acceptable at the "time" based on the premise all those things where going to explained in even greater detail (and properly sourced) in the sections to follow anyway. Fast-forward in time once again and that premise has since been undermined by the fork in the Provisions section into its own article.
All that said, what do we do about it? I don't see too many GAs with citation needed in the lede - that much is for sure. -- George Orwell III ( talk) 02:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)