Talk:Universal health care/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recreation of article

Universal health care previously redirected to Publicly-funded medicine. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that this article deserves to stand-alone. A Google search of "Universal health care" receives 1,460,000 hits, whereas "Publicly-funded medicine" receives only 11,800 (many of which simply mirror the Wikipedia article). -AED 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.17.137.180

How about you register a user name, so we can hammer out this article properly? The Support and Opposition sections are to reflect what views exist on the subject. Not what you believe to be factual or not factual?-AED 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) -AED 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I noticed that User:Sir kris posted the link for Citizens for Universal Health Care ("Site design, administration, and hosting provided in-kind by Kris Craig."), then you begin citing it as a reference 8 hours later. If Kris Craig, User:Sir kris, and User:24.17.137.180 are one and the same, then posting your blog and citing yourself violates Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

We are not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each others edits. I perceive plenty of POV in the Support section, but I'll leave those points alone until we can discuss them here to work out something mutually acceptable. I expect that you will share the same courtesy with the Opponents section. -AED 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RE

As I stated quite clearly in the edit notes, the news article I cited came from a blog for an organization that I'm an active member of. It is NOT a personal blog, but rather a news blog for the organization, which is the primary means through which they publish their articles.

When I first looked at the universal health care entry, there were 7 points supporting, and 14 points against, or a 2:1 ratio. Many of those opposing points were overly broad, generalized, and even factually inaccurate. In addition, nearly half of them all came from the same source, an article from the CATO institute, a political think-tank organization with very strong ties to the neo-liberal sector of the Republican party. The CATO institute is one of the most vocal opponents of universal health care, or anything that is not run by the private sector for that matter. Citing talking points from such an organization, particularly talking points that are simply not grounded in fact, is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is here for. Furthermore, it misleads readers into thinking statements such as that universal health care creates a "decreased quality of care" are factual, when they clearly are not. Universal health care has never been directly tied to a decrease in quality of care; in fact, in most countries it has led to an increased quality of care according to statistical data. And on top of all that, while CATO was referenced as a resource, it was not even listed as an opposing organization, which only serves to further mislead readers about the content of the article.

All I did was balanced it out a bit. I left most of the opposing points there unchanged, while making minimal revisions to others where possible (i.e. changing "increased waiting times" to "increased waiting times in some cases," since that point only even applies to governments with excessive control over private practices and/or that don't have sufficient infrustructure, such as an adequite number of hospitals or nurses, to compensate for a possible increase in demand created by increased access to health care).

Oh and as for the username thing, that's because I logon from on campus and at home, as well as on my laptop sometimes, and I usually don't bother to login every time I switch computers. That's also why the IP address varies a little. Not intended to deceive anyone!

I think it's fine now as-is. There were a few points you legitimately corrected me on, such as an unnecessary wording change in opposition and forgetting to cite a source, and those I did not change back. I would like to see more opposing organizations listed so it's a little more balanced there as well, but somehow I think you would be better at finding those than I would.  :)

Other than that, I think we have a reasonable compromise as it stands right now. I removed the few opposing points that were just aggregiously unfactual, revised a few others, and added some very commonly-cited facts to the support side of it. I understand that I kinda stepped on your turf here, and I apologize; but I'm willing to leave support and opposition at this reasonable compromise now if you are. =)

--Kris

AED Responded:

It's not my turf; I think we agree that it is an article that deserves to be created and expanded. I would just like the opportunity to discuss our differences on how certain items should be edited before they are edited.

1. RE: Your edit comment "Actual arguments for and against in the article must be fact only." I think there is a bit of a double standard here in what is considered to be "fact"; I hope to discuss our differences on the for/against points shortly.
2. RE: Your blog Citizens for Universal Health Care. A Google test for "Citizens for Universal Health Care" get 114 hits. I'm currently willing to give you a little leeway on this (particularly since most of the points you make can be coroborated by other pro-UHC references), but an argument could be made per Wikipedia:Notability that it should not be listed here. You need to be extremely careful about citing yourself in encyclopedia articles.
3. RE: Balance. Removing legitimate information is not how an article should be balance; again, I hope to discuss our differences on the for/against points shortly. In the external links section, I think major organizations whose primary mission has something to do with healthcare should be listed not necessarily every political group that has a take on the issue. It does make sense to me that there will be more groups organized to support UHC than groups formed to oppose it, so I don't expect the links to be equal in number.

Let's see what we can achieve here.-AED 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support/Opposition

I've listed below how the article currently looks. The Support section makes the points you think should be made the Opposition section makes the points I think should be made. Let's please suggest our changes before making them. -AED 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support for universal health care

• Health care is a right.
• Provides coverage to all citizens.
• Health care increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.
• People suffering from chronic, potentially fatal illness are not discouraged from seeking medical care as they are under a privatized system.

-Can you clarify? I'm not convinced that those with chronic, potentially fatal illness are discouraged from seeking care. -AED 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-Aside from my own first-hand experience of having had a chronic illness and being discouraged from receiving medical care due to a lack of funds, you could review statistical data relating to medical treatment sought by the uninsured vs. medical treatment sought by insured people and those with higher incomes. Or if you'd rather not look it up yourself, the solid factual survey data can be found here: http://covertheuninsured.org/media/docs/release050205a.pdf.... It does come from a biased source like CATO, but it's citing a survey done by the University of Maryland, which is NOT a biased source. --Kris

-That survey states that "uninsured adults forgo needed treatment for chronic health conditions", not that they were discouraged from seeking treatment. I will integrate that link into the article. -AED 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Simply having more wealth and privilege should not make someone more deserving of quality medical care in the eyes of an enlightened society.

-I think "All citizens deserve quality medical care regardless of wealth or privlege" is less inflammatory, more to the point, and more accurate.-AED 20:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-It's neither inaccurate nor inflammatory. Your point basically states that it could be said more concisely, and maybe that's true. However, while we do wish to filter out factual inaccuracies, we don't want to gut their points completely in terms of how they're worded, just so they're more concise. That, I believe, would amount to censorship on our part. --Kris

-If it's saying the same thing, then it's not censorship... particularly since the citation is from your blog. -AED 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reduces wastefulness and inefficiencies in the delivery of health care.
• A centralized national database makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
• Low-income parents have to choose between putting food on the table or taking their sick child to the doctor under a privatized system.

-Something about this needs to be reworded or combined with another point - perhaps the "Simply having more wealth and privilege..." point. Advocating health insurance for low-income people (Medicaid in the United States") is different than advocating UHC. -AED 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-What are you talking about?! UHC has *EVERYTHING* to do with covering low-income people! Medicaid is a very restrictive program that most people, including those with low incomes, do not quality for. And even when they do, it doesn't always provide adequite coverage. This point definitely deserves to stand on its own. --Kris

-The point that low-income people should have health care coverage is already stated in the point that states: "Provides coverage to all citizens regardless of ability to pay." -AED 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Medical professionals can concentrate on treating patients rather than on administrative duties.
• Encourages patients to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.
• Private insurance companies are more concerned with maximizing profit than they are with providing adequite, honest coverage to the insured.

-I'm not clear on what point is being made for UHC. How does "insurance companies are greedy" translate to "UHC is the best health care system for a country"?-AED 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-The point of this isn't to say that insurance companies are "greedy" (a term which I didn't even use, you did). Rather, it is a counter-argument to those who say that the private sector is better equipped to handle health care because profit motivates them to operate more efficiently. However, this often results in higher premiums, lack of coverage, and frequent legal attempts to avoid paying legitimate claims. That is a consequence of profit motive-- a motive that simply would not exist in a state-run universal health care system. Therefore, it most certainly is a valid point in support of UHC. --Kris

-In other words, "The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care." -AED 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to universal health care

• Health care is not a right.

-I don't believe this should state, "Health care is a privlege, not a right". The opponent argument here is a direct rebuttal to those who say "Health care is a right"; they don't say, "Health care is a right, not simply a privlege". If anything, the point could be made that many opponents believe "health care is a commodity".-AED 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-I would actually agree that it should be changed to "Health care is a commodity," because that more accurately portrays what the opposition to UHC argues. The "privilege" insertion I put was a poorly-worded attempt to say just that-- but you're right, commodity is definitely better, and that's a revision I would support. --Kris

• Increased waiting times occur due to increased demand.

-I don't believe this should state, "Increased waiting times occur in some instances". First of all, "in some instances" it is not essential to the opponents argument of why think UHC is a bad idea. Secondly, if we look at Support side of the argument, are we going to put "Reduces wastefulness and inefficiencies in the delivery of health care in some instances"? I hope not. -20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-Once again, we're back to the point I made earlier. Accurately portraying the opposing argument is essential, but it does NOT supercede the need to list information as accurately as possible, first and foremost. Suffice it to say, "in some cases" is the correct way to say it, because there are in fact only a few examples of systems in which this is a problem. And many argue that this is a result of poor management of the universal health care system, not of the universal health care system itself. So yes, "in some instances" is essential, otherwise the point implies that there are increased waiting times in all cases, which is simply false. --Kris

• Poorer quality of care.

-I know you think that UHC provides better quality of care, but opponents think that it does not. There is a lot of information tossed around by both sides attempting to prove which system actually provides better care to individuals and entire populations. The point here is that it a relatively common reason cited by those who oppose UHC. -AED 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-Once again, just because the CATO Institute uses it as a political talking point, doesn't mean it should be cited as a fact against UHC. On the contrary, there simply is no data to support this blanket assertion. On the other hand, virtually all countries that have universal health care rank higher in public health than the U.S. (which actually ranks surprisingly low) and other countries that don't have UHC. You could argue that this alone isn't sufficient to list "Higher quality of care" as a point in support of UHC, and you'll notice that's exactly why I didn't attempt to list that. However, combined with the lack of contrary data, it certainly does warrent removal of the "Poorer quality of care" statement. --Kris

• Unequal access and health disparities still exist in some universal health care systems.
• Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy.

-I don't think this should state, "Government agencies may be less efficient due to beurocracy[sic]." The Opponents argument is that they are less efficient, not that they may be less efficient. I'm sure you dispute that, but that's what their argument is.-AED 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-And yet again, we go back to accuracy. Just because CATO says that all government agencies are inefficient doesn't make it so, and certainly doesn't mean we should list it as an opposing fact in the article. That's why we list the CATO website in external links for people who want to hear their argument straight from the horse's mouth. Aside from it being a blanket generalization that is simply impossible to prove (and there certainly isn't any data to prove it), many countries, such as Sweden, actually have very efficiently-run health care systems. I don't know of any data comparing it directly with our privately-run system, but you simply can't include broad generalizations made by political think-tanks unless you have some factual data to back it up. Especially when the generalization is as broad and vague as this. At very least, you would need to cite a source with some solid data, not just a statement made by CATO. --Kris

• Must be funded with higher taxes and/or spending cuts in other areas.
• Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity lead to greater cost control and effectiveness.
• Government-controlled health care leads to a decrease in patient flexibility.
• Citizens do not curb their drug costs and doctor visits; thus increasing costs.

-Although you may disagree, this is another reason cited by opponents of UHC.-AED 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-Actually, I can cite a specific case study that directly contradicts this point: Noralou P. Roos, Evelyn Forget, Randy Walld, Leonard MacWilliam. “Does Universal Comprehensive Insurance Encourage Unnecessary Use? Evidence From Manitoba Says, ‘No.’” Canadian Medical Association Journal. Vol. 170, Iss. 2 (2004): 209-215. This study actually shows that citizens do curb their drug costs and doctor visits. Apparently, just because people -can- do something (like see a doctor), doesn't mean they -will- do it all the time. Aside from financial reasons, going to the doctor's office and taking medication is still a hassle, and I think this study shows that most people are smart enough to avoid it unless they're really sick enough to warrant it. I know I wouldn't have the time to run over to the doctor every time I came down with a cough, and apparently this 2004 study supports that. Hence, the above point should be removed, as there isn't any data to support it, while there is abundant data contradicting it. --Kris

• Uninsured citizens can sometimes still receive health and emergency care from alternative sources such as nonprofits and government-run hospitals.
• Government-mandated procedures reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

-Although you may disagree, this is another reason cited by opponents of UHC. It may be possible to combine/expand this with the "Poor quality of care" point. -AED 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-Once again, accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. I also removed this point because it's so vague that it's impossible to prove or disprove; i.e. "reduce doctor flexibility" could mean any number of things. At very least, you would need to state specifically what "Government-mandated procedures" you're referring to that lead to poor patient care. --Kris

• Healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
• Causes loss of insurance industry jobs and other business closures in the private sector.
• Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay dissuades many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

-Although you may disagree, this is another common reason cited by opponents of UHC. -AED 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

-I removed this point because it doesn't even relate to universal health care. Universal health care does not in itself affect private practice options in any way. Some countries choose to implement policies that do just that, but that is not an actual characteristic of universal health care. It is also a bit broad and lacking data, but not so much in this case as to warrent removal in and of itself. If you preceeded it with "As it is implemented in some countries," then I think I'd be ok with it. --Kris

Kris Responded:

You keep saying that things like "in some cases" are not essential to the opposition's argument. You fail to realize that this isn't the standard by which it should be cited. It may not be essential to their argument, but it IS essential to accuracy of fact. If CATO published an article saying that doctors kill more people than they save, I think you'll agree that citing that as a point of opposition would not be the right thing to do. Otherwise, readers have no way of knowing whether or not the "facts" in the article are accurate, or if the article is simply regurgitating baseless claims made by each group. Therefore, the only other recourse is to ensure that the information we list, even in the opposing and supporting arguments, is as accurate as possible.

Secondly, one could reasonably argue that citing material from biased and unverifiable political articles by the CATO Institute is just as bad (if not worse) than citing information from a news article posted by a supporting organization. Google hits are irrelevant in terms of whether a source is reliable. If we are to bar all articles from biased political groups, then all those points you took from CATO would have to be removed as well. Instead, I think it's sufficient to filter out any inaccurate information based on unfounded claims, and list those sources (i.e. CATO and CUHC) as external links in supporting and opposing orgs, so people are aware that these references do come from biased sources. Then, if someone wants to learn more about what CATO has to say, they can visit the external link, with the understanding that Wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on that external link.

The Wiki article should not be biased, which it very much was before I fixed it. You'll notice that I didn't reverse it so it was dominated by supporting points; rather, I evened it out so the reader does not get the impression that the article is either for or against universal health care. If you like, I'll be happy to double-cite my sources (i.e. cite another source or two in addition to the news articles from the CUHC blog). However, I will not back down on my stance to keep blatantly false information out of the article. I don't care if that false information is part of the opposition's argument (or the support's argument for that matter), it cannot be listed if it's inaccurate. That's what the external links section is for.

--Kris

• I went to a lot of trouble above to attempt to resolve this amicably. If you're simply going to assert that what you post is true and what I post is false, then I guess we'll be reverting each others edits for awhile. Cheers. -AED 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kris Responded:

I think the readers will agree that I've been more than fair in trying to reach a reasonable compromise on this. But with all due respect, you seem to be more interested in using the Wiki article as a platform to propagate your biased political viewpoint. While I don't shy away from being an avid supporter of universal health care, I limited my changes to fixing factual inaccuracies and making the for/against points more equally balanced (i.e. no longer a 2:1 ratio against).

You have followed an aggressive posture ever since I made the initial modification. I have offered an olive branch on a number of occasions, and every time you responded by attacking me and reversing my revisions. I even offered to double/triple-cite all the points I added, including statistical evidence to back up what I said about your statements taken from the CATO Institute being overly broad and inaccurate. You once again resopnded with an adversarial mindset, threatening yet again to engage in a childish Wiki war.

Well, I feel I've done more than my part in trying to negotiate the details of this in good-faith on a professional level. But if you'd rather just butt heads and keep revising and re-revising each other's revisions, then I'm game. Political idiologies aside, I cannot in good conscience allow false and deceptive statements to remain in this article. The readers deserve better, and I intend to make sure that's exactly what they get. Game on. =)

--Kris

• You have a strange idea of what is "reasonable compromise". You rejected my offer to discuss changes prior to making them, then assert that your opinion of what is true or false is all that matters. Indeed, the charge that I "seem to be more interested in using the Wiki article as a platform to propagate your biased political viewpoint" is irony to the nth degree. It is not "false or deceptive" for the article to reflect what supporters or opponents of UHC commonly cite as their reasons for favoring or opposing it. Whether or not UHC truly leads to poorer quality of care is a matter of much debate; since when are you the final arbiter who decides conclusively that it does or does not? By all means, expand information in the article relating to the quality of care in UHC systems vs. those without out it, but it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to ignore commonly cited objections to UHC just because you disagree with those objections. -AED 22:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is deceptive to simply regurgitate false or misleading information in an encyclopedia article, which is by definition supposed to be limited to fact. The point of "supporting" and "opposing" sections is not to parrot what other organizations are saying; but rather, to illustrate the pros and cons of UHC from a neutral, factual standpoint. In other words, baseless claims that are in fact contradicted by all available data should not be listed as if they are legitimate points against, anymore than it should be that way for support. Once again, if people want to know simply what the organizations themselves are saying, that's why we list them in the external links section. The point of an encyclopedia is to isolate and report fact, not simply parrot what partisan groups are saying. If CATO wrote an article saying that UHC kills more people than it saves, and a few other groups picked up on that point without any data to actually support it, I would not allow that to be listed as an opposing fact either. It has nothing to do with whether or not -I- agree with the claim, but whether or not the facts agree with it. I don't decide what the facts are anymore than you do. Facts are facts. They pretty much speak for themselves. How we interpret the facts is open to debate, but not the facts themselves simply because a few groups choose to ignore them. There are a few claims made in opposition that I left alone even though I disagree with them, because they do have at least some data to support them. In other cases, I made minor modifications so that the point fit the facts while still conveying the opposing viewpoint. Once you realize that the point isn't to just parrot their arguments, but rather specify the pros and cons based on solid, unbiased fact, the better off we'll be in resolving this. 24.17.137.180 00:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kris Added:

While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and do a point-by-point analysis of what you posted above:

[Moved statements to above outline]

Well, there ya go. Now you can't accuse me of not providing specifics. But if you'd still like to do a back-and-forth revision war over this, it's not like I have anything better to do. =)

--Kris

• Thanks, Kris. I moved your statements to the outline above so we can discuss them more easily. I'll try to respond to them later. By the way, typing ~~~~ will help you to sign your posts. -AED 22:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm from Massachusetts and our Governor backed by our State House just passed a comprehensive Universal Health Care coverage plan. As far I know its the first one in the country. Our Governor is Republican (Romney) and our State House has a majority of Democrats. Only time will tell if we can make it work in Massachusetts, but if it does it might be a template for the rest of the USA. I'm an Unenrolled voter, as are a majority from Massachusetts and it seems here we dont have the bitter party politics gripping the rest of the country. We do still get legislation done... self evidenly. --merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Ps, I know I have to Wikify the link I added, its just a copy of a newspaer page right now, but I will get to it. ______________________________________________________

Publicly Funded Health Care?

Info: Publicly Funded Health Care is a derogatory/ insulting way that "Big Insuranse Companies" in Massachusetts use to slur "Universal Health Care in our newspapers." It is a propaganda word, no more/ no less. Its like someone with a beef against my state calling it Taxachewstts and not Massachusetts. Universal Health Coverage... (Thats the "legal name" for it in Massachusetts and not Publicly Funded... They say it to Malign our plan to imply that it makes an unfair "tax burden" on the taxpayers that the quality healthcare will be destroyed. I really don't want to get into this argument but make no changes on the listing due to propaganda by Big Insurance lobbyists. Just state the facts. Its called Universal Health Coverage... --merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)(talk) Things to Ponder Submitted by Tom Dodamead (not verified) on Thu, 2006-01-05 23:55.

Ironically, I've heard that "publicly funded healthcare" is a term used by some to tone down what others call "socialized medicine". -AED 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Same category doesn't equal same topic

Publicly-funded medicine and Universal health care are two separate things. Specifically, the term "publicly-funded medicine" is much broader, and could be used to describe programs such as HMO's, medicare, medicaid, emergency pandemic vaccinations, subsidies to private insurance and drug companies, etc. None of those things just described could be referred to as universal health care. Granted, universal health care does probably fall under the category of publicly-funded medicine, but that doesn't mean the two articles should be merged. That would be like saying you should merge an article about oranges with an article about fruits because they're essentially the same thing-- when, in fact, an orange merely falls under the category of fruit, and is worthy of its own stand-alone article. The same thing applies to publicly-funded medicine and universal health care. --Kris/24.19.255.254 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Health Care Talk:

I have moved a lengthy advocacy post that was origionally place under this section by Merlinusdawna to that users talk page, based on the Wikipedia is not a soapbox principle. I will let others determine if that material is OK for the userspace, but based on the guidance it has no place here. -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Link Section

Why is one of the links being repeatedly deleted? Salvor Hardin 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM for the reasons why. If you disagree and feel that the links meet the criteria for being included here at Wikipedia based on these guidance articles, please explain.

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read the guidance and I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to remove this link, then YOU need to make a case for why. Salvor Hardin 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above editors appear to be involved in a revert war regarding the following links. I would like to add my thoughts:

• In my opinion, Citizens for Universal Health Care (CUHC) should be removed. Per WP:EL, a person should not link to a website that he or she maintains. That is what Kris Craig (also known as User:Sir kris, User:24.17.137.180, and User:24.19.255.254) did when he added the link. Also per WP:EL: "Blogs... should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." Given that CUHC gets a total of 114 google hits including the Wiki mirrors to this article, it does not appear to fit the bill. And viewing the CUHC link, there is nothing to indicate that Citizens for Universal Health Care is not simply Kris Craig's blog.
• In my opinion, Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care has earned a weak keep. It receives a few more hits than the CUHC, but appears to be slightly more notable and to have more than one member.
• In my opinion, CATO Institute should also be removed. Although it is a notable organization, the link does not link to anything specific about the article's topic (i.e. universal health care).
• In my opinion, The Problems with Socialized Health Care has also earned a weak keep. Like the above websites, it does not pretend to be a neutral website; however, it is an excellent collection of links summarizing the view of those who are opposed to UHC. If there is a better link providing the same information (or more) I would probably be OK with removing this one.

-AED 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AED, I highly reguard your edits, and your recomendations here are well stated. While I still have reservations about the two links you recomend that be kept, I will not touch those at this time. After waiting now for a while to give myself some perspective, I have removed the links where you agreed with me. Thaks again, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)