Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

ACA & small businesses

Initial discussion

This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to follow critical comments about ACA's effects on small businesses with

, despite evidence "benefits of Obamacare for small businesses are enormous."

contending this is "Certainly not an 'Un-attributed quote' since the author verifies the conclusion using appropriate cites." and that "The conclusion is well supported in the article." Show cause otherwise. Attleboro (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "appropriate cites" you're talking about, as I don't see any "cites" in that source, but it doesn't matter, as this clearly a column -- yes, the author is a columnist and this is his column -- that is clearly an expression his personal POV, both using POV language you'd never see in news reporting ("Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act," "The story is guaranteed to feed the fears of small-business owners," "Obamacare changes all this," "The U.S. likes to think of itself as friendly to small businesses," "In a saner world...") and acknowledging his the authors own personal views ("So it comes as some surprise to learn...". As such, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires attribution, regardless of whether the source contains "appropriate cites." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

From that statement on down, the whole article can be seen as a compilation of direct quotes from an authoritative source, John Arensmeyer, head of Small Business Majority, and reference to a 2009 study by the economists, John Schmitt and Nathan Lane, all to back the statement up. The main example shown under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is...

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact.

which, of course, can be, if sufficiently backed up, just as the author does in this article. Attleboro (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with ATTRIUBTEPOV you can take it up at Talk:NPV or WP:VPP. But until the policy is changed we're obligated to distinguish between reliable sources and "biased statements of opinion." Per WP:RSOPINION, a "prime example" of such opinions are "opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers," i.e. columns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with ATTRIUBTEPOV, only your misuse of it. If Surowiecki were writing merely an opinion piece, you'd be correct, but he isn't. You seem to equivocate what may be his lack of standing as a business/economic authority, with the standing of his sources, both reliable and notable, and that is wrong. (In fact, he has some standing on his own.) Attleboro (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that this isn't an opinion piece, you've just referred mysteriously to unspecified "appropriate cites" and "sources." Stack that up against the quotes I provided above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to have difficulty reading the article, here it is, from the quote on down, and containing a link to the economics study which contains these statements...

An important part of our national identity is built around the idea that – thanks to low taxes, limited regulation, unfettered labor markets, and a national spirit of entrepreneurship – the United States offers an environment for small business that is unmatched anywhere else in the world. ...but...

One plausible explanation for the consistently higher shares of self-employment and small-business employment in the rest of the world’s rich economies is that all have some form of universal access to health care. The high cost to self-employed workers and small businesses of the private, employer-based health care system in place in the United States may act as a significant deterrent to small start-up companies, an experience not shared by entrepreneurs in countries with universal access to health care.

Meanwhile, the likely benefits of Obamacare for small businesses are enormous. To begin with, it’ll make it easier for people to start their own companies—which has always been a risky proposition in the U.S., because you couldn’t be sure of finding affordable health insurance. As John Arensmeyer, who heads the advocacy group Small Business Majority, and is himself a former small-business owner, told me, “In the U.S., we pride ourselves on our entrepreneurial spirit, but we’ve had this bizarre disincentive in the system that’s kept people from starting new businesses.” Purely for the sake of health insurance, people stay in jobs they aren’t suited to—a phenomenon that economists call “job lock.” “With the new law, job lock goes away,” Arensmeyer said. “Anyone who wants to start a business can do so independent of the health-care costs.” Studies show that people who are freed from job lock (for instance, when they start qualifying for Medicare) are more likely to undertake something entrepreneurial, and one recent study projects that Obamacare could enable 1.5 million people to become self-employed.

Even more important, Obamacare will help small businesses with health-care costs, which have long been a source of anxiety. The fact that most Americans get their insurance through work is a historical accident: during the Second World War, wages were frozen, so companies began offering health insurance instead. After the war, attempts to create universal heath care were stymied by conservatives and doctors, and Congress gave corporations tax incentives to keep providing insurance. The system has worked well enough for big employers, since large workforces make possible the pooling of risk that any healthy insurance market requires. But small businesses often face so-called “experience rating”: a business with a lot of women or older workers faces high premiums, and even a single employee who runs up medical costs can be a disaster. A business that Arensmeyer represents recently saw premiums skyrocket because one employee has a child with diabetes. Insurance costs small companies as much as eighteen per cent more than it does large companies; worse, it’s also a crapshoot. Arensmeyer said, “Companies live in fear that if one or two employees get sick their whole cost structure will radically change.” No wonder that fewer than half the companies with under fifty employees insure their employees, and that half of uninsured workers work for small businesses or are self-employed. In fact, a full quarter of small-business owners are uninsured, too.

Obamacare changes all this. It provides tax credits to smaller businesses that want to insure their employees. And it requires “community rating” for small businesses, just as it does for individuals, sharply restricting insurers’ ability to charge a company more because it has employees with higher health costs. And small-business exchanges will in effect allow companies to pool their risks to get better rates. “You’re really taking the benefits that big companies enjoy, and letting small businesses tap into that,” Arensmeyer said. This may lower costs, and it will insure that small businesses can hire the best person for a job rather than worry about health issues.

The U.S. likes to think of itself as friendly to small businesses. But, as a 2009 study by the economists John Schmitt and Nathan Lane documented, our small-business sector is among the smallest in the developed world, and has one of the lowest rates of self-employment. One reason is that we’ve never had anything like national health insurance. In a saner world, changing this would be a reform that the “party of small business” would celebrate.

ui, Attleboro (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Color me baffled, but I don't see any "cites" in your last comment, just arguments. I'm not passing judgment on these arguments, mind you, but could you please point us to what you're calling "appropriate cites?" If you can't, then what you're really saying is that Surowiecki's piece is convincing, which is quite different than saying it's reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

To cite does not require a bibliographic form which you seem to require. An authoritative quote that is traceable suffices. - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite

His piece is more than convincing. He provides enough information to trace his sources, which are reliable. Attleboro (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What quotes and sources? Please name them. (Not because I can't read the article, but because I don't know what specifically you're referring to.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose claiming not to see something in front of your face is one way of making a discussion unending. The quotes are above. The sources are well cited in recent versions that were deleted. Orthogonius (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote aren't sources. Please humor me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think a 2009 study forecasting the potential impact of the ACA on small business prior to its enactment makes much sense four years later and three years into the implementation, where surely there must be real data now available on such impact one way or the other. It would have been interesting to see how a Wikipedia article about climate change might have evolved if it began back in the 70's when today's "global warming" proponents were predicting global cooling, the only difference between then and now being the actual data, that we are now to fry instead of freeze, and their pony tails turning gray. As the delayed mandates roll in over the next year the turmoil we have seen over the past few weeks, with millions losing the health care they "liked" that the masterminds deemed unsatisfactory, will increase by an order of magnitude and I am confident we will see a similarly far different outcome from what the progenitors of this master plan were promising as they were selling it five years ago. InterpreDemon (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether the ACA survives, or not, and in what form, is still up in the air. The 2009 economics paper makes no such prediction about effects of the ACA, stating instead "the United States has something to learn from the experience of other advanced economies, which appear to have had much better luck promoting and sustaining small-business employment.

One plausible explanation for the consistently higher shares of self-employment and small-business employment in the rest of the world’s rich economies is that all have some form of universal access to health care. The high cost to self-employed workers and small businesses of the private, employer-based health-care system in place in the United States may act as a significant deterrent to small start-up companies[12] an experience not shared by entrepreneurs in countries with universal access to health care.

12. For evidence that the lack of access to health insurance may act as a significant deterrent to self-employment, see, for example: Wellington (2001) and Fairlie, Kapur, and Gates (2008)." Attleboro (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I reject the premise that "the United States has something to learn from the experience of other advanced economies" regarding entrepreneurship and small business creation, since on both accounts we outperform them all. Which "advanced economy" has a better track record for risk taking, business creation and innovation than ours? Which "appear to have had much better luck promoting and sustaining small-business employment" than we? Those are the postulations that need to be cited with evidence, for without substantiation of those claims the whole article and argument falls flat on its face. Yes, in America health insurance costs for individuals and small businesses may be higher per capita those of large enterprises, but at least prior to the ACA they (individuals and businesses) still had the option to not buy insurance at all, at least until such time as the venture or circumstances enabled them to invest in risk management or to attract a certain type of talent like executives with families, union talent and such. Now, that choice is gone, thus directly or indirectly saddling the start-up or the individuals participating in it with additional mandated costs not there before. As one who has started numerous businesses over decades, I personally benefited from being able to both offer and receive "sweat equity" in the early stages and deal with benefits later on when the venture was proved viable, and I fear the next generation of young, healthy entrepreneurs will no longer have the option to invest that extra four to five grand into their venture instead of insurance they have no need for and stand little chance of being able to collect from. It makes no sense to suggest that by imposing a cost on everybody it improves the opportunity for everybody as well. Put another way, if you have two businesses, one without a health care costs burden and another with, imposing a new cost on the former to partially subsidize the latter will likely result in only one survivor. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a distraction. Let's focus on WP policy rather than on the merits of the arguments raised in the source. I'm still waiting for Attleboro to list the alleged "appropriate cites." I.e. reports, studies, statements by experts, etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Denom, you'd better take a breath and start with this summary. Dr.F, merits of the arguments and WP policy should, both, determine the outcome of this. Attleboro (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Your continuing refusal to answer my good-faith question is a category of tendentious editing; either start collaborating or please step aside. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. F. As to your chart, that merely confirms that in the US small companies tend to grow large, which is every entrepreneur's aspiration, whereas in almost all the rest of the developed world they remain small due to lack of opportunity or resources, crushing taxation, redistribution and regulation. If "top rated" Greece is the model you recommend we can "learn from" for economic and social development, I suggest the real lesson to be learned from Greece is antipodal to that of which you believe it to be. InterpreDemon (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop arguing against the merits of the source. It's a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and a distraction from the issue at hand, which is whether the column is a reliable source per WP:RS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr.F, so long as you ignore quotes and links before you, you are the one appearing tendentious. Attleboro (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think so then go ahead and report me. Outside of that, best of luck to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Demon, with half of all US small businesses failing within 5 years, your supposition that all those small ones grew big confirms nothing. The paper explains, instead, that start-up costs are too high. Attleboro (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are considering the difference between an economy with a generational butcher shop or cobbler on every block (Greece) verses a supermarket in every neighborhood. To attribute our high failure rate simply to health care costs verses having a more entrepreneurial environment where more people attempt to try to start ventures with a poor business model is IMHO a bit jaded. If it weren't for that fact that by their yardstick Greece is at the top of the heap I might give it more credence, but if reordering our society to look like that is required in order to "promote" small business I think a majority of American consumers would prefer to continue buying their steak and shoes at Walmart. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support deletion (Saw an RfC request and came on over...) I think it's redundant, the fact that the same sentence is basically said twice. That being noted, it doesn't strike me as adding anything to the article - more like an editor is advocating something. That's just how it reads to me. GRUcrule (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In our own voice?

This is the content currently being disputed. Attleboro (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This revert had the explanatory comment, "rv POV argumentation in WP's voice". I have a few concerns.

The main one is that the removed material wasn't in WP's voice, it was attributed to John Arensmeyer and well-cited. The secondary one is that, while it does express an attributed POV, it's not necessarily undue in context.

I'd like to suggest that the revert should be reverted. MilesMoney (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tagging on to the story about people opposing the law with "despite X and Y saying this" is an endorsement of X and Y's view. This is in addition to the question of whether X or Y are qualified to express the views in question, and the undue weight of repeating the same rebuttal in the same tone twice. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with F&H, the passage may be well sourced and properly attributed, but this is still a pretty clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. In addition it puts undue emphasis on only one aspect of the article's subject and thereby violates WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you propose presenting well sourced, authoritative material leading to an opposing conclusion, in the place where the original view is presented without some lead-in, like "despite", noting the change of direction? Attleboro (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty debatable that this is an authoritative source. The primary logic appears to be that the ACA would allow people to start a new small business without the worry of healthcare prison and that the ACA would make it easier to attract workers that would otherwise not leave their job with healthcare. Certainly a thesis worth testing, but hardly proof that the ACA would provide substantial benefits to small business. Additionally, the Small Business Majority is passed off as a non-partisan representative of small businesses, however according to this NYT blog they don't actually represent any small business, at least not like the other groups which have small businesses as members (the SBM does not have membership). Additionally, they appear to represent only liberal agenda items and they are financed by liberal groups, and that they are pretty much just an interest group being largely financed by those which support the ACA. Now I don't have a problem with their advocacy, this is a free country after all. But it would be disingenuous to play them off as a speaking for small businesses, when they clearly are speaking for their agenda and trying to play it off as speaking for small businesses. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this addresses Attleboro's concerns or mine. The actions you suggest conflict with policy: We don't dismiss reliable sources just because they're liberal, and we don't silence their views just because we don't happen to agree. Also, the stated reasons for the revert remain false, which is problematic. MilesMoney (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Attleboro has made several mentions to the authoritative nature of the source. I have rightly pointed out that it is not. There is still the issue of NPOV which Attleboro has not resolved. I simply pointed out how partisan the source is. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing and both Arensmeyer and Surowiecki[1] qualify. No case has been made for how inclusion of these sources would somehow upset the delicate balance of the article. MilesMoney (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that Arensmeyer does not represent any small businesses. He is an activist, and the view that the ACA will have a substantial benefit to small businesses is viewed as a WP:FRINGE view. Therefore it is undue weight and a violation of NPOV for that statement to be in the lead. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

People causing problems here don't seem to be reading very carefully. A NYT blog-cite doesn't negate "A business that Arensmeyer represents recently saw premiums skyrocket..." in the article text above. Orthogonius (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And exactly what does that quote have to do with anything? You can always find a photo-op to try and sell your point. Also, it contradicts a little bit with Arensmeyer's statemtn that they don't represent any specific business. The NYT Blog is pretty much just as reliable as the New Yorker blurb. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think Arensmeyer's lying about representing a business where "one employee has a child with diabetes," don't you think it's a stretch to require us to believe you without any proof on your part? Orthogonius (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well he is either lying in the NYT source or he is lying in the New Yorker source. Not that this matters anyway because his partisan opinion is undue weight for the WP:LEDE something you have not addressed. Arzel (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation, as it's a violation of WP:BLPTALK. We have no reason to believe that he's lying.

Just as concerning, you seem to have stealthily switched arguments. First, you deny that it's a reliable source. Then, when this is challenged, you switch to talking about undue weight. Which is it? Are you conceding the former by switching to the latter? Are you going to bring up yet another objection after the first two are defeated? Do you have a principled objection or do you simply want to exclude this material regardless of policy? I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but you're going to have to help me with this. MilesMoney (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not a violation of BLP Talk. I am simply pointing out the contradiction. They can't both be true. Either the SBM does represent specific businesses or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

As for WP:RS I have never said that the New Yorker was an unreliable source. Dr. Fleischman did mention WP:RSOPINION, but that was different. Please point to where I have ever been arguing WP:RS regarding this issue. Attleboro has several times stated that the SBM/Arensmeyer is an Authoritative source, but there is not evidence that this is true. According to the NYT, the view of the SBM goes against pretty much all mainstream view about small businesses regarding the ACA. This makes the SBM view WP:FRINGE. The basic arguments against have been WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The section was originally added against WP:LEDE in that this view was nowhere within the body of the article. Attleboro then added a smaller version of the same in the body to try and get around WP:LEDE, but that is not how it works, and it was still a violation of WP:LEDE. On top of all of this the view by the SMB/Arensmeyer is simply opinion, which was also another aspect per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There is no evidence that the opinion of SMB/Arensmeyer is actually true, that the ACA provides enormous or significant benefits to small businesses. It would be one thing if small businesses actually came out en masse and said that they thought the ACA would provide significant benefits...or...if we had some actual statistics that actually show that the ACA did significantly benefit small businesses. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected the article for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the majority makes it a minority view, not fringe. For example, the majority view is that Rand Paul plagiarized, the minority view (chiefly his own) is that he somehow didn't, and the fringe view is that aliens implanted the same material into his brain and into Wikipedia using zeta rays. You seem to be abusing WP:FRINGE in an attempt to silence a source whose reliability is unquestionable. This seems to be a case of WP:PS, where the goal comes first and the reasons come later. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we're collectively muddying the waters by arguing over multiple issues all at once. Issues have been raised about both (a) the reliability of the Surowiecki column and (b) the neutrality of the language used. The section above entitled "ACA & small businesses" has been ongoing and has focused on the reliability of the Surowiecki column. Let's keep that thread going and focus this discussion on other neutrality issues (such as BALANCE, UNDUE, and FRINGE). Also, I haven't seen any objections to the reliability of the CEPR source, but if there are any, let's start a third discussion for that one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(Invited by the RFC bot). This is confusing.....there appear to be two RFC's on the same content. This looks like an opinion by an advocate/activist. Certainly, if included, it should be attributed rather than stated in the voice of Wikipedia. The "floor" of meeting wp:rs does not establish actual reliability. For that you need to also look at objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. In that area I'd rate him pretty low. Of course he's a primary source on what his own opinions / talking points are. I lean towards leaving it out. For an article like this high quality secondary sources should be used. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the requesting editor was blocked for sockpuppetry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Also invited by the bot) I agree partially with North. If used it can be used once only, and it has to be worded. "In the opinion of X , published in Y, " ". It's opinion, not "evidence". It is a reputable opinion in a major magazine, though a magazine that takes a consistently very liberal attitude on political questions publishing an opinion by someone of a like position. One of the problems in using it is that it would be necessary to make clear the magazine's and the author's political position, and to do so adequately would take a considerable space, more than the quotation is worth. On the other hand, the argument for using it is that it's a fairly widely known article that is (at least in my opinion) a good summary of that particular position--whatever one thinks of the position.

But there's a better way to do this. If used, it would best go in section 3.1.7, " Employer mandate and part-time working hours". This section is a little unbalanced, and really should be something like "employer mandate" with the part-time hours problem as one part of it , and other possible effects on business , such as the effect on entrepreneurs, discussed in separate paragraphs, & the quote used there as opinion. It is of course better to concentrate on evidence-based material--even if the evidence is at this time necessarily based only on analogy and predictions.

As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the article will need a fair number of additional sections. I find it rather sparse considering the amount of public debate and the political implications for the next election (which does not currently seem to be specifically covered, though a great deal has been published) At some point it may need to be split. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on November 2, 2013

Request revert to previous version (16:54, 2 November 2013, Martarius) on the merits of the information contained therein. (Also, request admin opinion of those merits and any other issues related to the way this edit controversy has proceeded. See Talks "ACA & small businesses" and "In our own voice?" just above.) Orthogonius (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Orthogonius (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but we can't use protected edit requests to change disputed content, as any changes to protected pages must have consensus. See also m:The Wrong Version. You need to work together with the other editors here to find a consensus on what to include, and you need to be receptive to the idea that the consensus version might not be the one that you wanted originally. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on Obama's promise "If you like it, you can keep it"

Initial discussion

Discussion about Obama's promise has been spread out all over this talk page, so this is a (perhaps counterproductive) attempt to call on everyone to centralize the discussion here. I have added text and sources to the "Myths" subsection about Obama's claim that "if you like insurance, you can keep it". I am open to suggestions for improvement. I believe that the "Change in insurance standards" subsection also warrants mention of this issue, but with more focus on who is losing insurance and for what reasons, and less focus on Obama's claim itself. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears I completely missed that Haymaker added material about this topic to a new "Implementation" section shortly before I added the material I did to the "myths" subsection. Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Haymaker.

However, while I agree with this article having an "Implementation" section, personally I don't believe that Obama's promise should be in this new section, but rather it should be in the "Myths" subsection, with some details on what is actually happening in the "Change in insurance standards" subsection. I say this largely because I don't see Obama's promise as an "rollout" issue, at least not anymore than the "rolling out" of any of the Act's numerous other substantive changes. Also, I don't think that Obama's promise deserves its own subheading; it is simply way too narrow of a topic concerning this gargantuan legislation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting conundrum. The "change in standards" issue involves both the statutory interpretation written by HHS differing (much tighter) from the intent of the original law, as well as the fact that at that time (June 2010) or certainly by Sept, 2010 when the Enzi resolution was in play, the Administration knew those standards would result in significant numbers of folks losing their plans they "liked", yet the "you can keep it" assurances continued through the balance of the first term, the campaign and right up to recently. It is almost a complete novel in itself, involving the legislative history, the political, the implementation (waivers for many) and the impact. I agree that it really does not belong in "rollout" because the timing of the cancellations is not directly under the control of the administration as state law dictates required notification periods, whereas web sites, navigators, IRS staffing, etc. are. The problem is that as presently organized you have many different topics that are all interrelated along a single time line. An example being that "If you like your plan, you can keep it" is only a controversy with political impact because 1) significant numbers will not be able to, 2) the reason they cannot is because the ACA became law in the first place, perhaps because of the "You can keep it" promise, 3) The administration interprets grandfather provisions of the law too stringently, 4) republican attempts to restore those rules to original intent of the law are defeated, 5) the law stays in place because The President is re-elected (again perhaps due to his promise), then 6) the folks learn that the promise was not true, then 7) they learn that The President knew it all along because of the events in June and September of 2010. Now it is an issue of merit, but lacking any one of those elements (just for fun I'll call them "minimum essential benefits") it might not have been. Thus to try to fully explain "You can keep it" in a cogent manner when the elements of the story are spread about the article (legislative, political and impact) is almost as complicated as understanding the ACA itself. If I were given the task of reorganizing the article, I think I would drop some of the existing discrete sections and merge them together into a historical time line, especially since things are moving along rapidly and the story is, to paraphrase WSC, not at the beginning of the end, but perhaps at the end of the beginning. That way when new areas of interest pop up, for example running tallies of enrollments or cancellations, they can just be dropped into the time line rather than endlessly creating new sections ("By May, 2014, the cancellations had reached seven million but the enrollments had only reach 2.5", etc.). I understand that we want the article to be encyclopedic and not a history lesson, but as in real life few complicated things can be easily understood in the absence of historical context. For these reasons and others my recommendation is to structure more like a history text with tables for "go to" data. For example, in legislative history you would just have a table of bills, brief description, date of passage and vote tally, each with a hyperlink to the area in the main article where it is explained and/or related to the story line. This is indeed a story that can make great reading, and we are the ones who are at the right time and place in history to write it. InterpreDemon (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Loonymonkey reverted (twice) the material in the "Myths" section with the following explanation: "See WP:AWW regarding "claimed", etc. and WP:SYNTH regarding "However," etc. This text presents a one-sided view. Discuss before adding again". The text was restored by myself and Arzel. Three points that I would like to bring up here in response:

First, and foremost, the use of the word "However" is not original synthesis. If you read the sources provided for this text, which are neutral and reliable (e.g., PolitiFact) you will see quite clearly that the sources themselves directly make the contrast between Obama's promise and the reality that only certain plans are grandfathered in. There is no new claim being made by synthesizing different pieces of information together; the claim being stated is contained in the sources themselves.

Second, per WP:AWW, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." However, the word "claim" is not a weasel word in the context of the "Myths" section; the entire point of the section is to call the credibility of certain statements into question. This same terminology is used to describe other claims in the "Myths" section (for example, the language "Sarah Palin falsely claimed..." is used to describe the death panels claim), and the usage of the word "claim" here makes equal sense.

Finally, to say this should be removed because it is "one-sided" is little more than an argument that it should be removed because it doesn't give undue weight to views that are not contained in most neutral, reliable sources--which clearly agree that Obama's promise is mostly untrue. Removing this material because it is "one-sided" makes as little sense as removing the material that debunks the "death panel" claim because that material doesn't provide undue weight to the view the ACA actually does create death panels. Actually, it makes even less sense, because even Obama himself has recognized the dubiousness of his earlier claim and apologized for it, while some people still continue to make the death panels claim.

With this is mind, I am open to tweaking of the text, but not its wholesale removal--certainly not for the reasons just provided. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example of why the current structure is inappropriate. Whole sections are "graded" upon fairness and subject to edit wars. Personally I don't think an article that is supposed to be factual should be dealing with myths in the first place, but since it is it would seem to me that the myth that you can keep your health care plan if you like as stated by the President and virtually all the Democrats on dozens of occasions, is equally as or far more important than the utterances of Sarah Palin. The promulgation of myths and falsehoods should only be dealt with in the political context as part of the arguments that were made by significant political figures for and against the law, that way they do not really have to be rebutted one by one in each case, which could make the content of this article endless. For example, there are ample secondary sources to document the fact that contained in the legislation ARE in fact provisions for committees of local hospital administrators empowered to make life and death care delivery decisions, and there was the notable, well publicized event where the HHS Secretary decided against a lung transplant for a young child (subsequently overruled by a judge) which played in the political field as the ultimate example of life and death decisions being managed by the government verses the patient, doctor and family. An entire article could be written about each one of these types of things, and I think it distracts from the main thrust of this article and only leads to endless attempts from both sides to balance the ledger. It would be far better to simply write, "Sarah Palin said this, and so-and-so countered with that" than to try to be fact-checking the claims of both sides. If folks have a compulsion to duke it out over those types of things it seems to me that it would be best to spin it off to another article altogether. InterpreDemon (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Secretary of HHS does not choose who gets organ transplants. Nor does she set priorities for organ distribution. So it is ridiculous (and cynically manipulative) to say that she "decided against a lung transplant for a young child". She doesn't make those decisions. The reason we have a "myths" section about the PPACA is probably because some people are so committed to spreading them. Now is it too much to ask, not for the first time, that you cease treating this talkpage like your blog or a platform for partisan talking points, and instead discuss specific improvements to this article using specific reliable sources? MastCell ^Talk 02:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The section described ("if you like it, you can keep it") should be somewhere, whether in "myths", "political", or "impact". I've restored it as a separate section in "impact", although it may suffer from WP:SYN. (And, as MastCell points out, neither the HHS secretary nor the ACA are relevant to the "lung transplant" case, although, if the ACA were fully in effect (say, in 2017), they might be.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why you suspect the material suffers from original synthesis? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Before Arthur Robin restored the material to a new subsection under "Public policy", DrFleischman removed the material, explaining in an edit summary "To be a 'myth' something must be not only false but also a widely held belief. No reliable sourcing that any of these are widely held beliefs." While I agree sourcing is required, the sourcing simply needs to characterize Obama's claim as a "myth"; it isn't necessary that the sources describe Obama's claim using the definition of myth. The following neutral, reliable, secondary sources characterize the claim as a myth, thus proving verifiability: CNN ABC News Yahoo! News FactCheck.org Washington Post. If anyone has any sources disputing these sources' characterization of Obama's claim as being a "myth", feel free to post them; otherwise, I soon plan to restore the material to the "Myths" section (with these sources added), where I feel it is more appropriate than having its own subsection under "Public policy" (although I do believe this issue does warrant a separate mention in the "Change in insurance standards" subsection as I said before, with an emphasis more on how many people are losing the insurance/for what reasons/etc. than on how Obama's claim is a myth). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The location, IMO, is not as important as the fact that this is a well reported aspect. I am not sure that it is really a Myth in the true sense of a Myth. Since it was put forth by the architectures of the bill as a major factual proponent and not a belief by others of what might be true, it is probably not a "myth". The proper classification, as is becoming more evident, is that it was a deception used to sell the bill. Regardless, the basic story deserves to be somewhere in the article because it has become such a major aspect of the ACA in general. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Prototime, those sources use the word "myth" rhetorically, not factually, and are therefore not reliable to establish that this is in fact a myth. If we start including everything in the "Myths" section that has been labeled as a "myth" in any "5 myths about Obamacare"-type article since 2010 then this section will have to expand 20-fold to include a whole bunch of misstatements that aren't really myths. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. InterpreDemon (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mast, I don't understand your vituperation, I was only using those points to illustrate examples of things that could be included IF one were to pursue the IMHO hopeless task of trying to "balance" sources on either side of controversial issues, especially ones that are not supposed to be true, an effort which I do not endorse. The organ transplant issue was only of note not because it had anything directly to do with the ACA, but because it played into one side's political arguments against the ACA as an example of perceived government control over life and death decisions, in my opinion no different from the apparent relevance of the shutdown, which had no impact on the implementation or provisions of the ACA but for some reason was deemed important to the article. I am not commenting on or advocating either issue, just pointing out that a case could be made that "death panels" do in fact exist in one form or another, depending upon how you interpret the phrase or what you believe Mrs. Palin meant when she said it. Again I ask, just what is the purpose of the "myths" section, supposedly a compilation of proved to be absolutely false information, in an article that is supposed to be about factual information? What IS factual and inarguable is that Sarah Palin said what she said, and her opponents said what they said, but a fool's errand would be trying to find any incontrovertible source(s) that would prove absolutely that either side was correct, and unless we want to have people keep fighting about it endlessly or simply shut down debate and declare the contents true for all time, that is the errand we will be on. I think the energy would be better spent trying to make the article more informative and interesting rather than more controversial, and it IS controversial. InterpreDemon (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your posts make up the vast majority of each recent thread on this page. The vast majority of your posts consists of off-topic partisan talking points. You're currently the dominant force in making this talkpage unusable—that's why I'm picking on you. If you're being honest when you say you want this article to be informative, then you need to act like it. Writing a decent encyclopedia article on a controversial topic requires more discipline than you've been willing to show thus far.

Try to restrain the tangents and hypotheticals. Instead, focus on a specific piece of content that you'd like to add, remove, or change, and support your proposal with links to independent, reliable sources. If people do that, then the talkpage works. If even a handful of people choose not to do that, and instead post voluminous off-topic musings, then the talkpage doesn't work. I'm asking you to help make this talkpage work. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Very strange... I removed the "vast majority" of my posts in an effort to remove myself as a "dominant force", comply with your requirements and make the page more usable, but somebody apparently less enlightened restored them all. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to existing insurance plans

The section ends with the sentence, "On November 7, 2013, Obama apologized for making the dubious claim, promising he would work to help the affected Americans."

The cited source makes no statement or argument that he apologized for making the claim, either to those affected or to the Americans at large, only that he was "sorry that they [those affected] are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from [him]", which is part of his exact words. To those not affected by the policy there was no apology, direct or otherwise. There is also no indication that he admitted the "assurances" were "dubious" or that he apologized for making them. Thus the sentence as written implies two unsubstantiated facts, 1) he apologized to all, and 2) he apologized for his false assurances. My suggestion is the sentence be removed, since for every hundred sources that divine an apology to the American people for the "dubious claim" (something like "I apologize for not telling the truth") there will be another hundred who say he merely expressed sorrow that some are affected, an argument further buttressed by the balance of the NBC interview where he returned to the "vast majority" being unaffected and that those losing their plans are going to be getting a better deal anyway talking points. I have no objection to replacing the sentence with his exact quote and leave the readers to decide the meaning for themselves, just as they did the meaning of, "If you like your plan, you can keep it, period." Finally, I do not feel that "Obama" is the correct way to refer to The President in an article like this. InterpreDemon (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the text in question with Obama's quote itself. I also made some other edits that I hope address some of the other concerns raised on the talk page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This article already has Good Article status. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New article: Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013

Hi all! I wanted to alert the editors here that I started a new article about the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013 (H.R. 3350; 113th Congress). This bill is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow (Nov 15) by the House. The bill is intended to keep Obama's promise that people could keep their health insurance if they like it by grandfathering older, pre-existing plans into being allowed in 2014. Some people love it, others hate it, and there's a lot of media attention about it. I saw a lot of debate on this talk page about how to incorporate material about Obama's statement about keeping your plan. This article would be a great place to include information about that, since it is that statement that inspired the title of this bill and the bill's content. The article is still a work in progress (isn't all of Wikipedia?); I'd love to see more people add to it. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Information on problems with ACA rollout

Why is there no information on the problems associated with the rollout of ACA. This isn't a politically charged question - I just want to know more about what actually went wrong/ what Obama's "fix" is. I have never seen an article that has ignored such major current events for so long - I've never seen such a questionable bias article on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.170.180 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be looking for the material in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Implementation and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Changes in existing individual insurance plans sections. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Healthcare.gov#Launch and technical problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"I've never seen such a questionable bias article on this site"

But I've seen more than my fair share of baseless finger-pointing on every even slightly controversial topic on Wikipedia. Take a number.

We are real-time witnesses to a giant airliner in distress, to try to keep the article updated with blow by blow reporting would be impossible. We see the number one engine in flames and the flames are spreading, Republicans say all the passengers are doomed, The President and Democrats say it's "only" 5% of them, and they had a miserable life, anyway. We don't know who the pilot is because nobody claims to be responsible and, unlike pilots, politicians rarely are at risk to the same fate they impose upon the passengers. Will the outcome be a safe landing and evacuation or an impact crater? Not yet known. Best to wait until the smoke clears, then inspect the wreckage and count bodies. InterpreDemon (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of information in "Public Opinion" segment

Currently, the public opinion segment reads as

Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself remains controversial with opinions falling along party lines; most Democrats favor the law, while Republicans and Independents generally do not. Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013.[301][302] USA Today found opinions were strongly divided by age of the person at the law's inception, with a solid majority of seniors opposing the bill and a solid majority of those younger than forty years old in favor.[303]

I find it puzzling that the relevant information pertaining to actual public opinion on the law, "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." is near the bottom of the paragraph. This segment should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph, where then the rest of the information such as "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" can elaborate on the public view. Clearly, the sentence "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform, but the public's views became increasingly negative in reaction to specific plans discussed during the legislative debate over 2009 and 2010" has less precedence than "Polling statistics for the general population show a general negative opinion of the law in the first years; with those in favor at approximately 40% and those against at 51%, as of October 2013." in a piece regarding how the public views the ACA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.141.208 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the order of presentation is that important, however I do believe the sentence, "Public opinion polls indicate that the United States public generally supports healthcare reform" needs a citation, and the words "indicate" and "supports" may need to be changed to past tense if current equivalent polls (to those prior to ACA, if available and of qualified sourcing) are no longer favorable. InterpreDemon (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

• Full protected for one week per this request. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Links

[2]>> Health care signups far below expectations[3][4][5](Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)).

Thanks, feel free to add this content to the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would much prefer that since you brought it up Lihaas, that you be the one to add some content about this issue to the article (probably to the Implementation subsection) once full protection is lifted. But I suppose I will reluctantly take on the responsibility if you don't, since I think this is important to include in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please fix this sentence's grammar

Article is locked or this minor edit would have been carried out by my anonymous self.

1 of 2 types of modifications should make the sentence more proper. So either:

A) change "with the goal of increasing" into "with the goal to increase"

XOR (I think this would be better),

B) Current sentence: "The ACA was enacted with the goal of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lower the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reduce the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government."

Should be: "The ACA was enacted with the goal(s) of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowerING the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducING the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. "

The (s) following "goal" is debatable, though the plurality of goal it would indicate seems to me more logically consistent with the fact that the sentence lists more than one goal, or at leasts enumerates three specifics of a parent or primary goal.

many thanks 165.235.73.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with both, option (B) is better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• I, too, believe (B) is the better option, and "goals" should indeed be pluralized. Thanks for pointing this out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also agree, the wording of (B) is better than what we have currently - ok with pluralized "goals" as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Replace "goals" by "ostensible goals" since anyone with a passing understanding of economics would realize that the act would not achieve those ostensible goals, but have quite the opposite effects. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. This proposal is non-neutral and is based solely on JRSpriggs' unsupported personal views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that ostensible is factual. It was reported before it went into effect and is being proven true as we speak. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A goal may or may not be reached, but "ostensible" suggests that the stated goals of the Act are a deceit and other goals were actually being pursued. Do you have reliable evidence that the law's proponents lied about its stated purposes? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The product of abusive private schooling must opine here. Leaving out alleged political goals, the primary objective was to reduce the number of uninsured, the 30/40/50 million, their use of comparatively expensive public care facilities and presumed inability to pay supposedly being the cause of higher costs for everybody else. The other "goals" you are agonizing about pluralizing are really "means" or sold as concomitant benefits, thus my solution would be something along the lines of [my comments], "The ACA was enacted with the stated objective of reducing the number of uninsured by means of compulsory participation by all citizens in the purchase of more readily available [community rating] and affordable [expanded pool] health insurance, among the anticipated benefits being higher levels of care for all at a reduced cost to individuals and government". That's how I would put it, but if you want to keep wrestling with the old one, knock yourselves out. Just remember that often two short sentences are better than one long one, and never use a comma before an "and". InterpreDemon (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Done I've enacted 165.235.73.31's option B. I haven't inserted "ostensible" as a claim like that would need solid sourcing, and no source has been provided. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it

I still don't understand exactly what Pelosi meant by this. I don't see any mention of it in this article. It would be nice to include in case any remotely NPOV version of this comment can be worded. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source explaining this controversy can be found here. I don't think this is sufficiently notable for this article. It might be able to find a home over at Health care reforms proposed during the Obama administration or Nancy Pelosi. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the number of times people keep bringing it up, I would say that many others do consider her comments "sufficiently notable", especially in light of the fact that millions are now able to "see what is in it." InterpreDemon (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not generally a basis for determining notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And what would the basis be for determining notability, generally or otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterpreDemon (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors tend to look for independent reliable sources, in line with WP:GNG. And if all the sources are news from the same short period of time, it might be WP:RECENTISM. Certainly, notability should never be determined based on the personal interests of the editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Certainly, notability should never be determined based on the personal interests of the editors" -- exactly what, Doctor, does this accusation mean? Everybody has an opinion about this bill and its history; that doesn't render us disqualified to comment or to edit here. If Pelosi's comments constitute "recentism", a rather creepily Orwellian term, then so does almost every quote in this article. I don't think you'll have a hard time finding independent sources to prove that Pelosi made those comments, which need to be included, and which I intend to include in a NPOV way. Quis separabit? 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend that as an accusation, just as a reflect of InterpreDemon's view that something should be included in the article simply because editors have been "bringing it up" on the talk page. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't include content simply because it is supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a raccoon in that dumpster, but in the coming months as that memorable phrase becomes increasingly relevant (For example, we just learned this week about the "corridors" buried in the ACA that will provide billions in taxpayer subsidies to private insurance companies) it will be the editors of this article that appear irrelevant and biased. InterpreDemon (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Nobody has read that 2500 page bill, and God only knows what's in there. Honeyed but partisan claims should be debunked not coddled. Quis separabit? 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pelosi's comment, and the substance behind it, need context in a sufficient number of reliable secondary sources to be worthy of inclusion. If there are sufficient reliable sources pointing out that most of this multi-thousand page bill wasn't fully available to all of Congress until days or mere hours before the vote, then that time frame might be notable and worthy of inclusion. If there are many reliable sources stating that most in Congress didn't read it before voting on it, then that also could be notable and worthy of inclusion. If there are reliable sources showing that provisions in the bill are still being "discovered" years later, that also may be worthy of inclusion. And if these reliable sources relate these things back to Pelosi's comment, then that, too, may be notable. (But the naked assertion "no one has read this bill" is, by itself, hardly an argument for including Pelosi's comment). The PolitFact article Dr. Flieschman posted is a start. If anyone wants to include this material, then write up some content and bring forth the sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This myth that "nobody has read that 2500 page bill, and God only knows what's in there" has been thoroughly debunked and has little to do with Pelosi's comments, outside of her detractors' minds. As the source explains. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, nobody that I have seen here is attempting to prove (despite the subsequent claims by many of those who voted for it that they did not realize that all these "unforeseen" consequences, such as millions of cancellations, were in the bill and/or subsequent rules suggests) that nobody at all read it before voting upon it. It was Speaker Pelosi who asserted that in order to "find out what is in it", it first had to be passed through Congress, the logical interpretation of her statement being that one could not "find out what is in it" beforehand. So, you guys can keep hiding behind such ridiculous justifications as to why her statement was and remains not "notable", and the rest of us will keep laughing. You might as well scrub out all your only recent mention of "If you like your plan, you can keep it" since I don't think you can provide a reliable secondary source that proves that The President and most of the Democrats knew they were lying when they were saying it, which would indeed be notable, thus I am at a loss to understand what remaining justification would make such repeated statements "notable" to any greater degree than that of Ms. Pelosi, other than the fact that the former are proving to be largely untrue and the latter becoming apparently more true. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"So, you guys can keep hiding behind such ridiculous justifications as to why her statement was and remains not "notable", and the rest of us will keep laughing." I assume, InterpreDemon you're at least partly referring to me in here. I'm pretty sure, I said before, that if there are sufficient reliable sources that mention it, then it should be mentioned, and I'm fine with that. This discussion makes clear that its notability is disputed, and I really don't know if it's notable enough or not. So make a case that it is. How you do that is through providing reliable sources, not making accusations. Thus far, proponents of including Pelosi's comment haven't provided any such sources to prove notability and verifiability; in fact, the only person who provided a source at all was Dr. Fleischman, who at this point isn't a proponent of its inclusion. Do you think it's our job (as non-proponents) to go and do your work for you and find these reliable sources? Seriously, as amusing as they are given that you really, really haven't a clue what my political views are, I've had it with your constant accusations of bias. Go find some sources and write up some content if you want this point included. Don't expect anyone else to do that work for you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Prototime: Glad you finally acknowledged you're partisan as well. You're right -- no one has to help any other editor make his or her arguments, unless said editor chooses to do so. However, that is not the same as constantly removing sourced edits by editors with whom you do not agree for specious reasons as you and the good Doctor (does he take Medicaid patients, btw?) keep doing. Quis separabit? 20:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this utter nonsense about me "finally acknowledging" that I'm partisan as well? Please do me a favor and point out where I ever said I, or anyone else, is an objective machine. Everyone is biased, though as contributors, we should all strive to put what is best for this encyclopedia above our own partisan opinions. I will say that unlike you, I don't go out of my way to make snarky partisan comments about politicians or other editors on the talk page ("sleazy Liar in Chief", "does [Dr. Fleischman] take Medicaid patients, btw?", etc.), which in no way helps to resolve disputes. Is it really that impossible to assume good faith about editors who disagree with you? As for the "specious arguments" that Dr. Fleischman and I make, which mostly involve interpretations of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:BIAS and WP:NOTABILITY, I suggest you come up with some decent counterarguments if you disagree--preferably supported with reliable sources and better reasoning than "you're partisan! you're partisan!". Maybe then we'll make some progress on some of your concerns. Like I said before, no one is going to make your arguments for you. And sometimes, even if you make decent arguments, consensus cannot be achieved. Sometimes, you "lose"; I've lost before on Wikipedia many times. If you truly dislike having to justify contested edits as part of the consensus-building process, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't your cup of tea. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I know how to lose, trust me. But I'm not going down without a fight when I think I'm right (unintentional rhyme), even if I am not as skilled at recycling governmental and quango factoids which are somehow both objective and speculative at the same time, and which I neither trust nor believe, into arguments as your side is, I must admit. Quis separabit? 23:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Is it really that impossible to assume good faith about editors who disagree with you?" -- no, of course not; I usually do but it all depends on the the topic, subject matter, etc. Fot the record I never once brought up the issue of WP:AGF but like you said above, none of us is "an objective machine". Quis separabit? 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"into arguments as your side is" - See, that's the problem right there, assuming that I am editing on a particular "side" of a partisan issue. That isn't assuming good faith. At least on Wikipedia, the only "side" editors should be on is the side of maintaining and improving Wikipedia. Just because I may disagree with an edit that you support, or vice versa, doesn't make us on opposite partisan "sides" of whatever the issues is. Yes, it is truly impossible for any of us to escape our own biases, but we can strive for neutrality in our individual edits as best we can. A good way to help with that is to start with the assumption that everyone here is making good faiths attempts to make neutral edits in line with Wikipedia policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see several criticisms of editors and their motives in this discussion, but the only substantive argument I see from those who believe this subject matter is sufficiently notable for inclusion is that it has been brought up by multiple editors on the talk page. Am I mistaken? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much unless I missed some other related discussion that's been archived by now or something. The quote has largely been taken out of the context from which it was made when originally given (from what I can tell that is) so to properly put it back into context then go on to explain how or why its been parsed (and by who?) since, and so on seems like it should belong under the Pelosi main article if anything (or maybe the forum the speech containing the remark was made under if there is an article for that); either way certainly not hosted here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. My understanding of the incident, based on reliable sources such as the one I cited at the top of this discussion, is that it was a gaffe by Pelosi, one that played very well into the hands of the ACA's critics. It reflects more on Pelosi than on the ACA, and including it here would be WP:UNDUE, as we don't include all of the thousands of controversial statements by other politician about the ACA. (Nor should we, as we simply wouldn't have the real estate.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that Nancy Pelosi isn't known to make such public gaffes; she was talking sotto voce to a conclave of her supporters about political maneuvering. People who claim to have been misquoted, in my many long years on this earth, almost always mean what they said, just not how it came out. You can call it a "gaffe", but Pelosi's comments speak to the partisan nature of this bill's enactment, period. Of course Republicans have been partisan as well but now the Dems are largely in charge in DC so let's speak truth to truth. Quis separabit? 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused as well... by now, even the lowest of low information reader has absorbed the nuance that most of the key votes directly leading to the enactment of this legislation into law was almost entirely cast by Dems w/less than a handful of Repubs - inferring a largely partisan picture of the enactment already. All the other votes & mark-ups where there was a higher measure of Repub input in the lead up to those key votes aside, I don't see how properly constructing the context back in for Pelosi's comment only to deconstruct again for it's parsing afterwards would make the well known 'largely partisan enactment' even more partisan-sie than it currently is or can be. Sorry. I guess I'm missing the point too. :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting GAR

I know that reviewing this article during dispute is not the right time. However, I see edit warring, and I left "GAR request" intact because... well, that would take several weeks to wait for someone to review it. Trust me; there is low participation responding to requests, like that. I know that it has been Good Article for several weeks, but recent attempts to add back and remove content is affecting this article. I don't know much, but I would hope for some compromise. --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

George Ho, is the reason you believe this article needs a Good Article reassessment simply because there has been edit warring, or are there specific substantive concerns you have? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Any reason not to beside being "too soon"? George Ho (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what? As the proponent of the request, you're the one who needs to justify it with a reason per WP:GAR, not me. If you're really making a GAR request on the fly "just because" and refuse to provide a reason, then the request should be removed. I also haven't seen you notify the most recent reviewer, major contributors, and relevant WikiProjects of your request, like is required per WP:GAR as I have already pointed out to you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Mr. Ho's request in light of This Article about the PPACA article, wherein the activities here are detailed. Of note is the following quote, "'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency". I would want to be assured that none of the participants here are working for Mr. Konanykhin or a similar firm in violation of WP:NOPR or WP:COI InterpreDemon (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you aware of what the Good Article criteria are, or what it means to be a Good Article? It has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Suggesting that you can use a Good Article reassessment to determine the identities of this article's contributors is beyond absolutely preposterous, as is your unfounded suggestion that some editors may be working for whoever Alex Konanykhin is. Your inability to assume good faith in other editors here has reached intolerably high levels. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that an article so controversial as to be a leading example widely distributed in the trade media and elsewhere should be under virtually constant review if it is GA status. As to my suggestion being "unfounded", the foundation is that a person proudly in the business of "helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia" has cited this page in his press release. I did not make the suggestion he or others may have operatives or clients toiling away here, he did. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Good Article criteria, "not being a controversial topic talked about in the news" isn't one of them. And you are the one who is making unfounded allegations that have nothing to do with GA status; you brought up this idea here, and you're the one who linked the organization's stated goal to a press release and then used that tenuous link to somehow attack the general integrity of editors here. Your denial of responsibility for doing so is astonishing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The active editor whose behavior is most consistent with that of a paid advocate is InterpreDemon (talk · contribs). This editor is literally a single-purpose agenda account. Most of the other active editors here have diverse contribution histories demonstrating a broad range of interests. Regarding the GAR, I do actually agree with George that the article is currently unstable. I think that a lot of that instability is the result of disruptive and tendentious editing, but instability is instability. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I myself am not a paid advocate nor do I have any conflict of interest or stake in the article, but thanks for the accusation all the same. I do have a point of view, as we all do, and mine is that the article is highly visible and that it is biased. Thus I don't think there is any harm in firing a shot across the bow of any such parties if they exist and according to one of them they do, though not necessarily here. Assuming good faith and full disclosure as well as Prototime's assurances, there would be nothing for anybody to be concerned about. My concern is that with three million hits a day and the obvious notoriety of this article its editors must be aware of their high visibility and scrupulously balanced in their approach, which is why continuous GA assessment is perhaps far more important for this article than most others. InterpreDemon (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

3 million hits a day? Where did you get that number? As far as I know, this article averages less than 20K in hits per day. See it's History page - Page view statistics (along the top). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I also don't know where the 3 million hits a day number comes from and may be wrong but given the multiple online sources that cannibalize Wikipedia articles I wouldn't be surprised about anything. Moreover, and more importantly, however, MastCell ^Talk claims InterpreDemon is a single-purpose agenda account but InterpreDemon has never edited the article only commented on the talk page. Maybe just an irate citizen? Quis separabit? 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

While it is a bit "odd" to see an active contributor limit their participation to a single talk-page and literaly nothing else, I personally don't have any issue with that nor can "blame" MastCell for his POV given the mentioned odd nature of participation. I'm primarily a WikiSource hound (still am) and was "slow" to enter the Wikipedia realm myself (though not exactly in the same manner as InterpreDemon seems to be following - it did take months for me to "evolve" as well). The point is I value discourse and debate so I welcome his/her contributions (for the most part). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say more like an amused citizen. Anyway, I clearly misinterpreted this paragraph from the PR, "With nearly 400 million unique visitors each month and 3,000 consultations per second, the virtual battle on Wikipedia is not surprising. Anyone researching the subject [ACA] online is bound to come across the highly search-engine-optimized Wikipedia profile page [this one], making it an essential opinion-forming and consumer information tool". Re-reading, the 400 million must apply to people researching any subject, not just the ACA. If it's only 20k per day or eight million per year coming here I guess widely perceived accuracy and balance in the article by such readers are not as important, so I no longer support the GA review. InterpreDemon (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, in my view, Wikipedia does a far better job with "static" subject matter than something like this that always seems to be in flux in some form or another. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This presents a conundrum. Yes, "stability" is one of the Good Article criteria, but WP:GAR states that GAR requests are inappropriate during content disputes, and the request should wait until the article is stable, by which time the stability criterion will once again be satisfied. And if we treat PPACA as needing a GAR every time there's an edit war, considering the extremely high visibility and partisan polarization surrounding this issue, will this page ever be able to retain GA status? It seems unrealistic to suggest that this article should lose its Good Article status when every GA criterion is met but stability is compromised every so often because someone with a political agenda comes along to edit the article (and also unfair to editors like Sb101, who spent nearly half a year bringing the quality of this article up to GA status). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Should an article which is the subject of edit warring be a good article at all? I think we should withdraw that designation at least until the edit wars end. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that an edit war can erupt at any time for any number of reasons, under that logic we might as well abolish GA status entirely. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The theoretical possibility of an edit war (which is omnipresent) is not the same as the reality of current edit war (which is here and now). JRSpriggs (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:GAR, an article doesn't automatically lose GA status as soon as a GA criterion isn't met; rather, a GA reassessment may be requested and conducted. However, WP:GAR also states that such reassessments are inappropriate during a content disputes, and that a request for reassessment should be saved until after the content dispute is over. Obviously, by the time the content dispute is over the article will be stable again, making instability a moot point as a ground for reassessment. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "GAR request" per comments above. But, per WP:GAR, I'll add it again on Christmas or New Year's Eve, just in case. George Ho (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's hoping for a long period of stability and quality improvement between now and then. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reality of the PPACA

WP:NOTFORUM

Why must something that is so good for US citizens and the economy be forced on them? Forced by taxes and penalties, enforced by the IRS; this does not seem to indicate the PPACA is a good thing for most people. Most things that are good for people and the economy do not need to be forced into place. I must ask, why go to the extent this act does in order to issue insurance policies to 5 million people, many of whom don't even want them. And to cancel and reissue millions of more expensive policies to those who were happy with their old policies? It's clear that basic health plans could have been offered or even given those of the 5 million that wanted them for far less money and with much less social and political turmoil that currently exists. Indigents and others without plans could have been issued "on the spot" plans when seeking care at hospitals or other facilities to cover the cost of immediate care. Why go to the extent of passing a 2500 page law before you can read it? Unless there is something far more important than health involved? Because there is little more important to the current administration and that the redistribution of one sixth of the US economy's wealth from those who work hard and contribute to society to those who do not. Why do this? It is very simple: Votes. The trade of health insurance for votes and the associated control of the entire health care section of the US economy. If you like you doctor you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare insurance you can keep your insurance. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannoneer1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed?

I don't know when it happened but a citation needed challenge was inserted at some point in the second paragraph of the lede (apparently) for the specific sentence...

Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition, regulation, and incentives to streamline the delivery of healthcare.

Overall, I have no issue with such requests, but I doubt there will be single source that contains as much so succinctly since (if I recall correctly) the sentence came about...

• first as an effort to summarize the "Patient protection" portions along with the basics of the Government-side of health care reform(s) brought about by the ACA and;
• then further refined at various points to reflect, in addition to the law's mandates, etc., that those changes were expected to carry over to the private-side of the health care pie as well.

In short - the once rather detailed nuances (group bidding, attack fraud, preventative care, doctor/hospital incentives to reduce recidivism, close donut-hole, and all the rest) eventually got whittled down to that one line in order to help keep the lede manageable at the price of specificity along with their individual supporting references.

Again, if I remember right, I believe this was acceptable at the "time" based on the premise all those things where going to explained in even greater detail (and properly sourced) in the sections to follow anyway. Fast-forward in time once again and that premise has since been undermined by the fork in the Provisions section into its own article.

All that said, what do we do about it? I don't see too many GAs with citation needed in the lede - that much is for sure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I say we remove the tag and move on a la WP:LEADCITE. The statement isn't controversial and is supported by a mix of the "Overview of Provisions" section and the "Provisions..." spinout. The fact that supporting material was moved to a WP:SPINOUT due to WP:LENGTH concerns doesn't mean we now have to add a huge pile of citations to this well-written, comprehensive sentence. The cn tag was added last week with the comment "Grammatical tense consistency fixes," so we have no knowledge of why the tagging editor thought a citation was necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you for the additional info (I sort of knew in the back of my head I should check the specifics in the edit history before commenting to be honest ). Given the not-related-to-the-citation-requested edit summary made, I agree - the cn tag should be removed. If that is still an issue for anyone, this can always be revisited. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Between WP:LEADCITE and the lack of a rationale for including that tag, I too must agree the cn tag should be removed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)