This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I propose including summaries of HealthAffairs.org[1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4], some of which were manually archived after obtaining consensus for inclusion. EllenCT ( talk) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (edited to name links EllenCT ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC))
The link should be to the LAT, not HealthcareNow.
Try searching Google for "Richard Burr Danielle Martin" without the quotes.
In addition to the LAT, this exchange was reported in The Star and the National Post, which (I think) are Canada's 2 main newspapers (and the Post is conservative and a frequent critic of the Canadian government health system). It was also reported on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in the U.S. by more publications. Multiple reports in WP:RS is the criteria that Wikipedia uses to decide whether something is important enough to belong in an entry.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/canadian_doctor_makes_anti_obamacare_senator_look_like_a_buffoon/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/martin-1-burr-0
It is a comparison of the health care system in the U.S., Canada and Australia, not just the U.S. and Canada, so it's international.
It compares the results of a more government-run system with a more privatized system. The issue of public vs. private is one that health care systems are dealing with internationally.
The many editors at WP:RSs who chose to report this exchange realize that it addresses an important, critical part of the health care debate. -- Nbauman ( talk) 23:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks like it looks like 5 articles about one speech renouncing a straw man, renouncing an erroneous argument made by one person. In essence,, for effect, and off topic. North8000 ( talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have completely lost track of which sources are being referred to by pretty much everyone at this point, so I named them: HealthAffairs.org [1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4]. Please succinctly restate your objections and the reasons for them, if any. EllenCT ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, ensuring we have a neutral point of view is pretty much one of the most important things we do here with the project. It's not my point of view on the matter, it's Wikipedia's regarding neutrality. If you can explain why a newsblog post about the United States marketplace is relevant to a worldwide article on single payer health care, I could be swayed into agreeing with you. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a question, shouldn't there be a "criticism" section to this article? It's a fairly controversial topic and other than "the bill failed" type content, there's no real criticism. Both sides of the issue should be represented, the economics of it, legal questions, pros & cons etc. Coinmanj ( talk) 07:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Public Citizen is nonpartisan with a long history of public interest issue support in the US. Is [2] acceptable for summarizing here? EllenCT ( talk) 07:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would any experienced editor not think that the one paragraph conclusion is most appropriate to summarize?
I hope a competitive labor market isn't too far "left wing" of an idea. EllenCT ( talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone added this yet? EllenCT ( talk) 07:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Who archived the section where the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging testimony was being discussed? There were three other sources if I recall correctly.... EllenCT ( talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Done – S. Rich ( talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Talk:Single-payer_health_care/Archive_5#External_links some editors said that the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10719 National Academies Press and publication for the Institute of Medicine was unacceptable because it was a commercial site.
Actually, WP:MEDRS specifically gives the U.S. National Academies and Institute of Medicine as examples of WP:RS:
-- Nbauman ( talk) 07:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
An expert recommended this article to me, and it's pretty good. It explains why we didn't get single payer in 2008, what the problems are with Obamacare, and how single payer might succeed in the future.
|title=Beyond Obamacare: Universalism and Health Care in the Twenty-first Century
|author= A. W. Gaffney
|journal=New Politics
|date=Summer 2014
|Volume=XV
|number=1
|url= http://newpol.org/content/beyond-obamacare -- Nbauman ( talk) 04:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's another WP:RS that reported the single payer hearing of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
KHN is one of the most authoritative news sources in medical journalism.
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/05/single-payer-advocates-hit-capitol-with-new-sense-of-reality/
Single-Payer Advocates Hit Capitol With New Sense Of Reality
By Julie Rovner
May 21st, 2014, 2:50 PM
--
Nbauman (
talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion was improperly archived because someone apparently set the archiving bot to only leave a single thread on this talk page. EllenCT ( talk) 01:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's a Senate hearing with a comprehensive discussion of single payer, including points of view pro and con. There are submissions by people who are recognized experts, and they are questioned afterwards.
http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=8acab996-5056-a032-522e-e39ca45fcfbe Subcommittee Hearing - Access and Cost: What the US Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries
Committee: Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
Date: Tuesday, March 11 2014, 10:00 AM
Place: 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Panel I
Tsung-Mei Cheng, LLB, MA , Health Policy Research Analyst, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Ching-Chuan Yeh, MD, MPH , former Minister of Health for Taiwan; Professor, School of Public Health, College of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan
Sally C. Pipes , President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA
Danielle Martin, MD, MPP , Vice-President Medical Affairs & Health System Solutions, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada
Jakob Kjellberg, MSc , Professor, Program Director for Health, KORA-Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark
David Hogberg, PhD , Health Care Policy Analyst, National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C
Victor G. Rodwin, PhD, MPH , Professor of Health Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY
-- Nbauman ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Single-payer healthcare. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
PBS seems to have had a few good stories on single payer, most of them skeptical but they are at least balanced with both sides. You can browse them all with a Google search site:pbs.org single payer
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-u-s-create-single-payer-health-system/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/single-payer/
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any arguments against the system on the page, only supportive arguments. Appears to be a grave lack of balance. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The section on Australia states flat out that there are private and government components to their system. I think there should be a separate section for these hybrid systems so that readers don't site them as examples of single-payer systems. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm landing on this page researching for an Eng-Fra translation about healthcare systems. The contents are generally good enough, thank you, but I'm very surprised to not find, in the "Countries" section, a paragraph on France, which has had near-universal HC coverage since the 1947 De Gaulle+Communists (short-lived but decisive) administration. If the page author(s) has no documentation on the subject, I could try to come up with a minimal sub-section on France's single-payer system. Lionel.Lumbroso ( talk) 09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Both "single-payer" and "single payer" are used as adjectives throughout the article, starting in the lead. This is unprofessional; we should stick to one style. Which is preferable? ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 01:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be some drastic editing that occurs from time to time. Perhaps it wise to consider that the subject is only Single-Payer Healthcare and not other types of healthcare.
The only situation where others may come into play is as a comparison or to mention those that are incorrectly considered as such, and why they are not. - KitchM ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
CA SB 562 analysis links and tax summaries
CA Senate Consultant report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3728610/SB-0562.pdf
"About $200 billion in additional tax revenues would be needed to pay for the remainder of the total program cost. Assuming that this cost was raised through a new payroll tax (with no cap on wages subject to the tax), the additional payroll tax rate would be about 15% of earned income."
This analysis mentions voters will have to approve this due to Gann limits.
CA Amherst Study: http://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/wp-content/uploads/Pollin-Economic-Analysis-SB-562.pdf
"We propose two new taxes to generate the required $106 billion in additional funding as of 2017: 1) A gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent. This tax will be applied to all businesses in California. It will include an exemption for the first $2 million in receipts for all businesses. Through this exemption, firms that average up to 9 employees will have no gross receipts tax obligation. Firms with up to 19 employees will pay taxes on only about one-third of their gross revenue. 2) A sales tax of 2.3 percent. The sales tax will exempt all spending on housing, utility and food at home. To be consistent with the existing California tax code, it will also include exemptions on a broad range of service expenditures. It further includes a 2 percent income tax credit for families currently insured through MediCal, to fully offset their 2.3 percent sales tax spending." page 3 (or five using PDF reader)
New York analysis link:
http://www.infoshare.org/main/Economic_Analysis_New_York_Health_Act_-_GFriedman_-_April_2015.pdf by Gerald Friedman, PhD
Professor and Chair, Department of Economics
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
"The progressively graduated payroll assessment would apply only to earnings above $25,000; earnings from $25,000 to $50,000 would pay an assessment of 9%. Rates on higher income brackets would rise to 16% for the portion of earnings above $200,000. The rate would be split with employers paying 80% of the assessment and employees 20 percent. This is typical for employment-based health insurance. The employer could agree to pay some or the entire employee share, presumably as a result of collective bargaining. Income from dividends, interest, and capital gains would also be assessed at progressive rates, starting at 9% for taxable non-payroll income of at least $25,000 to $50,000 and rising to 16% for the portion of that income over $200,000. "
Can anyone figure out why the two Amherst studies offer such radically different tax solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6)
Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer
By Kip Sullivan, JD
Dec 9, 2009
--
Nbauman (
talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously not a good faith proposal to improve the article. Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Single-payer planMedicare is NOT a single payer plan. Insureds having supplemental plans implies that. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) How about the Oxford dictionary? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/single The first definition is "only one." If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
How about you trying to understand the phrase "rather than by private insurers" in the definition you cite? It means $0 paid by private insurers and 100% paid by the government. In other words, "only one" payer as I said and the Oxford dictionary implies. If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 10:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I see you believe you are a mind reader, but obviously a poor one. Ditto to you about pillars, especially #2 and #5. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 11:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
Report by Bernie Sanders' foundation and the National Nurses United on single payer. Lots of statistics heavily cited to WP:RS.
https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/health-care-research-paper-delivered-to-congress
July 2017
Health Care Research Paper Delivered to Congress by The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United
The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United delivered a research paper, titled Medicare For All vs All the Healthcare Each Can Afford, to every Senate and House of Representatives office on Capitol Hill. This report analyzes our current fragmented healthcare system and suggests a system of healthcare reflecting the nurses' values of caring, compassion and community.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think France should be seen as a hybrid system, and I don't see any argument for Spain. The existence of co-pays or complimentary private insurance doesn't make it a hybrid. There is a single payer, the government, that provides health insurance for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweman ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A small group of students from the UCSF School of Pharmacy have chosen to update the California part of this single payer page. We plan to add information about the steps that are being taken to release the bill from its hold status. Our overall goal is to update the page with accurate and timely information. We plan to have our finals edit by December 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparella12 ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sparella12 ( talk) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Steven has written, our group plans to clarify and add in more depth what SB 563 is, plus the history of this California bill so far.
Beliang ( talk) 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Also expanding the Description section near the top of the page. -- Scottgrigsby ( talk) 00:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts made by the group were neutral view points and provided unbiased pertinent information. Appropriate facts were included with citations regarding The Healthy California Act.The group provided information on what The Health California Act is and those that will benefit from it.The group also provided neutral information on how it will be funded and why it was not approved as of yet. The group provided a range of high quality unbiased comments that improved the overall quality of the wiki page. The overall content was neutral and informative and touched upon many aspects of the policy. Ameercat ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts contributed points that were verifiable with secondary sources that are freely accessible. Sources were of good quality and included a variety of sources including the WHO and news articles. Edits made in the California section were excellent and provides the reader with updated information on the status of the implementation of a single-payer healthcare system in the state. The comments I would make on the edits in this section are relatively minor, but have to do with continuity and grammar. In some instances I can see when the editor has changed and it would be good to review the paragraph as one whole to make sure it conveys all the necessary ideas in uniformity. The last sentence in paragraph two, "...it hopes to be revived again next year..."could be more specific. Again, it's minor, but a suggestion I have would be to include who exactly would hope to see the bill revived and not necessarily refer to the bill itself as desiring a resurrection. Ryan.ng22 ( talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to quality of sources, more information was added to the last sentence in regards to why SB 562 plans to be revived again next year. This change can be seen in the article. In response to who would want to see the bill revived, I would say the bill is supported by the State Senate since it was proposed by two Senate Senators. The next step in this process is to get the support of the State Assembly. Beliang ( talk) 04:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Hyperlinks were added to the words premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. In addition, changes were made to minimize confusion about the name of the bill, which is supposed to be "The Healthy California Act." Beliang ( talk) 04:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I also updated the citations 75-78 and consolidated them to what is now source 75, since they were all the same source listed multiple times. Miraj610 ( talk) 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts from group 11 had no evidence of copyright or plagiarism issues. Each additional post made was properly sourced. They do not attribute the ideas as their own original ideas. I would recommend adding in more reference points throughout the paragraphs so there is no question which source their information was pulled from. Overall, the quality of their posts are great and there is a source for each point that was made. kristy.hwang ( talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's an article from Kaiser Health News which gives synonyms for "single payer" used in polls because people respond differently to the same concept when pollsters refer to it by different names.
http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/
Support For Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan Fades With Control, Cost Concerns
By Jordan Rau
February 25, 2016
The words used to describe a single-payer plan also affected opinions, the poll found. “Medicare-for-all” was the most popular, with 64 percent of Americans responding positively. “Guaranteed universal health coverage” appealed to 57 percent of people. Only 44 percent liked “single-payer health insurance system” and 38 percent liked “socialized medicine.”
-- Nbauman ( talk) 00:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Single payer is not loosely defined, it is loosely used by politicians. A single payer system prohibits private health insurance. That is what is meant by "single." If private insurers are allowed, it is a multi-payer system. I noticed that the person who pointed that out below was censored. I guess I will be too. Canada had a single payer system before Chaoulli. Maybe someone could start by citing to the sources that the Canadian Supreme Court used? The various citations of this article are really poor and rarely say what the text claims. This article is in really, really bad shape because of the political implications. I think it needs a POV tag. The general quality of Wikipedia articles on insurance are just really bad. Compare with Investopedia. 05:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.4.212 ( talk)
See [4]...You will need a consensus to remove all this material. Nothing personal, just standard wiki-guidelines. DN ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of conversations about Canada and Taiwan are saying the systems are single payer, yet they involve at least 2, if not more payment modes. Single payer is where one (1) entity pays the full bill. Even in the commentary this is attached to, it admits Taiwan has 2 payers (copays). Canada also has another entity paying for outpatient medications, making it an at least 2 payer system.
Calling either system single payer is not factually honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There is much debate on how much a Single Payer system would cost in the U S. 1) So far no national system has been scored, and some reports have it adding 4 trillion to the U S budget. 2) It was attempted in VT, and the resulting cost estimates derailed the process. From the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, he provides a rather neutral assessment of what happened http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050 3) In Germany, one of the benchmarks for a working Universal Coverage system, the cost is a 15%+ tax on worker's wages, part paid by worker and part paid by employer from worker employment burden costs. 4) If we choose a different cost approach model by approaching the costing from a current model, we can look at Medicare, which is a price controlled, service level controlled system managed by the U S government, where 1/3 of the insured are on Private Insurer Medicare advantage plans, 1/3 are on Medicare plus Medicaid or TriCare or VA care, and 1/3 are on original medicare plus a supplemental plan and plus a drug plan. The claims costs for all of the Medicare enrolled are mostly managed by private insurers, since Part D coverage (drug coverage) is all private insurer managed, and they are the constant and repetitive claims. The 1/3 on Medicare Advantage, and the 1/3 on dual plans both have medical claims processed by the insurer (or contracted private insurer) which covers the 20% and Rx coverage Medicare does not manage. Having said that - the cost for Medicare for each of those groups averages $1,000 per person per month (Medicare budget / # on Medicare), which if it is expanded to all 330 million, adds about 4 trillion in federal costs. One can argue that many are less ill, and so will cost less, and then those same persons should recognize that the that is already factored in, since Medicare only covers 80% of medical for that $1,000 per month, and not the other 20% or outpatient Rx costs, which should provide some balance to the medical health impact. here is another point of view of the costing of Mr Sander's Medicare for all to the U S system, which points to a much higher cost, based on research, and a shortfall in tax revenue from that plan https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf
based on the differing opinions, and the different studies, and real world application costs already in place - the cost for Medicare for all is far from settled.
A word of caution: There are factors in nation to nation, GDP v cost of healthcare v health outcomes comparisons that gets stepped over in such high level abstract conversations. These high level summaries ignore effects of differences between nations that affect the costs comparisons. Costs like regulation burden, Federal and state taxes ( up to 20% of the cost) on medical supplies, drugs, medical care, regulation costs, patients lifestyle, medical and drug utilization, medical and prescription drug dependency, cost of Dr Offices and cost of equipment, and capacity costs are highly variable between nations, and have profound impacts on the cost comparisons. Policy changes and policy conversations based on "they do, so we should too" are high risk if the UNIQUE factors that affect U S costs are ignored 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are many estimates of what single payer would cost in the US, and on whether the US could afford the tax increases. Here's an article that gives one estimate (which I cited before for the definition of "single payer"):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-single-payer-health-care/
By Paul Waldman
Washington Post
July 6, 2017
(The current system will cost $49 trillion over the next 10 years, and single payer would cost $32 trillion in taxes, so it would save $17 trillion.)
“You want to raise $32 trillion in taxes?” asked CNN’s John Berman. Single payer is many things, but above all it is cheap. And what we have now is the most expensive system in the world, by a mile.
In 2016, we spent $3.4 trillion on health care. That spending is projected to rise an average of 5.6 percent per year over the next decade. If you do the math, that means that between 2018 and 2027 we’ll spend $49 trillion on health care in America. That $32 trillion number the CNN folks are tossing around comes from an analysis of the Conyers bill, which is basically a placeholder
But if we’re going to spend $49 trillion under the current system, and single payer would cost $32 trillion, doesn’t that mean we’d be saving $17 trillion?
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC) 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good NPOV article from The Lancet that explains the different poll results and the reasons why.
http://usa.thelancet.com/blog/2018-03-13-single-payer-healthcare-debate-takes-stage-managed-care-0
Single payer healthcare debate takes the stage in managed care
John Otrompke
The Lancet
13 March 2018
Two of the advocates in the eloquent and occasionally fiery debate cited recent surveys: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, PhD, president of the American Action Forum said that a survey of 1,100 likely voters his organization had commissioned in February found that 51% of respondents opposed single payer healthcare, while 41% were in favor of it.
To the contrary, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special projects at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Meno Park, California, his organization had been conducting surveys on the topic which found that 54% of adults favor single payer, while 43% oppose it. “The number has been growing modestly over time” since 1998, added Levitt.
“If you present people with the kinds of arguments that opponents would use, those arguments do resonate and diminish support; whereas if you present them with arguments in favor of it, that blunts the opposition as well,” he noted.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The beginning of this article contrasts Canada vs. UK as distinct models, but then later in the article it says the United States National Health Care Act is "the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare, the United Kingdom's National Health Service" ( Single-payer healthcare#National policies and proposals). I believe the Act proposes a Single-payer system as opposed to a Beveridge Model one, but I would prefer someone with more expertise clarify this part of the article. Daask ( talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Medicare for All. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare for All until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:06, 31 December 2020 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I propose including summaries of HealthAffairs.org[1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4], some of which were manually archived after obtaining consensus for inclusion. EllenCT ( talk) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (edited to name links EllenCT ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC))
The link should be to the LAT, not HealthcareNow.
Try searching Google for "Richard Burr Danielle Martin" without the quotes.
In addition to the LAT, this exchange was reported in The Star and the National Post, which (I think) are Canada's 2 main newspapers (and the Post is conservative and a frequent critic of the Canadian government health system). It was also reported on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in the U.S. by more publications. Multiple reports in WP:RS is the criteria that Wikipedia uses to decide whether something is important enough to belong in an entry.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/canadian_doctor_makes_anti_obamacare_senator_look_like_a_buffoon/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/martin-1-burr-0
It is a comparison of the health care system in the U.S., Canada and Australia, not just the U.S. and Canada, so it's international.
It compares the results of a more government-run system with a more privatized system. The issue of public vs. private is one that health care systems are dealing with internationally.
The many editors at WP:RSs who chose to report this exchange realize that it addresses an important, critical part of the health care debate. -- Nbauman ( talk) 23:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks like it looks like 5 articles about one speech renouncing a straw man, renouncing an erroneous argument made by one person. In essence,, for effect, and off topic. North8000 ( talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have completely lost track of which sources are being referred to by pretty much everyone at this point, so I named them: HealthAffairs.org [1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4]. Please succinctly restate your objections and the reasons for them, if any. EllenCT ( talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, ensuring we have a neutral point of view is pretty much one of the most important things we do here with the project. It's not my point of view on the matter, it's Wikipedia's regarding neutrality. If you can explain why a newsblog post about the United States marketplace is relevant to a worldwide article on single payer health care, I could be swayed into agreeing with you. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a question, shouldn't there be a "criticism" section to this article? It's a fairly controversial topic and other than "the bill failed" type content, there's no real criticism. Both sides of the issue should be represented, the economics of it, legal questions, pros & cons etc. Coinmanj ( talk) 07:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Public Citizen is nonpartisan with a long history of public interest issue support in the US. Is [2] acceptable for summarizing here? EllenCT ( talk) 07:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would any experienced editor not think that the one paragraph conclusion is most appropriate to summarize?
I hope a competitive labor market isn't too far "left wing" of an idea. EllenCT ( talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone added this yet? EllenCT ( talk) 07:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Who archived the section where the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging testimony was being discussed? There were three other sources if I recall correctly.... EllenCT ( talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Done – S. Rich ( talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Talk:Single-payer_health_care/Archive_5#External_links some editors said that the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10719 National Academies Press and publication for the Institute of Medicine was unacceptable because it was a commercial site.
Actually, WP:MEDRS specifically gives the U.S. National Academies and Institute of Medicine as examples of WP:RS:
-- Nbauman ( talk) 07:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
An expert recommended this article to me, and it's pretty good. It explains why we didn't get single payer in 2008, what the problems are with Obamacare, and how single payer might succeed in the future.
|title=Beyond Obamacare: Universalism and Health Care in the Twenty-first Century
|author= A. W. Gaffney
|journal=New Politics
|date=Summer 2014
|Volume=XV
|number=1
|url= http://newpol.org/content/beyond-obamacare -- Nbauman ( talk) 04:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's another WP:RS that reported the single payer hearing of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
KHN is one of the most authoritative news sources in medical journalism.
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/05/single-payer-advocates-hit-capitol-with-new-sense-of-reality/
Single-Payer Advocates Hit Capitol With New Sense Of Reality
By Julie Rovner
May 21st, 2014, 2:50 PM
--
Nbauman (
talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion was improperly archived because someone apparently set the archiving bot to only leave a single thread on this talk page. EllenCT ( talk) 01:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's a Senate hearing with a comprehensive discussion of single payer, including points of view pro and con. There are submissions by people who are recognized experts, and they are questioned afterwards.
http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=8acab996-5056-a032-522e-e39ca45fcfbe Subcommittee Hearing - Access and Cost: What the US Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries
Committee: Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
Date: Tuesday, March 11 2014, 10:00 AM
Place: 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Panel I
Tsung-Mei Cheng, LLB, MA , Health Policy Research Analyst, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Ching-Chuan Yeh, MD, MPH , former Minister of Health for Taiwan; Professor, School of Public Health, College of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan
Sally C. Pipes , President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA
Danielle Martin, MD, MPP , Vice-President Medical Affairs & Health System Solutions, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada
Jakob Kjellberg, MSc , Professor, Program Director for Health, KORA-Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark
David Hogberg, PhD , Health Care Policy Analyst, National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C
Victor G. Rodwin, PhD, MPH , Professor of Health Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY
-- Nbauman ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Single-payer healthcare. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
PBS seems to have had a few good stories on single payer, most of them skeptical but they are at least balanced with both sides. You can browse them all with a Google search site:pbs.org single payer
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-u-s-create-single-payer-health-system/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/single-payer/
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any arguments against the system on the page, only supportive arguments. Appears to be a grave lack of balance. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The section on Australia states flat out that there are private and government components to their system. I think there should be a separate section for these hybrid systems so that readers don't site them as examples of single-payer systems. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm landing on this page researching for an Eng-Fra translation about healthcare systems. The contents are generally good enough, thank you, but I'm very surprised to not find, in the "Countries" section, a paragraph on France, which has had near-universal HC coverage since the 1947 De Gaulle+Communists (short-lived but decisive) administration. If the page author(s) has no documentation on the subject, I could try to come up with a minimal sub-section on France's single-payer system. Lionel.Lumbroso ( talk) 09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Both "single-payer" and "single payer" are used as adjectives throughout the article, starting in the lead. This is unprofessional; we should stick to one style. Which is preferable? ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 01:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be some drastic editing that occurs from time to time. Perhaps it wise to consider that the subject is only Single-Payer Healthcare and not other types of healthcare.
The only situation where others may come into play is as a comparison or to mention those that are incorrectly considered as such, and why they are not. - KitchM ( talk) 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
CA SB 562 analysis links and tax summaries
CA Senate Consultant report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3728610/SB-0562.pdf
"About $200 billion in additional tax revenues would be needed to pay for the remainder of the total program cost. Assuming that this cost was raised through a new payroll tax (with no cap on wages subject to the tax), the additional payroll tax rate would be about 15% of earned income."
This analysis mentions voters will have to approve this due to Gann limits.
CA Amherst Study: http://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/wp-content/uploads/Pollin-Economic-Analysis-SB-562.pdf
"We propose two new taxes to generate the required $106 billion in additional funding as of 2017: 1) A gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent. This tax will be applied to all businesses in California. It will include an exemption for the first $2 million in receipts for all businesses. Through this exemption, firms that average up to 9 employees will have no gross receipts tax obligation. Firms with up to 19 employees will pay taxes on only about one-third of their gross revenue. 2) A sales tax of 2.3 percent. The sales tax will exempt all spending on housing, utility and food at home. To be consistent with the existing California tax code, it will also include exemptions on a broad range of service expenditures. It further includes a 2 percent income tax credit for families currently insured through MediCal, to fully offset their 2.3 percent sales tax spending." page 3 (or five using PDF reader)
New York analysis link:
http://www.infoshare.org/main/Economic_Analysis_New_York_Health_Act_-_GFriedman_-_April_2015.pdf by Gerald Friedman, PhD
Professor and Chair, Department of Economics
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
"The progressively graduated payroll assessment would apply only to earnings above $25,000; earnings from $25,000 to $50,000 would pay an assessment of 9%. Rates on higher income brackets would rise to 16% for the portion of earnings above $200,000. The rate would be split with employers paying 80% of the assessment and employees 20 percent. This is typical for employment-based health insurance. The employer could agree to pay some or the entire employee share, presumably as a result of collective bargaining. Income from dividends, interest, and capital gains would also be assessed at progressive rates, starting at 9% for taxable non-payroll income of at least $25,000 to $50,000 and rising to 16% for the portion of that income over $200,000. "
Can anyone figure out why the two Amherst studies offer such radically different tax solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6)
Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer
By Kip Sullivan, JD
Dec 9, 2009
--
Nbauman (
talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously not a good faith proposal to improve the article. Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Single-payer planMedicare is NOT a single payer plan. Insureds having supplemental plans implies that. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) How about the Oxford dictionary? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/single The first definition is "only one." If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
How about you trying to understand the phrase "rather than by private insurers" in the definition you cite? It means $0 paid by private insurers and 100% paid by the government. In other words, "only one" payer as I said and the Oxford dictionary implies. If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 10:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I see you believe you are a mind reader, but obviously a poor one. Ditto to you about pillars, especially #2 and #5. 173.90.51.60 ( talk) 11:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
Report by Bernie Sanders' foundation and the National Nurses United on single payer. Lots of statistics heavily cited to WP:RS.
https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/health-care-research-paper-delivered-to-congress
July 2017
Health Care Research Paper Delivered to Congress by The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United
The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United delivered a research paper, titled Medicare For All vs All the Healthcare Each Can Afford, to every Senate and House of Representatives office on Capitol Hill. This report analyzes our current fragmented healthcare system and suggests a system of healthcare reflecting the nurses' values of caring, compassion and community.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think France should be seen as a hybrid system, and I don't see any argument for Spain. The existence of co-pays or complimentary private insurance doesn't make it a hybrid. There is a single payer, the government, that provides health insurance for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweman ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A small group of students from the UCSF School of Pharmacy have chosen to update the California part of this single payer page. We plan to add information about the steps that are being taken to release the bill from its hold status. Our overall goal is to update the page with accurate and timely information. We plan to have our finals edit by December 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparella12 ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sparella12 ( talk) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Steven has written, our group plans to clarify and add in more depth what SB 563 is, plus the history of this California bill so far.
Beliang ( talk) 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Also expanding the Description section near the top of the page. -- Scottgrigsby ( talk) 00:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts made by the group were neutral view points and provided unbiased pertinent information. Appropriate facts were included with citations regarding The Healthy California Act.The group provided information on what The Health California Act is and those that will benefit from it.The group also provided neutral information on how it will be funded and why it was not approved as of yet. The group provided a range of high quality unbiased comments that improved the overall quality of the wiki page. The overall content was neutral and informative and touched upon many aspects of the policy. Ameercat ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts contributed points that were verifiable with secondary sources that are freely accessible. Sources were of good quality and included a variety of sources including the WHO and news articles. Edits made in the California section were excellent and provides the reader with updated information on the status of the implementation of a single-payer healthcare system in the state. The comments I would make on the edits in this section are relatively minor, but have to do with continuity and grammar. In some instances I can see when the editor has changed and it would be good to review the paragraph as one whole to make sure it conveys all the necessary ideas in uniformity. The last sentence in paragraph two, "...it hopes to be revived again next year..."could be more specific. Again, it's minor, but a suggestion I have would be to include who exactly would hope to see the bill revived and not necessarily refer to the bill itself as desiring a resurrection. Ryan.ng22 ( talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to quality of sources, more information was added to the last sentence in regards to why SB 562 plans to be revived again next year. This change can be seen in the article. In response to who would want to see the bill revived, I would say the bill is supported by the State Senate since it was proposed by two Senate Senators. The next step in this process is to get the support of the State Assembly. Beliang ( talk) 04:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Hyperlinks were added to the words premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. In addition, changes were made to minimize confusion about the name of the bill, which is supposed to be "The Healthy California Act." Beliang ( talk) 04:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I also updated the citations 75-78 and consolidated them to what is now source 75, since they were all the same source listed multiple times. Miraj610 ( talk) 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
All posts from group 11 had no evidence of copyright or plagiarism issues. Each additional post made was properly sourced. They do not attribute the ideas as their own original ideas. I would recommend adding in more reference points throughout the paragraphs so there is no question which source their information was pulled from. Overall, the quality of their posts are great and there is a source for each point that was made. kristy.hwang ( talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's an article from Kaiser Health News which gives synonyms for "single payer" used in polls because people respond differently to the same concept when pollsters refer to it by different names.
http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/
Support For Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan Fades With Control, Cost Concerns
By Jordan Rau
February 25, 2016
The words used to describe a single-payer plan also affected opinions, the poll found. “Medicare-for-all” was the most popular, with 64 percent of Americans responding positively. “Guaranteed universal health coverage” appealed to 57 percent of people. Only 44 percent liked “single-payer health insurance system” and 38 percent liked “socialized medicine.”
-- Nbauman ( talk) 00:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Single payer is not loosely defined, it is loosely used by politicians. A single payer system prohibits private health insurance. That is what is meant by "single." If private insurers are allowed, it is a multi-payer system. I noticed that the person who pointed that out below was censored. I guess I will be too. Canada had a single payer system before Chaoulli. Maybe someone could start by citing to the sources that the Canadian Supreme Court used? The various citations of this article are really poor and rarely say what the text claims. This article is in really, really bad shape because of the political implications. I think it needs a POV tag. The general quality of Wikipedia articles on insurance are just really bad. Compare with Investopedia. 05:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.4.212 ( talk)
See [4]...You will need a consensus to remove all this material. Nothing personal, just standard wiki-guidelines. DN ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of conversations about Canada and Taiwan are saying the systems are single payer, yet they involve at least 2, if not more payment modes. Single payer is where one (1) entity pays the full bill. Even in the commentary this is attached to, it admits Taiwan has 2 payers (copays). Canada also has another entity paying for outpatient medications, making it an at least 2 payer system.
Calling either system single payer is not factually honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There is much debate on how much a Single Payer system would cost in the U S. 1) So far no national system has been scored, and some reports have it adding 4 trillion to the U S budget. 2) It was attempted in VT, and the resulting cost estimates derailed the process. From the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, he provides a rather neutral assessment of what happened http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050 3) In Germany, one of the benchmarks for a working Universal Coverage system, the cost is a 15%+ tax on worker's wages, part paid by worker and part paid by employer from worker employment burden costs. 4) If we choose a different cost approach model by approaching the costing from a current model, we can look at Medicare, which is a price controlled, service level controlled system managed by the U S government, where 1/3 of the insured are on Private Insurer Medicare advantage plans, 1/3 are on Medicare plus Medicaid or TriCare or VA care, and 1/3 are on original medicare plus a supplemental plan and plus a drug plan. The claims costs for all of the Medicare enrolled are mostly managed by private insurers, since Part D coverage (drug coverage) is all private insurer managed, and they are the constant and repetitive claims. The 1/3 on Medicare Advantage, and the 1/3 on dual plans both have medical claims processed by the insurer (or contracted private insurer) which covers the 20% and Rx coverage Medicare does not manage. Having said that - the cost for Medicare for each of those groups averages $1,000 per person per month (Medicare budget / # on Medicare), which if it is expanded to all 330 million, adds about 4 trillion in federal costs. One can argue that many are less ill, and so will cost less, and then those same persons should recognize that the that is already factored in, since Medicare only covers 80% of medical for that $1,000 per month, and not the other 20% or outpatient Rx costs, which should provide some balance to the medical health impact. here is another point of view of the costing of Mr Sander's Medicare for all to the U S system, which points to a much higher cost, based on research, and a shortfall in tax revenue from that plan https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf
based on the differing opinions, and the different studies, and real world application costs already in place - the cost for Medicare for all is far from settled.
A word of caution: There are factors in nation to nation, GDP v cost of healthcare v health outcomes comparisons that gets stepped over in such high level abstract conversations. These high level summaries ignore effects of differences between nations that affect the costs comparisons. Costs like regulation burden, Federal and state taxes ( up to 20% of the cost) on medical supplies, drugs, medical care, regulation costs, patients lifestyle, medical and drug utilization, medical and prescription drug dependency, cost of Dr Offices and cost of equipment, and capacity costs are highly variable between nations, and have profound impacts on the cost comparisons. Policy changes and policy conversations based on "they do, so we should too" are high risk if the UNIQUE factors that affect U S costs are ignored 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are many estimates of what single payer would cost in the US, and on whether the US could afford the tax increases. Here's an article that gives one estimate (which I cited before for the definition of "single payer"):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-single-payer-health-care/
By Paul Waldman
Washington Post
July 6, 2017
(The current system will cost $49 trillion over the next 10 years, and single payer would cost $32 trillion in taxes, so it would save $17 trillion.)
“You want to raise $32 trillion in taxes?” asked CNN’s John Berman. Single payer is many things, but above all it is cheap. And what we have now is the most expensive system in the world, by a mile.
In 2016, we spent $3.4 trillion on health care. That spending is projected to rise an average of 5.6 percent per year over the next decade. If you do the math, that means that between 2018 and 2027 we’ll spend $49 trillion on health care in America. That $32 trillion number the CNN folks are tossing around comes from an analysis of the Conyers bill, which is basically a placeholder
But if we’re going to spend $49 trillion under the current system, and single payer would cost $32 trillion, doesn’t that mean we’d be saving $17 trillion?
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC) 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD ( talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good NPOV article from The Lancet that explains the different poll results and the reasons why.
http://usa.thelancet.com/blog/2018-03-13-single-payer-healthcare-debate-takes-stage-managed-care-0
Single payer healthcare debate takes the stage in managed care
John Otrompke
The Lancet
13 March 2018
Two of the advocates in the eloquent and occasionally fiery debate cited recent surveys: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, PhD, president of the American Action Forum said that a survey of 1,100 likely voters his organization had commissioned in February found that 51% of respondents opposed single payer healthcare, while 41% were in favor of it.
To the contrary, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special projects at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Meno Park, California, his organization had been conducting surveys on the topic which found that 54% of adults favor single payer, while 43% oppose it. “The number has been growing modestly over time” since 1998, added Levitt.
“If you present people with the kinds of arguments that opponents would use, those arguments do resonate and diminish support; whereas if you present them with arguments in favor of it, that blunts the opposition as well,” he noted.
-- Nbauman ( talk) 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The beginning of this article contrasts Canada vs. UK as distinct models, but then later in the article it says the United States National Health Care Act is "the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare, the United Kingdom's National Health Service" ( Single-payer healthcare#National policies and proposals). I believe the Act proposes a Single-payer system as opposed to a Beveridge Model one, but I would prefer someone with more expertise clarify this part of the article. Daask ( talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Medicare for All. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare for All until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)