![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Washington Post has a good story about Verma's Medicaid plan in Indiana. It has the virtue of being WP:NPOV and explaining the arguments for and against the implementation in significant detail. This summarizes issues that are being debated throughout the medical literature. More important than conflict of interest is the question of whether the plan will work at all, or whether the incentives are too complicated to serve their purpose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/01/what-trumps-pick-to-run-medicaid-did-for-the-white-working-class-in-indiana
What Trump’s pick to run Medicaid did for the white working class in Indiana
By Max Ehrenfreund
December 1, 2016
(Trump nominated Seema Verma to head the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Verma is a private-sector consultant who advised on state Medicaid programs, is usually credited with the design of Indiana's program.)
The new system has provided coverage to hundreds of thousands of people of modest means who were previously uninsured. At the same time, the design burdens patients with more paperwork and more out-of-pocket expenses compared to similar programs in other states.
beneficiaries pay for their own insurance, but they receive savings accounts from the government worth $2,500 each to help cover their out-of-pocket costs.
the program had extended coverage to about 207,000 people who were not enrolled in Medicaid previously. in contrast to Medicaid recipients in other states, beneficiaries in Indiana are responsible for paying additional costs, such as co-payments or premiums in the form of contributions to the savings account. These provisions are designed to encourage recipients to plan ahead and save money by only seeking medical treatment when it is necessary The system's "consumer-driven design familiarizes its members with the concepts of commercial health insurance and encourages them to be prudent consumers, comparing cost and quality of health care services," she and Brian Neale, another of Pence's advisers, wrote in Health Affairs in August.
Opponents of Indiana's system say that while it forces subscribers to shell out more in the form of co-payments and required contributions, the rules are too byzantine for participants to take them into account in making decisions about their health care
For those in the more comprehensive plan, only about 48 percent were aware that they had a savings account, according to the results of a survey included in the report commissioned by the state.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's what Verma said about pregnancy coverage at her confirmation hearings. It would be a good idea to go back to her hearings and include all of her comments that were reported by multiple WP:RSs.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/maternity-obamacare-gop/index.html
Families to pay price if maternity coverage gets cut in GOP's health care plan
by Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
@CNNMoney
Seema Verma, the consultant on private health insurance who was nominated to head the agency that oversees the health law, said at her Senate confirmation hearing last month that she does not necessarily support keeping maternity care as a requirement for insurance plans.
"Women have to make the decisions that work best for them and their family," she said. "Some women might want maternity coverage, and some women might not want it."
Backers of the coverage requirement say that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.
"Anytime you allow people to pick and choose, you're making the care they don't pick more expensive," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
User_talk:64.112.178.0 and I seem to be in agreement that Seema remains CMS administrator. Aside from primary sources, does anyone have comments from high ranking officials about this subject? If not, the article should remain in its current form Sucker for All ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I have placed an NPOV tag on this article because this article has long suffered from an egregious lack of neutrality. Single-purpose IP accounts located in Washington D.C. appear to be intent on making this article a hatchet job against the article subject. Do better. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Without adjudication or discussion, the NPOV tag was removed after placed by Marquardtika. I have reinserted it. Please discuss on the talk page. W21040tx ( talk) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, I have posted this on [ BLPN] in hopes of reaching a balanced consensus. W21040tx ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we can reach a better consensus one bit at a time. I added back biographical content that was removed. It is current, relevant, and accurate. I should think there should be no objection to this. Please discuss here if you disagree. W21040tx ( talk) 03:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not believe this article meets BLP policy. This is a hit job. Never was she sanctioned, reprimanded, fined or penalized in any way. For example, in the conflict of interest issue with the state of Indiana: There was never any investigation, she was not a state employee; she did nothing illegal. Regarding press reports of clashes with her CoS: This is very nearly tabloid fodder. Regardless, nothing illegal happened. Regarding contracts to firms with Republican ties: OIG investigated, and did not find Verma responsible. For this wiki, repeated efforts at mediation have failed. Editors have removed balance and even biographical information that is purely factual in nature, such as Verma's current activities. Consistent with BLP policy, the article should focus on biographical information and not allegations that never led to any sanction. W21040tx ( talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a rewrite [1] of the paragraph, concerned that the WP:POV change was driven by WP:OR rather than the references, and asking that smaller edits be used to make it clear why the changes might be justified. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been periodically contributing to this page, as editing political pages is one of my interests. Noticed multiple one-off IP addresses that appear to be policing the page & leaving misleading edit summaries. I, as well as another account ( Hipal), have directed the IPs to use Talk for any issues. This appears to be a COI ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) & I am inserting the POV tag until I receive a response via Talk.-- Kentuckyfriedtucker ( talk) 03:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I've requested the article be protected. WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP apply. Editors are required to get consensus before restoring disputed content per WP:BLP. I suggest working on one area at a time, clearly identify what content you want to be changed, and what references support the changes. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.-- Hipal ( talk) 17:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I have many concerns about the recent edits. Some of the material simply didn't appear to be verified by the references given, there were some poor references, and there were changes from the chronological ordering.
I'm concerned that there may be other problems with chronological ordering in the article.
It also appears that some references are not being used in a NPOV manner, rather the main points of the references are being withheld from the article. -- Hipal ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
She also assisted...Where is that verified? It looks like those that promoted the legislation claimed it would save that much. I'm unable to find any verification that it actually did. However, other references make clear the problems with such a "puntative" approach, yet that hasn't been included.
I've removed it as pure WP:SOAP. She defends her decisions, saying "It is not compassionate to trap people on government programs or create greater dependency on public assistance as we expand programs like Medicaid." We'd need a far better source for anything on this. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Washington Post has a good story about Verma's Medicaid plan in Indiana. It has the virtue of being WP:NPOV and explaining the arguments for and against the implementation in significant detail. This summarizes issues that are being debated throughout the medical literature. More important than conflict of interest is the question of whether the plan will work at all, or whether the incentives are too complicated to serve their purpose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/01/what-trumps-pick-to-run-medicaid-did-for-the-white-working-class-in-indiana
What Trump’s pick to run Medicaid did for the white working class in Indiana
By Max Ehrenfreund
December 1, 2016
(Trump nominated Seema Verma to head the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Verma is a private-sector consultant who advised on state Medicaid programs, is usually credited with the design of Indiana's program.)
The new system has provided coverage to hundreds of thousands of people of modest means who were previously uninsured. At the same time, the design burdens patients with more paperwork and more out-of-pocket expenses compared to similar programs in other states.
beneficiaries pay for their own insurance, but they receive savings accounts from the government worth $2,500 each to help cover their out-of-pocket costs.
the program had extended coverage to about 207,000 people who were not enrolled in Medicaid previously. in contrast to Medicaid recipients in other states, beneficiaries in Indiana are responsible for paying additional costs, such as co-payments or premiums in the form of contributions to the savings account. These provisions are designed to encourage recipients to plan ahead and save money by only seeking medical treatment when it is necessary The system's "consumer-driven design familiarizes its members with the concepts of commercial health insurance and encourages them to be prudent consumers, comparing cost and quality of health care services," she and Brian Neale, another of Pence's advisers, wrote in Health Affairs in August.
Opponents of Indiana's system say that while it forces subscribers to shell out more in the form of co-payments and required contributions, the rules are too byzantine for participants to take them into account in making decisions about their health care
For those in the more comprehensive plan, only about 48 percent were aware that they had a savings account, according to the results of a survey included in the report commissioned by the state.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's what Verma said about pregnancy coverage at her confirmation hearings. It would be a good idea to go back to her hearings and include all of her comments that were reported by multiple WP:RSs.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/13/news/economy/maternity-obamacare-gop/index.html
Families to pay price if maternity coverage gets cut in GOP's health care plan
by Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
@CNNMoney
Seema Verma, the consultant on private health insurance who was nominated to head the agency that oversees the health law, said at her Senate confirmation hearing last month that she does not necessarily support keeping maternity care as a requirement for insurance plans.
"Women have to make the decisions that work best for them and their family," she said. "Some women might want maternity coverage, and some women might not want it."
Backers of the coverage requirement say that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance works.
"Anytime you allow people to pick and choose, you're making the care they don't pick more expensive," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
User_talk:64.112.178.0 and I seem to be in agreement that Seema remains CMS administrator. Aside from primary sources, does anyone have comments from high ranking officials about this subject? If not, the article should remain in its current form Sucker for All ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I have placed an NPOV tag on this article because this article has long suffered from an egregious lack of neutrality. Single-purpose IP accounts located in Washington D.C. appear to be intent on making this article a hatchet job against the article subject. Do better. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Without adjudication or discussion, the NPOV tag was removed after placed by Marquardtika. I have reinserted it. Please discuss on the talk page. W21040tx ( talk) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, I have posted this on [ BLPN] in hopes of reaching a balanced consensus. W21040tx ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we can reach a better consensus one bit at a time. I added back biographical content that was removed. It is current, relevant, and accurate. I should think there should be no objection to this. Please discuss here if you disagree. W21040tx ( talk) 03:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not believe this article meets BLP policy. This is a hit job. Never was she sanctioned, reprimanded, fined or penalized in any way. For example, in the conflict of interest issue with the state of Indiana: There was never any investigation, she was not a state employee; she did nothing illegal. Regarding press reports of clashes with her CoS: This is very nearly tabloid fodder. Regardless, nothing illegal happened. Regarding contracts to firms with Republican ties: OIG investigated, and did not find Verma responsible. For this wiki, repeated efforts at mediation have failed. Editors have removed balance and even biographical information that is purely factual in nature, such as Verma's current activities. Consistent with BLP policy, the article should focus on biographical information and not allegations that never led to any sanction. W21040tx ( talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a rewrite [1] of the paragraph, concerned that the WP:POV change was driven by WP:OR rather than the references, and asking that smaller edits be used to make it clear why the changes might be justified. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been periodically contributing to this page, as editing political pages is one of my interests. Noticed multiple one-off IP addresses that appear to be policing the page & leaving misleading edit summaries. I, as well as another account ( Hipal), have directed the IPs to use Talk for any issues. This appears to be a COI ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) & I am inserting the POV tag until I receive a response via Talk.-- Kentuckyfriedtucker ( talk) 03:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I've requested the article be protected. WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP apply. Editors are required to get consensus before restoring disputed content per WP:BLP. I suggest working on one area at a time, clearly identify what content you want to be changed, and what references support the changes. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.-- Hipal ( talk) 17:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I have many concerns about the recent edits. Some of the material simply didn't appear to be verified by the references given, there were some poor references, and there were changes from the chronological ordering.
I'm concerned that there may be other problems with chronological ordering in the article.
It also appears that some references are not being used in a NPOV manner, rather the main points of the references are being withheld from the article. -- Hipal ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
She also assisted...Where is that verified? It looks like those that promoted the legislation claimed it would save that much. I'm unable to find any verification that it actually did. However, other references make clear the problems with such a "puntative" approach, yet that hasn't been included.
I've removed it as pure WP:SOAP. She defends her decisions, saying "It is not compassionate to trap people on government programs or create greater dependency on public assistance as we expand programs like Medicaid." We'd need a far better source for anything on this. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)