Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 13

Requested move 3

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act – Don't worry, I won't use the O-word. But "Affordable Care Act" is at least a WP:COMMONNAME for this legislation, based on the actual article as well as usage in reliable sources. It's not very useful to observe that the proposed title (in quotes, and -wikipedia) gets many more Ghits than the current one, but it is useful to look at usage in sources. See, for example, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Politico, and The Huffington Post. Nor is this a colloquial journalistic shorthand: official US government sources use this form, including the Department of Health & Human Services, the IRS, and the infamous healthcare.gov site, none of which use the fuller form, at least on the linked pages. Finally, this conforms to WP:CONCISE, as well as WP:NC-GAL, which says to "[p]refer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources" and to "[g]enerally, use the short title instead of the long title." --BDD (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a bonus, look at the results for . --BDD (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I'm open to this proposal but I caution that we should be looking for the name that's most commonly used across the reliable source (per WP:COMMONNAME), and it's very difficult to evaluate this when different news outlets are all over the map. For example, the New York Times scrupulously awkwardly avoids using any name at all, instead using phrases like "Obama's health care overhaul." As I consume most of my news from only a couple of outlets I'm not in a good position to evaluate the overall pattern. We should also avoid putting too much emphasis on headlines, bylines, and short summaries that place extra emphasis on brevity. And the Google web search isn't very useful because most of its hits aren't reliable sources. In short I think we need more research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Readers and the public (home and abroad) are better served by Wikipedia if the article has the act's proper title, especially in connection with this legislative morass. Wikipedia has the facility for one click redirect. Government sources and agencies, like others (and maybe newspapers), have their own purposes for communicating with the public they aim to serve or influence. External websites can link direct to the page with the proper title. No problem, nothing to fix. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For the reasons so well proffered by Qexigator above. Additionally, note that the first sentence of the article disposes of this "problem" at the get-go.InterpreDemon (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: FWIW - I also agree with the excellent reasons presented by Qexigator - and - as before => "the official name will be the best choice" (per WP:ON) - and, as well => official names, rather than otherwise, seem more appropriate to encyclopedic presentations (per WP:NC-GAL, WP:NPOV and related) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Qexigator, InterpreDemon, Drbogdan: I don't think we can create an exception to the most relevant guideline (NC-GAL) without much stronger justification. WP:ON, cited by Drbogdan, reinforces that we often don't use official names. The full language quoted from says: "In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and interpretations - nonetheless, in this particular case, the official name, which is also the present name of the article, seems better than otherwise imo atm - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- See my previous investigation of page views, etc. above (no benefit gained by moving due to ACA being a long-standing dab page as it is). If anything, when the next major amendment to the affected sections of the U.S.C. is passed (if ever), the policy generally known as Affordable Care Act could in theory then be pruned from this article, leaving a pure legislative article dealing with just the bill as enacted (it's history, provisions, the debate in Congress, etc.) here. Otherwise, strong Oppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I'm indifferent on which title is used, but I just thought I'd point out that the proposal cites WP:COMMONNAME, which is an official guideline, and endorses either "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare" (were the page to move, I'd strongly recommend the former over the latter). The only 'strong opposition' above, cites WP:ON, which endorses the current title but is only an essay; and WP:NC-GAL, which... actually endorses the move? Note that, for legislation: "Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources." Clearly, either "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare" are the most commonly used name in reliable sources. So... the strongest opposition cites an essay against the move, and a guideline in favour of it. (Like I said, I really don't care which is used, because it's not like I'll be confused by either; I just thought that was worth pointing out) 139.57.240.18 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ON doesn't endorse the current title. In fact if anything it's the opposite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Official names wherever possible (per WP:ON & related) seem preferable to common names in the world-class & quality encyclopedia that Wikipedia strives to be I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that we used to be undecided about this, but now we're not so sure... InterpreDemon (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm so confused. I thought official names had very little bearing on Wikipedia and that we went by common names, especially valuing titles that are WP:CONCISE. This is so easy. Strong support Red Slash 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your comments - yes, seems the easiest thing to do is to maintain the official name as title (as it is at present); common (and/or more concise?) names are most easily presented as redirects (as they all are at present) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, Drbogdan, did you realize that WP:CONCISE is policy and WP:ON is just an essay someone wrote once upon a time? And that WP:ON actually supports the page move in question? Red Slash 03:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems we may differ on opinion and/or interpretation(s) - in any regards - I strongly oppose the move (as before) - for *all* the reasons opposing the move presented earlier - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Concur with EdJohnston's close and oppose mechanical application of WP preferred by BDD, who fails to observe that in certain cases, such as this, the actual name of the Act is the best way to provide readers with encyclopedic clarity, both for US residents and citizens and for others of the world-wide readership, present and future. The issues arising in conection with this legislation are too big and grave to be trifled with in subservience to what some editors wish to see as the overriding compulsions of "WP". Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Generally, for the reasons stated by Qexigator above. Famspear (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Red Slash. A lot of the arguments above seem to cite WP:ON and WP:COMMONNAME and pretty much draw the opposite conclusion than what those pages say. The common name trumps the official name, and Affordable Care Act it is. (Note though that I would be quite against Obamacare as that's clearly slang or a "nickname" - a different case entirely). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take "mechanical application" of policies and guidelines over ignoring them just because you don't like them any day. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mechanical application is no adequate substitute for understanding the principles and applying them judiciously, not otherwise, to the best of one's ability, and not any day, but in every case and with due respect and regard for the merits of what is advanced for and against. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why does official name trump most commonly used name?
I don't understand why we're using the official name for a topic that is clearly referred to most often in reliable sources by the common name, the Affordable Care Act. Per WP:ON:
 * Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
 * In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.

In this case, the common name, Affordable Care Act, is clearly more recognizable to readers than is the official name, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The common name is also unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable sources. --B2C 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe this has already been discussed and debated at great length. See above. Famspear (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the above. I see no policy-based explanation for the current title.  Citing WP:ON in particular as a basis for the official name, for the reasons I just explained, is especially bizarre.  --B2C 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME says that a title must be umambiguous and accurate, depending on sources. None of the arguments mention that the proposed title is either accurate or not, regardless of sources. I hope that helps; let's leave my reverting the relisting out of this. George Ho (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us that the proposed title is not accurate, but would promote misinformation of a complex state of affairs by unnecessarily and unhelpfully using a (diminutive) nickname instead the name deliberately and deliberatively given by the federal Legislature and Executive, and thus slanting the information against knowledge of the facts. Why would that be acceptable by encyclopedic criteria? Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is illogical to apply a different of meaning of "accurate" in one specific case than we use in others. To do so is quintessential WP:JDLI rationalization. "Accuracy" in WP titles has never meant to prefer the official name to the name most commonly used in reliable sources.  Otherwise the title of San Francisco would be City and County of San Francisco, Bill Clinton would be William Jefferson Clinton,  Down Syndrome would be Trisomy 21, and California Proposition 13 (1978) would be People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation (to name just a few of countless examples that counter such interpretation of "accurate").   If reliable sources commonly refer to a given topic with a name, then use of that name as the title of the WP article about that topic is an accurate use.  That is what is meant by "accurate" in this context. --B2C 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If anything, "Obamacare" is far and away the most commonly used name for The Act, so if anything I would think THAT would be what some are arguing for and not the ACA. This is also exquisitely logical since "Obamacare" is both in implementation and actuality whatever "Obama" wants it to be, whereas the largely irrelevant PPACA and/or ACA refer to a mere representation of what the legislature intended the law to be... Thus "Obamacare" more accurately describes the law as enacted than either the other names, it is the expletive folks use when their policies have been cancelled or made unaffordable, and is the name by which the fiasco will be remembered in history. InterpreDemon (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has only recently been remarked above that there is no actual problem with the present title that needs to be fixed. It is not necessary to repeat the points showing why this case is not of the same kind as those mentioned above (by B2C), and it would be a false logic that failed to allow for the difference. As above-mentioned (by InterpreDemon), if anything "Obamacare" would be a better nickname for the title, if it were not otherwise unacceptable for an article purporting to give information about the Act as such; but there seems to be room for another article on the use of the term "Obamacare". Qexigator (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reject the claim that presenting "points showing why this case is not of the same kind as those mentioned above (by B2C)" would be a repeat. I would appreciate being shown that I'm wrong, with a reference to where those points were made previously.  In order to argue that "Obamacare" would be a better title for this article, one would have to show citations of reliable sources using that term to refer to the topic of this article.  The NY Times, for example, uses the term only in quotes, and qualified by the phrased "popularly called".  But "Obamacare" is not what the NY Times uses to refer to the act; it uses "Affordable Care Act".    For example: .   --B2C 00:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually most New York Times article don't refer to the law as the "Affordable Care Act." Many don't use any proper name, instead referring to it vaguely as something like "the new health care law." Example here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that the NY Times does not use either name in some articles does not favor nor disfavor us using either name as the title of this article. What is relevant is what name is used most commonly when they refer to the law by name.  --B2C 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria comparison table
What am I missing?

Seems like a slam dunk! --B2C 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From our July 2012 archives.....
 * PPACA and ACA are not the same thing


 * From CBO's latest PDF, footnotes for graphs at end & footnote #1


 * "'The Affordable Care Act (ACA) comprises the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152). As used here, the term 'ACA' also includes the effects of subsequent related changes to statute. This estimate incorporates the effects of the Supreme Court’s opinion issued on June 28, 2012 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)).'"


 * Interesting. I wonder how many other entities beside the CBO use Affordable Care Act (ACA) to denote the entire amended statute and how many are just abbreviating Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So thats just one major reason to keep this particular law (and its title) separate from the christmas tree of subsequent laws, et. al, derived-from or related-to the PPACA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, good point (thank you!), but what is this article about? The second sentence is revealing:
 * Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act,[4] it represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.[5]
 * The second paragraph starts with:
 * The ACA was enacted with the goals of ...
 * Is that reference to just the PPACA, or all of the ACA?
 * Since we don't have another article on the broader topic, and this article seems to encompass it too, I'd say the more general Affordable Care Act is a more precise title for an article about this topic. --B2C 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amends part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But the whole article probably mentions the PPACA and its impact, like the 2010 Act. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is PPACA differentiated from ACA by the body in charge of scoring all legislation or not? You asked for a reason - I gave you a reason. Precision in naming matters (no Hmmmmmmmsssss about it). Please do not go changing what has been proven (as well as sourced). As for the lede's wording/language, the InfoBox shows otherwise. And I cannot account for other editor's choices either so you have no argument with me there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A new RM appears likely...
I'm not seeing any policy-based argument in the previous RM, nor in the discussion just above, to retain the current title over Affordable Care Act. I'll give it another day or two, but unless someone produces an argument based on policy and guidelines (i.e., WP:CRITERIA) favoring the current title, I will start a new formal RM. --B2C 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one: WP:TITLECHANGES. Both "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and "Affordable Care Act" are controversial titles. We got tons of comments about titles, and arguing a name of the same article several times may be... unconstructive. The more important than just naming is content itself. What does the article describe? Does the whole article content reflect the name? Does the name reflect the content? We have the similar situation about naming of homosexuality in Macau in its talk page. --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When there are strong policy-based titles that support either title in question, I agree WP:TITLECHANGES applies. I don't see that here.  --B2C 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there another good reason to use "Affordable Care Act" besides prevalent usage and conciseness? Is "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" no longer a stable title? Why or why not? --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Begging the question? Tsk. Here's bunch of better questions.... Why are you here? Why do you care? When do you plan on contributing to the actual article itself? Why don't you take a break from using this discussion page for Lord knows what academic exercises taking place elsewhere and let us see how "stable" it becomes then? Enough is enough for cris' sakes. If people want to keep asking for a move and keep being the minority - so be it (that's part of any community collaboration isn't it?). Further analysis will not stop them from making such requests - and you sure don't seem to have the authority to rescind such requests (nor do you seem willing to make such a ruling if you did) - so what is the point you are trying to drive home exactly? I see no reason to continue to entertain such lines of questioning until you clearly explain yourself and/or your rationale for chiming in here (or better yet; just move on. Come back in 60 days  30 days Oh heck... you decide how many days - you (as well a handful of others) seem to do that when it comes to archiving this page already without consulting the community as well). And please do forgive my tone - sometimes the kindest thing one can be is cruel & to the point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that "Affordable Care Act" is in fact the most commonly used name among reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before we get to that, is it one of unambiguous and accurate names of the topic? George Ho (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am on record in last months debate as not being in favor of changing the title, and remain so, however if the matter must be reviewed yet again I believe that "Obamacare" deserves equal consideration with ACA. In fact based upon some of the latest arguments proffered, that the ACA is the net conglomeration of two bills, amendments and statutory interpretation and thus more accurate (though I think that "Affordable Care Acts" would be even more accurate), I would further argue that "Obamacare" takes in all of that as well as the will of The President to change, create and ignore provisions of the law and implementation via executive fiat, thus there is no more accurate and probably no more widely recognized and used name. We are living under Obamacare and not the law as crafted, no matter whether you call it the PPACA or the ACA. Besides, as Dr. "Margarine" asks, where is the evidence that ACA is the most widely used name by so-called reliable sources? What evidence is there that such sources refer to the ACA more than either the PPACA or Obamacare? If we are aiming for "man on the street" recognition, I'd be willing to bet that if you asked those millions what the proper name for "Obamacare" was very few would know, yet few would NOT know what Obamacare is, which brings us full circle to what most of us felt was the correct and least argumentative title when the bell ended the last round... the proper name. InterpreDemon (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why?
Concur with ID's last. An editor who had been concerned enough to have revived the ACA proposition as soon as it had been parked could be expected to have taken the points seriatim and given counter reasons instead of blandly announcing "reject", or threatening to start a new (time wasting) formal RM to push what amounts to a personal opinion under WP protection. The slangy neologism "Obamacare" has crossed the Atlantic and is recognised here (UK) in conversation and in print (like "Medicare" or "Watergate"). Wikipedia is not another piece of journalism. While I would ask editors to remember that this is an article which is notable way beyond the anxious concerns of sections of the US public on one side or another (or neither), I see editors are responding who (presumably) have been following the story for years inside the USA, and are better informed than ... Qexigator (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

+ Examples of information/misinformation at a supposedly RS: See also: "Obamacare explained: why healthcare reforms could determine future of US politics, by Peter Foster, Washington, 28 Jun 2012...The Affordable Care Act, which was passed by Congress in 2010 to provide an extra 30 million of the poorest Americans with healthcare coverage....For Republicans the ACA – or "Obamacare", as they derisively refer to it – represents everything they hate about big government." This links to a White House promo website "Health Care that Works for Americans - On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, putting in place comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices." Qexigator (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "'Obamacare' launches amid government shutdown,1 October 2013... the culmination of more than three years of political combat in Washington over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by Mr Obama in 2010 and known to both sides as Obamacare."
 * "Kathleen Sebelius apologises for Obamacare 'debacle'...The 1 October launch of the federal and state marketplace websites was the culmination of more than three years of political combat in Washington over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by Mr Obama in 2010 and known to both sides as Obamacare."
 * "The 'Obamacare' crisis in 75 seconds,15 November 2013...the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been hit by problems..."
 * "Q&A: 'Obamacare' 28 November 2013... The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by Mr Obama in 2010, is the largest overhaul of the US healthcare system since the 1960s."
 * "Mardell: Obamacare on a precarious political tightrope,3 December 2013... Pastor Dexter Nutall...said...I think time will prove that the Affordable Care Act is something that is of great significance and benefit for those who have been underserved and overlooked for far too long."
 * "'Obamacare' health reforms come into force in US 1 January 2014. ...Under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, it is now compulsory for people to have health cover - either provided for by their employer or by buying one of the private health plans now on offer."

+ From Australia:- See also: BBC, "Obama promotes embattled healthcare law in Texas, 7 November 2013...The 1 October launch of the insurance marketplace websites run by the federal and state governments was the culmination of more than three years of political combat in Washington over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by Mr Obama in 2010 and known to both sides as Obamacare". --Qexigator (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "2.1 million sign up for 'Obamacare' January 1, 2014...The Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, is designed to offer insurance to millions of Americans."
 * "Obamacare's Next Big Test Comes New Year's Day, Reuters, Dec 30 2013,...Many of the newly insured under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
 * "Obamacare shows folly of old-fashioned central planning, From: The Australian November 19, 2013 ...The Affordable Care Act - otherwise known as Obamacare - is an example of fatal conceit, a term coined by Friedrich von Hayek to describe the self-serving illusion that governments can fix a wrong, or a series of wrongs, by imposing a complex and costly set of arrangements."
 * "From Germany to Australia, a Global Perspective on Obamacare November 6, 2013...The United States roll out of the Health Insurance Marketplace has turned into a massive technological mess, one that is overshadowing why the Affordable Care Act was created in the first place..."
 * "Explainer: what is Obamacare? 30 September 2013,,,In March 2010, after much policy wrangling and expenditure of considerable political capital, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare)..."

New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class
In "New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class" (December 20, 2013) The New York Times points out (what others have been saying for a while now, by the way) that "While the act clearly benefits those at the low end of the income scale — and rich people can continue to afford even the most generous plans — people like the Chapmans are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost." and "An analysis by The New York Times shows the cost of premiums for people who just miss qualifying for subsidies varies widely across the country and rises rapidly for people in their 50s and 60s. In some places, prices can quickly approach 20 percent of a person’s income. Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income. By that measure, a 50-year-old making $50,000 a year, or just above the qualifying limit for assistance, would find the cheapest available plan to be unaffordable in more than 170 counties around the country, ranging from Anchorage to Jackson, Miss". My question: How is it that the massive amount of negative reality of the Obamacare implementation. . . are missing from the Obamacare Wikipedia entry ? Also, it has become almost laughable how one provision after another of the Act are being rolled back in the past few weeks. How is the undoing of Obamacare by Obama himself, also practically invisible in the Obamacare Wikipedia entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.7 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, on the second of my points above it is actually no laughing matter (morbid "laughable" was meant by me above) at all for the millions of American people now suffering serious financial hardship and new unnecessary major aggravation directly due to the Orwellian-named "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". As it is now starting to be explained more clearly (everywhere EXCEPT on the Wikipedia "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" entry - which reads like it was written by Plouffe and Axelrod) as each land-mine has exploded the Obama administration has rolled back Obamacare law components for political expediencey. Recent examples of reliable sources documenting items that are obfuscated and buried in this Wikipedia entry (at best) are "Slip-sliding away: 6 ways Obamacare isn't what it used to be" by Maggie Fox, NBC News Dec. 20, 2013, which notes: " The White House has rolled out so many last-minute fixes that critics and supporters alike are asking how anyone can understand what the rules are now. First, it was a year’s reprieve for businesses that were supposed to be providing health insurance for workers. Then came a batch of delays, exemptions and other exceptions, coming to a head late Thursday night as the White House scrambled to announce -- and then clarify -- a break for people who are the most furious about losing their insurance coverage. . . . the delays appear to have rewarded people who want to defy the law’s requirements, rather than those who did what the administration asked and signed up early." Now that Obama's Executive branch has made it's 14th unilateral change to the "law" without the Legislative branch (!), one wonders where all this is, in the locked encyclopedic entry for Obamacare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.9.160 (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason that anonymous users cannot edit this article is because there used to be constant vandalism and edit warring. How about you write up some material that addresses your concerns and post it here on the talk page, and we can consider adding to the article? It looks like you already have some sources. Assuming what you write up is sourced to reliable sources and has a neutral point of view (e.g., does not present concerns of undue weight), I doubt there will be much of a problem adding it to the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, it's not as if this page is full of sourced factual information while the actual page is full of fantasyland academic theory or anything. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on in! The water's fine! :D -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction needed
Please review how this should be corrected "Additional reforms aimed to reduce costs and improve healthcare outcomes by shifting the system towards quality over quantity through increased competition" is a political statement used to market the law, and is not factually correct Actual reforms "by shifting the system towards quality over quantity" are on Medicare only. No measures for the not Medicare insured have been announced or put into regulation. The section Overview of provisions has the correct information. I will revise it after 7 days if no one objects or corrects it first. SpekServices (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So now everybody under the age of 26 allowed to remain covered on their parent's health plan is on Medicare? The requirement that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans are spent on health care services and health care quality improvement is about Medicare? Plenty more... Sounds like you're proposing a change where one is not needed - it sure isn't supported by the assertion you've made either. Oppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * George, I think his problem is with the phrase "through increased competition", which with your examples would be better written "with increased regulation". I don't see how removing "children" aged up to 26 from the market for individual plans spurs insurance companies to compete for them, nor do I fathom how fixing the profit margin of insurance companies serves to make them more competitive. Rather, all I see is incentives for both insurance companies and providers to leave the marketplace, and that has been what is occurring.InterpreDemon (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that would make more sense than trying to split any supposed Medicare / non-Medicare nuance but then how do we rationalize the introduction of the Exchanges? Granted there are fewer states running their own exchanges (typically along with no medicare expansion in those cases) and rely on Federally supported exchanges instead - but that lesser degree of additional participation to resulting competition is covered by the language we eventually used (i.e. aimed [not guaranteed]). That said, I see no reason to change it either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we cannot rationalize the introduction of the exchanges, simply because they are not rational. In this case, "If you build it, they will come" does not appear to work despite coercion of both citizens under threat of penalties and insurance companies either playing along or being legislated out of existence, and so far the score is five to one cancelled policies over newly created or replacement policies via exchanges. So what you have is the inverse of what would normally happen in a vibrant, competitive market... fewer suppliers selling fewer choices of products to fewer consumers instead of more suppliers selling more product choices to greater numbers of consumers. But I do agree with you that it is not worth changing in the direction of the Medicare/non-Medicare thing, and if changed at all I would just change the phrase "through increased competition" to "through increased regulation of the marketplace", because that is what is happening and that is what was intended all along. InterpreDemon (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making a whole bunch of political arguments based on your opinion of the bill. Our personal opinions of the bill are not reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this has been a recurring issue with InterpreDemon. On topic, I agree with George Orwell III--"aims" are different than "results", and the exchanges are "aimed" at increasing competition according to proponents (and clearly the exchanges are enacted reforms unrelated to Medicare). The text is fine as-is, at least as far as the above objections go. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "...the exchanges are 'aimed' at increasing competition according to proponents". Precisely. InterpreDemon (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading incomplete sentence
"In 2010, claims that the ACA would require all Americans or those covered by public insurance to have a microchip implanted." It makes it sound like microchips WILL be implanted. For now I'll assume this a clerical error rather than malicious intent to mislead. 174.99.123.1 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have edited the material to convert the text to reflect a grammatical, complete sentence with a subject and a verb. Famspear (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Obamacare website problems
There doesn't to be any mention of them and this article comes off as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.181.249 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you tried actually reading the article... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um. Of course it's biased. It's Wikipedia. If you're interested in the Healthcare.gov website problems, see that article here. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why no numbers in article Contents box?
I just noticed. I thought it looked odd. I looked at some other articles and they all have numbers (1, 2, ... 1.1, 1.2 .... etc.) in the Contents box. What's up with this article and no numbers in Contents box?? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we inititally added a ToC limit, so it wouldn't look at cluttered. But we had to remove it when it caused people not to find the Implementation section (see above comment) when they were coming here just for an update on the rollout of the federal website. So to try and make it look less cluttered, without the ToC limit, I believe George Orwell changed the formatting for presentations sake. I too am not sure if the current style is optimal given it's inconsistency with other Wikipedia pages so I'm glad you bring it up. =) - Sb101 (see above comment P.S.)
 * Don't know if it's a big huge deal, but could the numbers be put back in? Do we need to call a vote for something (what I see) as small as this? I like the numbers in the TOC because 1) other articles have that style and 2) it helps me see an org structure all at once. My .02 worth.... -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No voting required, but I'd recommend waiting to hear from before making a change. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a reader (not editing here) agree with Cirrus. See diff. But if there are too many subsections, why not reconstruct a little? Qexigator (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes little difference to me if the number bullets show or not, but I'm not for any sort of reconstruction of the current structure. To me, when an article gets 4, 5, 6 or more sub-sections deep, its an indication the top section needs to be considered for forking/pruning and made into its own separate main article. Moving stuff around to avoid this reality only makes articles that some consider "too long" as it is (by typical WP standards) even harder to navigate or read for most visitors. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently, the subdividing headings are excessive, whether or not part of the text is removed to a separate article, and whether or not there remains TOC numbering up to 4 deep; and TOC should be numbered if present headings are retained, or changed and/or pruned. In my comment above "reconstruction" could include letting top section be considered for forking/pruning and made into its own separate main article per GOIII, or more simply revising headings with little or no moving about. For comparison, TOC was-
 * 4 deep unnumbered at 02:52, 20 December 2013, diff
 * after-
 * 2 deep numbered at 21:14, 19 December 2013 --Qexigator (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hooray for numbers! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we include information about the CBO's February 2014 report?
I start a new section here to get away from the unencyclopedic anti-ACA attacks in the preceding section, starting with the nonneutral subject heading.

The CBO's February 2014 report on the overall budget outlook included two appendices relevant to the ACA. As Paul Krugman pointed out in this column, the hubbub about jobs was really a distraction from the important news in Appendix B, about projected enrollments. Instead, the media discussion centered on Appendix C, prompted by false charges like this one from Eric Cantor: “Under Obamacare, millions of hardworking Americans will lose their jobs and those who keep them will see their hours and wages reduced.” The CBO director refuted that charge, and even Paul Ryan realized it wasn't true. 

In terms of an actual impact on employment, this isn't worth covering. The problem is that even rubbish like this can be made notable by the determined efforts of the right-wing noise machine and its usual disregard for the facts. It's similar to the "death panels" lie -- there are no death panels in the ACA but the false charges became notable enough to merit mention and debunking in Wikipedia.

One issue I see is that this article might become unwieldy if we try to keep it up to date with all the information about ongoing controversies, lawsuits, assessments, repeal efforts, etc. Perhaps we should mention the CBO report in passing but, per Summary style, move the details to a daughter article, as was done with the Death panel silliness. More broadly, what about moving all the post-enactment controversies, such as the repeal efforts information, to a daughter article, leaving behind only a summary? JamesMLane t c 03:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee... looks totally unbiased and neutral to me. InterpreDemon (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just put your Wikipedia glasses on. Then it looks normal. :D -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Should we include information about the CBO's February 2014 report?" If it is verifiable, and related to the subject, yes. Next question.  N2e (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Next question." Do dogs go to heaven? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)