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.

Note: In the process of the RFC, agreement was reached between the contending parties (shown in the RFC below) on how to handle the article in question. I have been told a formal closeout may take time, due to a backlog, but I have proceeded to make the discussed changes, and it would seem we are no longer seeking input. NormSpier ( talk) 20:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You look up the premium and out of pocket max for the couple in question, on healthcare.gov for the second lowest cost silver plan, and the second lowest cost bronze plan.  (To get that premium, you put in a salary like $120,000 for the couple, putting them well above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, so they get no subsidy, and you see Healthcare.gov tells you explicitly there will be no subsidy--you thus know you have the total premium not knocked down by a subsidy.) You then calculate the premium subsidies they get at 399% FPL and 401% FPL using the rules, and the rest is obvious additions, subtractions, multiplications, and additions on the calculator. The rules for the subsidies are simple, and taken from 
Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidies page, which I have inadvertantly left off as a reference for the calculation, though the reference appears elsewhere.
NormSpier (
talk) 22:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC) 

There is also an alternative to get premium subsidies for the 399% FPL couple and the the same couple at 401% FPL, by going to healthcare.gov, and getting direct the premium subsidy amount information for the couple.  This is plugging in the couple twice, with two different incomes, rather than once. In the first case, there is a big subsidy, and in the second case, the subsidy will be 0.  ("The couple has gone over the cliff".)  In doing the calculations, heathcare.gov may have some slight rounding conventions, or may have already updated FPL from where it was last open enrollment, so the cliff-point might be very slightly different than exactly 400% of for-2019 open enrollment that I have used, but everything will be extremely close, unless I have in fact made a mistake.
NormSpier (
talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier ( talk) 09:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• In the apparent attempt to immediately remove all of my additions until it can be made more or less perfect by every Wikipedia standard, User:Newslinger appears to be working under the theory that Wikipedia information is perfect, or else that he will make it so. In fact, Wikipedia has errors and omissions and miserable presentation all over the place, and there is nothing he will be able to do about it. I have noticed the errors in applied math. I have noticed them in the article in question, on the ACA. A fully erroneous last column in a table. (I fixed it.) An incoherent failure to cover "cost-sharing subsidies" in the section on ACA features. (I added it.) A failure to add to the Trump blocking of cost-sharing subsidy reimbursements to insurers with the response silver-plan-loading. I'm pretty sure people who know the ACA and have a head for its mechanisms, will conclude its not a real good article. (Not much said on rules affecting employer insurance. Pretty muddy and mish-mashy in many places. I see from the blue "Categories" box at the bottom of this RFC that the article is generally rated C class, and that's about where I'd put it.) (Wikipedia is extremely useful with its problems, but the reader has to take into account the massive quality problems that may be present.) NormSpier ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia invites its users to contribute. The ACA article invited me to contribute. It said "be bold". (The particular article said "be bold, but don't be reckless" because it is in a touchy area. I have not been reckless. I have been going "straight for the truth".) The Medicaid estate recovery article was a stub when I got to it, and it said "please help expand this article ...". By insisting on completely removing imperfect content after the user has been invited to put it in, when, as before, Wikipedia content is generally all so imperfect and often quite defective, is an inconsistency. Be consistent, people. NormSpier ( talk) 10:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments on RfC

• This RfC is a continuation of the noticeboard discussion at WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, and asks for a version of the article that should be used as a starting point for discussion. If you have identified specific portions of the added content that you believe should be included or excluded, please say so. If this RfC concludes that some of the content should be removed, it can optionally be added to the article sandbox for future improvement.

  Three sections were added during the past month: the "Outline of Coverage Mechanism", "Cost-sharing Reductions", and "Problems" sections. Please refer to Special:Diff/909824345/914372500 for a full comparison of the August 7 and September 7 article versions. —  Newslinger  talk 05:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Both NormSpier and I have written plenty on this subject. At this point, I would really appreciate some more opinions from other uninvolved editors. —  Newslinger  talk 04:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• At least , some of the additions seem to be non-encyclopedic.

So we have total medical expenses potentially at 42% of MAGI in that case...

... it should be noted that we have presented premiums and out-of-pocket maximums.

Who's we?

Also, the RfC should probably be edited to make it easier to !vote. For example, word it so that Support or Keep clearly means the current version, and oppose or revert means the August 7 version, without a need for more words. Usedtobecool  ^TALK  ✨ 15:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Usedtobecool-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on "retain" and "restore" is probably enough. Usedtobecool  ^TALK  ✨ 15:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Usedtobecool. Note I am new at the process, and may have place my response in the wrong place. So please let me know, if I did that, and where I should put it.

The calculations "42% of MAGi", etc., were done by me, User:Usedtobecool. They are verifiable from sources I have referenced with simple calculation, though at end of Oct. or around there, the healthcare.gov numbers will be updated for 2020.

("we", in both case, is me, User:NormSpier.) I thought that was how it's done. (I used to be a statistician, and I think that was the way we often wrote. It was a while back. Anyone: Feel free to supply a better way to write it than "we".)

"Encyclopedic" stuff, I don't know about. I'm new to the standards. My thought was that to be a decent presentation, informing the reader, that the numbers should be available. (In the "talk" section, I actually ask, on all 5 problems, is the magnitude of the financial or health problem illustrated to keep the reader out of quantitative darkness?, and I answer yes, with the Silver Bronze examples needed on the two problems where I have them.) I think Encyclopedia Brittanica can come up with helpful, accurate tables where they are needed. Wikipedia may or may not be different.

Also note, I have expressed disagreement with the whole binary "in or out" voting that you talk about. More nuance is needed then a yes or no vote. I can't imagine good work on complicated issues or topics is possible with such a coarse approach. NormSpier ( talk) 19:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

From MOS:TONE: "Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective." —  Newslinger  talk 07:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Newslinger. That's helpful. I guess that means it should be something like "The premiums presented ..." (on the second table). NormSpier ( talk) 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger's analysis

The added content ( Special:Diff/909824345/914372500) contains significant violations of Wikipedia's core content policies (mostly the no original research and verifiability, and neutral point of view). This analysis focuses on the three new sections, "Outline of Coverage Mechanism", "Cost-sharing Reductions", and "Problems". Content was also added outside of these sections.

"Outline of Coverage Mechanism" section

• No original research: Substantial portions of the section do not cite any sources, or make extrapolations that are not directly and entirely supported by the cited sources:

Much of this I look at as that to explain the law and how it is functioning, you need people who understand the mechanisms. My analogy is to some science / engineering things, where there is a lot of acquired understanding. I think you user:Newslinger may have a model: sentence 1, reference 1, sentence 2, reference 2, sentence 3, reference 3,..., where an editor reviewing can easily go "looked up sentence 1 ref, see it there, look up sentence 2 ref,... . I'm not sure complicated things can be well described if article construction requires verifiability by that standard. I had prior brought up with you these examples: Internal combustion engine, Calculus, and Banach space, and I said "they don't do it there" and you responded that it was because they were older articles before the new Wikipedia rigourous standards. As I see it, you're not going to find quite the description I put down anywhere. I think Paul Krugman once put some explanation of the mechanism, close to this, but less detailed. Jonathan Gruber has a graphic novel where he tried to explain. However, yes, based on understanding, and careful looking up of precise details, I have designed the exposition to be clear (to a suitably analytical reader), in order to make it possible for people to be able to see where the thing will work, and not work, by putting in exactly the right details. The several "moving parts" needed to understand how the law works: employer coverage, traditional Medicaid & CHIP, expanded Medicaid, ACA insurance plans, and ACA subsidies, are listed, and the critical factor, who is eligible for subsidies on the ACA plans, is presented. The user is supposed to see all the working parts in one place, all together.

Verification would need people who understand the law and how it works, like economists and possibly health economists, or other people fluent in (very simple) economic mechanisms. (A large number of people already know how the law works, and to them the correctness or any incorrectness would be obvious after looking up one or two details.) I'm thinking like Internal combustion engine, where there are few references, and the writer understood how an engine works, and probably the reviewer, as well, or at least the necessary physics. But I see your critique. It does pull down the level of understanding available from what people can write at Wikipedia too much, in my opinion. NormSpier ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You might consider it like a calculus teacher, who knows calculus. There's a text, maybe, but the presentation of the teacher is designed to be as helpful as possible. That's not research. But I see Wikipedia capacity is taxed in able to handle that, and that's a real world problem for Wikipedia that it may not be able to fix. NormSpier ( talk) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's another example, from elementary economics: Supply and demand. This is an elementary topic, ideas from Econ 101 or an elementary Price Theory course. It's impossible to do sentence 1 reference 1 sentence 2 reference 2 sentence 3 reference 3. Similarly, from a economics GA-rated article, Risk_parity#Equally-weighted_risk_contributions_portfolios, its a presentation of basic well-known theory by a mind that understands the theory. In certain economics articles, the topic is substantially history, so what happened needs references about what happened and when, and they have them here Panic of 1907, and where the article focus is who came who came up with the idea, or where the analysis is sufficiently non-elementary that it has to come from research papers, the research papers of course have to be referenced. NormSpier ( talk) 01:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The verifiability policy only requires inline sources when the content is "challenged or likely to be challenged". The content above is currently being challenged. Regarding the other articles: if content is uncontroversial, then it does not need to be sourced with inline citations, but it must still be verifiable to some reliable source(s) cited on the page (and the editor who added the content should be able to point out which ones when challenged). Lead sections are exempted, but only if the uncited claim summarizes properly cited content in the rest of the article. You are welcome to improve the sourcing of any article on Wikipedia, including the ones you pointed out. —  Newslinger  talk 01:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiability: Substantial portions of the section reference unreliable sources, including:
  1. Paying for Senior Care, a blog

That link is just used for Federal Poverty Levels. The reason I chose it over a more reliable site like Kaiser Family Foundation or U.S. government, is that it has specific percent of FPL values calculated, like 150% of FPL, 200% FPL, etc., and might be more helpful to readers. It could, of course, be replaced with Federal or Kaiser, or something. NormSpier ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1. healthinsurance.org, a shopping tool for insurance

The information looks roughly accurate to me, who knows the law, so I'm confident the information is at least not bogus. I see your point--it's not enough. It could be replaced, though I chose it because it has a nice direct definition of "Medicaid expansion" that pops up for the reader, rather than having to go through more complicated reading. (The reference could even be knocked off entirely, under the assumption of a reviewing editor who understood the law. But you won't do that here.) (No point in me making the joke "but it says "A TRUSTED INDEPENDENT HEALTH INSURANCE GUIDE SINCE 1994" on the top of the page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1. ElderLawAnswers, a shopping tool for legal aid

This could easily be removed. I find the site myself quite reliable, and it comes up first on the google search for "Medicaid estate recovery". It's not essential. Everywhere I use it, the same in information is referenced on the Federal Medicaid site. I had placed it here to help the reader, who might find it clearer and more direct to the point than the Federal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. a former version of the Wikipedia article for Medicaid estate recovery (see "Wikipedia is not a reliable source")

This is me not knowing that a reference is used at Wikipedia only as something that makes something airtight. Apparently, I used it as a see also. My view, before being informed, had been that you could use it to help a reader get more of a sense of the issue, if not with perfect reliability. (Being only, roughly as reliable as the place it is linked from, another Wikipedia article.) It could, of course, be removed. Somewhere, there should be a "see also", though, because why not help the reader get additional information? NormSpier ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1. a former version of the Wikipedia article for National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

This could be replaced. I'm sure it's somewhere considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• Neutral point of view: All of the content after the "Impediments and Imperfections to Design" label is inappropriate for a section named "Outline of Coverage Mechanism". This content should be merged into appropriate sections (such as "Problems" and "Criticism and opposition").

The whole thing could be dumped, I guess, even. The whole thing is teaching kind of exposition, not original research, but you might consider it that by Wikipedia standards. It needs people who understand the law, and can reason about the law in an economically sound, but not especially demanding, way, to determine if it is correct. The whole adding of "Outline of Coverage Mechanism" was to provide, close together, in one place, an exposition on that mechanism, including where it might go wrong. (Actually, a sharp reader will see implications on the financing of ACA: access to subsidies is tight for apparently Federal financial resource reasons.) Rather that the reader having to think more independently themselves, and have to go through all the parts, and really need a lot of skill to see what might work, and what might go wrong. (This kind of thing may be impossible at Wikipedia. There may also be an article-readership-level decision, reasonable, to keep it at New York Times level. I am writing at a higher level, demanding more skill. Maybe of an undergraduate of graduate health economics course.) NormSpier ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Cost-sharing Reductions" section

• No original research: Portions of the section do not cite any sources:

For these babies, you really need a reviewer able to work competently with basic economic mechanisms, and able to put the mechanisms together with the structure of the law. If you can do that, it's obvious. Really, it is. This is like Internal combustion engine or Banach space. Whether [[user::Newslinger]]'s model of sentence then reference, then sentence then reference will work for more complicated things is in question, in my mind. It may limit the capacity of Wikipedia, due perhaps, ultimately, to a set of certified-know-what-they're-talking about reviewing editors in fields. NormSpier ( talk) 19:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiability: Portions of the section reference unreliable sources, including:
  1. Google Docs, a self-published document

This baby seems a little reliable to me because its linked to by Health Affairs. It's not essential. I put it in to let a sufficiently curious and able reader see that the matter of the silver loading is complex, state by state, it changes from year to year, it has some variations. NormSpier ( talk) 19:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1. healthinsurance.org, a shopping tool for insurance

This one I chose because it has a nice, complete explanation for the reader. The essential content can be found elsewhere, on a reliable source. NormSpier ( talk) 19:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Problems" section

• No original research: Substantial portions of the section do not cite any sources, or make extrapolations that cannot be directly and entirely supported by the cited sources:

No. If you have available reviewing editors who know or can learn the law, and reason a a light but competent way economically, it's either economically obvious, or else its light calculations that are easy to do for a person who understands the law, with sound sources like healthcare.gov. I believe user:Newslinger has the view that the calculations are "original research". Again, the question of the model: line, reference, line, reference, for complicated stuff. NormSpier ( talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Original research" is clearly defined in the no original research policy. Our core content policies, including no original research, are mandatory, not optional. Saying "No" to a policy because you don't like it is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. You are welcome to publish original research on your personal webpage, or in some of these alternative outlets, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk 01:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Within the "no original research" guideline /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations (affecting my bronze and silver plan calculations, and also the updating and correction of an errroneous and dated table elsewhere) "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." I will be glad to answer questions, and help editors see that the calculations are routine. Perhaps user:Newslinger can regenerate them right now, or someone else, straight from the references. (You look up the premium and out of pocket max for the couple in question, on healthcare.gov for the second lowest cost silver plan, and the second lowest cost bronze plan. You then calculate the premium subsidies they get at 399% FPL and 401% FPL using the rules, and the rest is obvious additions, subtractions, multiplications, and additions on the calculator. The rules for the subsidies are simple, and taken from KFF subsidies page, which I have inadvertantly left off as a reference for the calculation, though the reference appears elsewhere. I could, alternatively, type up the exact calculations used for you to examine.) NormSpier ( talk) 15:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, I see at the top of "no original research" "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." So, I guess, outside of the "routine calculations", maybe it is original research as Wikipedia defines it. Though, it's also obvious stuff to a person who knows the structure of the ACA, and can reason a bit economically or actuarially. I'm interested if we have an economist or actuary visiting here, to indicated how they deal with actuarially and economically obvious stuff. (For the sake of anything I might try to add to Wikipedia in the future. As in next paragraph, I will drop my attempt to get in the sections that have "original research"--everything but "problems".)

Unless some actuary or economist comes in and says "man, no, that's not original research", my solution is to drop all of my additions except for the problems section. (Revert everything but problems permanently.) In the problems section, user:Newslinger objects, as original research, only to what I hope everyone will see as routine calculations (bronze/silver), and an expendable paragraph. Then the references quality objection, to all of user:Newslingers cited problematic references, is easily solvable by replacement. NormSpier ( talk) 15:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiability: This section contains many instances of citation overkill, but also cites unreliable sources, including:

on the citation overkill, sometimes I really need them, to back up state by state non-LTCR Medicaid estate recovery status. (On my Medicaid estate recovery, on that problem also in problems section, a fellow put in the talk section that I should put each state on a separate line or section or something. But I think that can't be done here. In the yes/no on estate recovery listings, I could put footnotes on each state, rather than at the end. (That would cover two of the three very long footnote listing cases I see. The other one is this: "The issue of the negative interaction of the ACA with Medicaid estate recovery was noticed in many places starting from the time of ACA passage.[356][357][358][359][360][361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368][339]". So it's about the reporting at various times, mostly 2014, and as well as outrage. On Medicaid estate recovery, the person may have suggested say noticed in "The Washington Post", "The Seattle Times", "Health Affairs", and put a footnote on each one. (I have a request for clarification from that gent to see exactly what he meant.) These references may not be essential to document the existence of the problem, but if I don't put them, you're gonna tell me "original research". But, more importantly, the curious reader will want to see that it was reported, and in certain cases, can trace that being reported yielded a quick change of policy, and as well, the reported of the reasoned outrage (mostly in newspapers, 1 or 2 non-airtight sources for opinion) has value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1. eHealth Insurance, a shopping tool for insurance

The definition of "subsidy cliff" is in all likelihood elsewhere you would consider reliable. It's used for the name. That the subsidy cliff exists is economically obvious to people who know the structure of the lwas, and can reason a bit economically. I saw the potential for this type of problem immediately, on ACA passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Google Docs, a self-published document — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

I think was referenced prior. Linked to by Health Affairs. It's not essential to any support, but gives the curious and able reader the ability to see that it's being done in varying ways in varying states.

• 1. ElderLawAnswers, a shopping tool for legal aid — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

Was put in because it was nice clear explanation. Redundant with Federal sources. Could be removed.

• 1. a former version of the Wikipedia article for Medicaid estate recovery (see "Wikipedia is not a reliable source")

Same business as before. I didn't realize the purpose in Wikipedia is reliability for footnotes only, at least where they are used for fact, not optiono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Marshall, Parker & Weber LLC, a self-published blog post from a private law firm

Could be removed. Redundancy of explanation, that a user might feel was clearer than what's on Federal government sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Daily Kos community post, user-generated ("This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication")

I caught that it was removed by me after user:Newslinger and I had initial discussion. It was there for opinion only, and that it's still there was just my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. HuffPost contributor ( RSP entry)

This one I think is perfectly fine. It's there for opinion only. It was written by an MD (unless that's phony, but Huffington post should catch. It's there to give the flavor of the one issue "Medicaid estate recovery", where people were saying there was a "Big Con" going on. If you understand the problem (existence backed multiply), you will see that it was reasonable to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Open Minds, a consulting firm

This is not essential. It looked like a sound source, judging by the info on it. They have a lot of money, do and do research for people and organizations in the medical area. I liked it because it was a source that had attempted to get more information about which states do "Medicaid estate recovery", of those that did the Medicaid expansion. (I think its like 10, and at the time, they noted some changes were in process. I have myself done the work to look up for a bunch states, with references from government or sometimes reliable newspaper sources. It could be removed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Iowa Legal Aid, a legal aid directory

The information used is present elsewhere, on an Iowa state site, lined to right next to it. It could be dropped. I put it in because I thought it had a clearer explanation, and maybe other info that Iowa residents would find helpful. (It was on .org, not a .com, whatever that was good for. Legal aid sounded pretty legitimate. It likes like a genuine "doing good" organization from https://www.iowalegalaid.org/resource/applying-for-help-from-iowa-legal-aid , but again, it can be dropped with no loss of backup of assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Idaho Care Line, a blog unaffiliated with the state of Idaho

This one, I couldn't find a government site, which sometimes doesn't exist. So this looked pretty good. What happens is some states don't have anything written anywhere. VT is such a case. I have orally that they don't do non-long-term-care-related estate recovery, but they said it's not on paper or the web. (A person I know also called separately and got the same information.) But I digress. This can be removed, with removal on the not-really-necessary information on the small state of Idaho. (Sorry, Idahoans, its not that we don't care about you...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. Policygenius, an insurance broker

This could be removed. I used it redundantly to an also-reference MACPAC report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

• 1. healthinsurance.org, a shopping tool for insurance — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier ( talk • contribs)

I've used this either for terminology, or to provide a clear explanation for the reader of some things. Its not essential. Note that ref [534], not by me, uses that source. NormSpier ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Content that complies with Wikipedia's core content policies isn't necessarily "perfect". Wikipedia also has a list of other policies and guidelines (and I haven't even mentioned the Manual of Style yet). Rather, the three policies I referenced throughout these discussions ( no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view) are minimum standards for acceptable content in Wikipedia. Not all articles meet these standards, and any editor is welcome to address violations when they see areas for improvement.

"Be bold" is a guideline, but disputed edits are usually subject to immediate reversions until they can be thoroughly examined and discussed. I did not revert all of the added content because it was made over the span of a month, and because I thought it would be good to receive input from more editors. This RfC is one of the ways I am soliciting additional input.

With User:Newslinger's prior line, I raise a serious procedural issue. There is an issue of editor authority and how disputes are resolved. I had raised the topic after interacting with User:Newslinger at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Determining_official_Wikipedia_editor_role_and_authority_of_editors_coming_in_commenting_on_a_persons_additions , where before my request, I had gotten the impression that User:Newslinger was some sort of authorized official policeman from Wikipedia. But, I got the response, that all editors are equal in authority. Content disputes are resolved by some sort of democratic procedure. (This was clearly stated at the Teahouse by user:RudolfRed and user:Beeblebrox, extending even to administrators, of which User:Newslinger is not anyway actually one). So I'm kind of shocked here, on the above section where User:Newslinger wrote "I did not revert all of the added content because it was made over the span of a month, and because I thought it would be good to receive input from more editors." I'm shocked because, the issue at that point, with my content, was, (and still so far is) between me, and User:Newslinger. So, where is the authority to roll back the edits that he indicates he had the right to do?? I am new to Wikipedia writing. You must have some wiki-way to wiki-explain what he wiki-thought he could do, in some wiki document, or by explaining it as informal unwritten wiki-culture or wiki-norms. Please, someone, explain to me on what authority. NormSpier ( talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As I and other editors at the Teahouse discussion have explained to you, there is no editor "authority" or hierarchy for content disputes on Wikipedia. It is common practice for any editor to revert disputed edits, and the fact I opted to start an RfC instead of reverting your edits immediately is a courtesy to you. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and the result of this discussion (if more editors participate and express their opinions) will determine any changes that should be made to this article. —  Newslinger  talk 01:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Newslinger, for WP:BRD, which is very useful. I also caught just now that you had the link prior, and I failed to click on it. Hopefully, some people skilled in both the relevant field, and applying wikipedia rules, will show up at our party here, and take us out of deadlock. NormSpier ( talk) 19:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality, I don't see a pro-ACA bias in the August 7 version of the article. The "Public opinion" section of the article was moderately negative, and the "Criticism and opposition" section was a very substantial portion of the article. However, I don't think the September 7 version has a substantial anti-ACA bias, either, with the exception of the issue in the "Cost-sharing Reductions" section. I posted the noticeboard discussion on the neutral point of view noticeboard because the content additions spanned 6 articles. NormSpier proactively removed the content from 4 of the articles, addressing the bulk of the neutrality issue, and I thank them for doing so.

I know about the public opinion part, so I guess that is a negative about the law in the article before I got to it. But public opinion is different than whether the law is really failing some people. I just read through the section, and its all what people think in a possibly emotional way. Nothing like public reactions to the 5 problems: sometimes excessively high deductibles, unaffordable premiums over the fiscal cliff, etc. So, yes, I guess there is a little something negative, but nothing with the real problems affording the insurance. (The closest in the public opinion section, which is not very close, is that people don't like the mandate.) NormSpier ( talk) 20:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the "Criticism and Opposition" section, its mostly public opinion, not how the law is functioning. The exception is that unions indicate that their own union (non-ACA) plans are having their coverage disrupted, by things like driving up the cost of union plans. So, yes, this is a case where there is a negative effect on some health insurance, but not saying anything about a problem with ACA health coverage itself.

So I find my addition, of 5 problems with the ACA health insurance to be important fundamental information about the ACA prior conspicuously omitted prior to my arrival on the scene. (More fixes needed available to the reader in one of my references in that section--the article co-authored by Tim Jost of Health Affairs). As well as the "problems" answering the aforementioned pro-ACA-bias cited in Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#POV_issues, where, I note, one of the specific POV problems there was "It does not even take the time to mention in the very least, that for SOME people, many of the included studies do not reflect their experiences, especially concerning deductible increases etc." The POV concern was "deductible increases etc.". One of my 5 issues added is "Sometimes Unaffordable Out-of-Pocket Maximums", which is the same kind of thing as high-deductibles. It addresses out-of-pocket costs, which is the ultimate real concern with "deductible increases etc.". (This requires a little basic economic reasoning to see that. Insurance is supposed to mitigate the worst that can happen to you. Out of-pocket-expenses include both deductibles and copays, and the out-of-pocket maximum limits the worst than can happen to you--that is, the worst you can be financially hit from deductibles and copays. So what I've done to do the explanation here is "think a little and know just a little", or, "original research", depending on whether you ask User:Newslinger or me.) NormSpier ( talk) 16:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I appreciate all of the work NormSpier has put into expanding this article and the Medicaid estate recovery article, and I hope NormSpier continues to contribute to Wikipedia with these core content policies in mind. —  Newslinger  talk 12:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that thought, user:Newslinger. As raised above, the model "sentence, reference, sentence, reference" which may be ingrained in the new standards will likely keep me away from this kind or article in the future. (Some reviewers would need to be able to understand the policy in some detail, as well as light economics to keep me going.) Also, note, if you wind up keeping my contributions, G-d knows who will show up next week, and the week after, and the week after, and we have to start a whole new RFC each time. And who knows if it will say anything about the person's role, or self-appointed role, on their user page, when I click on it.)

Otherwise, its possible that I'm making too many demands on the reader with the quantitative stuff, with the purposeful parsimonious representation of the coverage mechanism, etc. It could be a reasonable editorial decision that demands at that level should be left to hard science and math articles in Wikipedia.

I'm interested in this content in the 2 articles, because there is public discussion by Democrats now of repair or replace. So I think problems should be easy for people to find. Also, people who resent the ACA should at least not have the feeling that real problems are ignored, and thus choose to vote for G-d knows who in response. Many have people have real problems with the premiums, deductibles and copays, and coverage gaps (i.e., a period of no insurance), and such. So I feel I owe the country, and truth, due perseverance on this content.

I may have to stop after this, and just contribute, when I feel in the mood, to math or engineering Wikipedia content. NormSpier ( talk) 20:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I guess I'd like to request again (repeated from somewhere above) that User:Newslinger state what he wants to do with the related content of mine Medicaid estate recovery, whose content is equally in dispute between just the two of us, for similar reasons to ACA. Is he going to do a separate RFC? Etc. (I think this RFC is only on the ACA content, but I'm not even absolutely clear on that.) NormSpier ( talk) 17:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

​The Medicaid estate recovery article is not part of this RfC. I'll address any issues on Talk:Medicaid estate recovery when I have time. However, as I have previously requested on your talk page, please reduce the volume of your comments (not just on this RfC, but everywhere). The length of your comments is disproportionate to the lengths of everyone else's comments, and it is deterring other editors from participating in these discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

​Another option for people would be to chime in on Medicaid estate recovery here, for the purpose of saving everyone time (overall), as I expect that will yield an RFC as well, and as it's the same just you against just me status. And the contested part of the content of Medicaid estate recovery is virtually the same material as one of the 5 "Problems" in ACA. Rather than making the community intellectually invest to understand that content twice. (To clarify that for people, Medicaid_estate_recovery#Non-LTCR_estate_recovery_and_the_ACA is an expansion on Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Estate_Recovery_under_138%_FPL, and I suspect much of user:Newslinger's objections to the former are already stated above for the latter.) NormSpier ( talk) 03:34, 11 September 2019 (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.

I wanted to edit the medicaid expansion part of the page to include information from a study published in 2018 that showed the impact of the medicaid expansion on buprenorphine prescriptions with naloxone and opioid pain relievers. The study showed that states that had the medicaid expansion had significantly higher buprenorphine with naloxone prescriptions per 100,000 county residents, which suggested that there was increased access to opioid use disorder treatment due to the expansion. Additionally, the expansion allowed more people taking opioid pain relievers to be covered under Medicaid, but the total number of these prescriptions did not increase. This study highlights the importance of Medicaid in pain management and addiction recovery. There was information in this section about the impact of the expansion on states that did and not expand, like Kansas, so I thought that adding another example of the Medicaid impact would be valuable to the page. ^[1] 162.129.44.17 ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article's short description ( diff) from "United States federal statute" to "Obamacare, ACA - U.S. federal statute". John B123 had recently edited the short description (importing the Wikidata version). In retrospect, I should have started this Talk page section first, and not edited the short description. I apologize for jumping the gun.

Short descriptions are relatively new to Wikipedia and it seems we are still sorting out best practices. For example, from Wikipedia:Short description#Content, "Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article." At the same time, Wikipedia:Short description#Content's first four guidelines (suggestions) indicate (to me) that greater specificity is better than generic descriptions. I included "Obamacare" and "ACA" because these are two terms visitors likely use to find information about the Act.

I am not wedded to any particular outcome. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As you point out, short descriptions are in their infancy and what guidelines that exist are pretty broad, more objectives than specific "rules". As such, nothing it really right or wrong until discussions such as this evolve a more specific set of guidelines. Most legislation articles, where they have short descriptions, use "United States federal statute" or similar, dependant on jurisdiction, but I suspect that is simply because they have been imported from Wikidata. This doesn't necessarily mean this is the format that should be adopted. -- John B123 ( talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well said John. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I may have stepped in something (did not examine Talk before editing). However, I bulldozed through this piece. Feedback encouraged. Changes:

• 20% word count reduction
• removed excess detail
• various updates of older material
• restructured various sections (including the notorious Problems) to put info where it belongs. e.g., moved descriptive information to the descriptive sections
• added some detail on lawsuits
• briefly mentioned fates of CLASS and co-ops
• (hopefully) moved in direction of NPOV
• noted lie of the year

This thing is still beastly long. I recommend splitting it up into something phone-friendly, which is where our readers come from these days. Cheers! Lfstevens ( talk) 20:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

High praise for the bulldozer! Your copy edits and other changes are major improvements to the article. Superb work!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing note: I learned something new today. Isaidnoway made an edit on 7 Jan 2020 ( diff), for which he wrote the following:

removed MULTIPLE unused refs creating cite errors after mass removal of content — list-defined references must be removed or commented out — use show preview after mass removal of content and check the references section for possible cite errors — refs can be found in the page history if needed for further use here or elsewhere

Good to know.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Line graph, logarithmic scale, using Bézier curve showing 2019 monthly pageviews (all platforms; user agents) for the Wikipedia article, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. | Image file information | Pageviews Analysis information | Pageviews Analysis FAQ | What is a "page view"? | This article ( Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was viewed 814,467 times during 2019 (monthly average: 67,872).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Barack Obamacare. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Barack Obamacare until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)