Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 15

Should Michael Moore's Relevant Comments Be Mentioned?
FWIW - seems there may be some recent concern about an edit (January 7, 2014) re relevant comments by Michael Moore - should the following reliably sourced material be mentioned in the main article? - or should the material not be mentioned?



Copied from the "Public opinion" Section: In an op-ed piece for The New York Times published on December 31, 2013, Michael Moore assessed the Affordable Care Act, calling it “awful” and adding that, “Obamacare’s rocky start … is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go.” Despite his strong critique, however, Moore wrote that he still considers the plan a “godsend” because it provides a start "to get what we deserve: universal quality health care.”< ref name="NYT-20131231"> < ref name="TNR-20140105">

Seems some may think it deserves to be mentioned, whereas others may think otherwise - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is worth mention but undue to give it so much space. I propose to cut it to "Journalist Michael Moore criticized the ACA by saying that it is a "pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go."  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - @ - Thank you *very much* for your comment - and suggestion - yes, I agree - your suggested edit may be better - and has now been added to the "Public opinion" section - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's been some discussion of this topic under the "Implementation problems" subsection above on the talk page. The previous version definitely gave undue weight to Moore's opinions. Blue Rasberry's version is much better. However, if there is to be a leftist critique of Obamacare in the Public Opinion section, I think it would be far better to draw upon sources like polls or studies, rather than one person's opinion. No other individual person receives such attention in the Public Opinion section. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your comments - if WP:NPOV is a concern - I have no problem whatsoever with reliably sourced text/refs - to "balance" the content so-to-speak - all relevant points-of-view, in a truly open-and-honest effort, seems the better road for the article - at least imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that "all relevant points of view" have a place, but not fringe views. That said, I don't think MM's opinion is fringe; there are plenty of Americans who would prefer a single-payer system to the PPACA (I've seen such data in the past, but know of none offhand). But Michael Moore is not their representative, and quoting him is not the best way to portray that view because it does not give readers any sense whatsoever of how the public feels about the PPACA or a single-payer system. Citing to poll data or studies is a much more objective way of demonstrating public opinion. And I don't think citing to the views of individuals who disagree with MM will solve the WP:NPOV concerns of quoting him; doing so will only give undue weight to more individual persons.  I just don't see how a single person's opinions are deserving of particular attention in a public opinion section. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Michael Moore is not a journalist; he is a propagandist. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your comment - you may (or may not) be correct about this - afaik, a journalist tries to report information that's verifiably true - whereas a propagandist, in order to influence opinion, may report information that may not be verifiably true - in a somewhat recent instance, seems PolitiFact and others found some claims reported by Michael Moore (MM) (ie, the top 400 Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.") to be, according to PolitiFact, "true" - others seem to agree as well (CNN, Huffington Post, Forbes AlterNet) - guess that may make MM, at least in that instance, a journalist, I would think - there may be other instances of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And his claim about single payer was rated false by Politifact. I don't see why Moore's claims are especially relevant to this article as public opinion.  Perhaps as an opinion by people that this is a stalking horse for single payer if a section like that ever arises, but that's it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does a contribution to an op-ed page make somebody a "journalist"? I always though MM was a movie producer and director. What is his body of work as a journalist and reliable source? Do Sarah Palin's multiple contributions to op-ed pages, including to the Washington Post, make her a journalist and reliable source? InterpreDemon (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotation should not be used. He is not an expert. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the most effective propaganda is verifiably true. What makes it propaganda is that it is carefully selected to favor one POV and exclude any contrary facts. Also it may include facts which are irrelevant but serve to create a false impression, if the viewer jumps to the obvious (but erroneous) conclusion. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Moore's editorials do not qualify him as a journalist. We should remove the Moore paragraph. If something were to be included (about things related to critiques from the left/single-payer), I think Prototime suggested the correct way to do so. - Sb101 (P.S. to Cirrus - I will reply to your most recent comments shortly, but only had time for a brief comment on this issue first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:926F:1:A105:47A9:7C7F:2B57 (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MM article doesn't mention he's a journalist. Who thinks of him as that? He's a filmmaker and political activist. I'll go ahead and revise, because that's what's first mentioned at his Wiki article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * MM is not a journalist. It is insulting to actual journalists to actually call him a journalist.  He does not present information in an unbiased format.  He is an activist with a specific agenda.  Arzel (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This conversation is now OBE (overcome by events). Both Moore and Krauthammer have been removed from the section. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Does an individual's opinion belong in the Public Opinion section?
There appears to be a consensus to remove the Michael Moore reference from the Public Opinion section based on concerns of undue weight and appropriateness. However, it has not been removed, and recently the view of Charles Krauthammer was added. So, I pose this question to everyone: is it appropriate to include any particular individual's opinion in the Public Opinion section? As I mentioned before, quoting individuals does not give readers any sense whatsoever of how the public feels about the PPACA, only what those individuals think. It also gives undue weight to the opinions of those individuals, and it is an inherently subjective choice (for instance, why should Wikipedia emphasize the views of Michael Moore and Charles Krauthammer any more than the views of Glenn Beck or Cornell West?). And doing so may introduce inaccuracies, because individuals have an incentive to portray public opinion as matching their own opinions. Citing to poll data or studies is a much more objective way of demonstrating public opinion. Therefore, my views is that we don't need to, and should not, give special attention to individual talking heads on what their opinion or is what they think public opinion is; let public opinion data speak for itself. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the real issue here the placement of Public Opinion as subsection of Impact --> Politics than anything else? If Public Opinion appeared directly under Impact, then the premise keeping to a timeline of polls & poll questions makes sense. As it is now, one would expect content from political pundits and the like in the section since the section appears under the notion of [what is the ACA's] political impact. That said, I'd much rather see Public Opinion moved directly up "one" as a sub-section of Impact only and drop any temptation of adding one blowhard or the other's opinion/politics altogether. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If moving the subsection up a level will drop such temptations, that certainly works for me. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - seems reasonable to me as well - the "Public opinion" subsection has now been moved from the "Political" to the "Impact" section - per talk - in addition, "remmed out" Michael Moore & Charles Krauthammer comments - seems consistent with talk - entirely ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Krauthammer is a regarded journalist, which Moore is not. Furthermore, Krauthammer's comment was directly related to the topic, while Moore's was more of a polemic about something else.  Not 100% convinced we need the Krauthammer, but it's certainly more reasonable than Moore's. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, extreme partisan comments by Mr. Moore (noted political activist) have been in the article for, what, 2 months... in all its glorious detail about how the ACA "did not go far enough" and "that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go," and not a single Wikipedia editor challenged it as NPOV, or at least recognized the imbalance of not including some countering opinion? But, I add a counter-balancing comment from Mr. Krauthammer (syndicated columnist) on public opinion (not his own opinion) (AND leave the Moore comments intact) and that's completely removed within 18 hours. Does this behavior seem suspicious to anyone else? Can any Wikipedia editor explain this behavior? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I'm *entirely* flexible on the issue at the moment - seemed the consensus of opinion was moving in the direction of the recent edit - perhaps this could have been better - entirely ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant also to include: does any Wikipedian see the double standard at work in this edit? And, in my experience, this is merely one edit out of a thousand edits I've seen on Wikipedia, where the double standard is. That is, liberal/progressive thoughts and ideas promoted and moderate or conservative ideas demoted/scrubbed from articles. Anyone? Bueller? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part, this was not at all intentional - as noted earlier, I prefer the notion of "balance" of content/refs (seems more encyclopedic?) - seems I may have been taken with some of the (worthy imo) notions presented by Prototime above re a "much more objective" "Public opinion" section - the Michael Moore and Charles Krauthammer comments are presently "remmed out" in the main article and can be easily moved-and-pasted in a more relevant section if ok - but then - what section would be best? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirrus, I made it clear that I supported removing Moore's comment before you added Krauthammer's comment, and I also had already expressed my view that no individual's opinion should be included in the Public Opinion section before you added Krauthammer's comment. Based on the conversation above, I thought that there was a consensus to remove Moore's comment, so I was surprised when I saw yesterday not only that it hadn't been removed, but that some other individual's comment had been added, compounding the problem (adding a POV balance, yes, but increasing the undue weight given to individual opinions generally). That's why I posed this question when I did. But if you prefer, you can disregard all of this and assume bad faith about my actions. I'll leave such determinations up to you (though it seems like your mind is already made up). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To Prototime: Cirrus Editor and I removed the MM paragraph at least three times. Each time we were reverted by Drbogdan. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this may have been true over time earlier - which is the reason I started this discussion (per WP:BRD & related) - to seek other points of view and try to sort this all out - and try to reach some reasonable consensus on the issue(s) - which seems to have been done - at least to some extent and afaik at the moment - hope this clarification helps in some way of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Revenues and expenditures
Especially because the impact on the deficit is a hot topic, it would be interesting to see the dollar figures for CBO estimates of how much the various tax measures will raise and what the significant expenditures are. As time goes on, we'll be able to see actual figures rather than estimates. -- Beland (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is needed is hard numbers out of the Administration regarding something more than total enrolment, like how many have gone beyond putting something in their cart, how many of the Medicaid are simply annual renewals vs new, how many are subsidized or will be and have been paying premiums, etc., and I doubt we will see those numbers until after the November election. Until then we are limited to estimates and projections in the absence of real, verifiable data. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended deadline for some states
Maryland and Nevada extended deadline to give people some time to enroll as soon as possible. But I can't find a place where I must appropriately insert the info. I think I need help. --George Ho (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Add anchor
Please add   to the section heading for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Thanks. 67.100.127.227 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Arrangement of the box on right side of page
The box for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is misleading, in particular, the section titled "Legislative History". The fact that it passed the House by a vote of 416-0 when it was called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" is trivial, bordering on irrelevant. There are 6 bullets points, distinctly divided, and because point 3 is "Passed the House on" and point 4 is "Passed the Senate as", to the average reader (who didn't otherwise know) it looks like the ACA itself passed the House 416-0. Bullet points shouldn't rely on previous bullets points for their meaning. The factoid that it passed the House 416-0 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 could/should be included parenthetically in bullet point 1. The section should go like this:
 * Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009. (Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0))
 * Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
 * Passed the Senate after amendment as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39)
 * Passed the House with Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
 * Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

The ACA is a highly partisan, hotly contested bill. The two HISTORIC votes that really mean something are the 60-39 and 219-212. These should be featured prominently, easy to find. Trailspark (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go one step further and give the vote tallies by party. InterpreDemon (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Obama Banks on Sebelius Leaving to Take Heat Off PartyLihaas (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

>> Factual Information About The Obamacare Chip Hoax

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014
was this written by an obamacare cheerleader what about the crappy website low enrollment numbers what about the LIES? what about the changes to the law?

24.6.89.92 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please also note that your comments could be construed as uncivil - please calm down and leave the WP:SOAPBOX at the door. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried removing it but it was hastily undone. It seemed rather peculiar placed where it was for no reason. This is not static information either; opinion polls change - sometimes rapidly.Myownworst (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014
I believe the politics section of this article is in violation of the "neutral point of view" rule. I would argue that none of the political information is relevant and makes the article subjective instead of objective. Counter arguments need to be offered, or proof from the ACA legal documents to disprove the claims in question. I would propose that the section be removed because it will simply be a point of contention. Quoting other articles that call Sarah Palin a liar isn't objective information it is exactly the opposite.

98.23.105.220 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LW
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Legislative repeal and revision attempts
Hi! I work on a lot of articles about legislation and recently noted the 50th vote to repeal or revise the ACA that was taken in the House. (See ABC News). There are three more bills related to revising portions of the ACA being voted on under a suspension of the rules on the House floor today. (See The Hill). The section in this article on "repeal efforts" is fairly short, considering there have been so many. There also isn't a section (that I could find) addressing attempts to modify the ACA without repealing it entirely.

So, is there any interest in creating a separate article on repeal and revision attempts (and revision successes)? What about a section within this article (even if it is a simple list linking to articles about bills that attempted or succeeded in modifications)? If not, what is the community's criteria for including associated legislation in this article?

For example, the following bills might be included:
 * An act to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 45)
 * Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (H.R. 1814; 113th Congress) - this is on the floor today
 * Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667; 113th Congress)
 * Fairness for American Families Act
 * Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59) - the failure to pass this bill (or other appropriations) cause the shutdown - I think this one is already mentioned in the article
 * Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013
 * Exchange Information Disclosure Act (H.R. 3362; 113th Congress)
 * Suspending the Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act (H.R. 4118; 113th Congress) - this passed the House last week
 * Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act (H.R. 3979; 113th Congress) - on the floor today
 * Hire More Heroes Act of 2013 (H.R. 3474; 113th Congress) - on the floor today

These bills aren't identical attempts to repeal it under different names - they are different bills that address different portions of the ACA. They would exempt some religious groups, allow employers not to count veterans with military health insurance on their list of employees, authorize a delay in the employer mandate and the individual mandate, and so on.

Anyway, I'm asking about it to solicit opinions (instead of editing a rather closely watched article without notice). Any ideas? (And yes, I do realize that some of those bill articles could use improvement...). Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Crickets. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just met HistoricMN44 at a hackathon, and she mentioned this proposal to me. Given the number of attempts to repeal or revise the ACA and the volume of the debate about them, I think a new sub-article makes perfect sense.—Neil 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sub-article seems fine to me on this topic. Likely it will be fine to the many guardians of this article, too, because it doesn't address anything perceived as negative about the ACA. A sub-article is a good elephant graveyard for the information. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that if this is a POV fork designed to evade scrutiny and to advocate for a different view on the topic. Then it's disallowed. Ging287 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't intend it as such, no. Roughly 9 or so of the 50+ attempts have actually become law and many have had bipartisan support in the House (with no action taken in the Senate). The various attempts to repeal, reform, or correct small portions of the ACA are a significant part of this country's political history and will be a major issue in the upcoming elections. I think it makes sense to collect information about all the attempts, what they were, and what the different sides had to say about the matter. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any title suggestions? I'd like to see something more robust than a simple list. Is Attempts to repeal, reform, or replace the Affordable Care Act too long? Not neutral? Attempted amendments to the Affordable Care Act seems too broad - there are hundreds of bills that make small modifications to the ACA. The major bills do a variety of things - formalize delays in different provisions of the bill, exempt some groups or insurance plans from various requirements, regulate healthcare.gov, and so on, so I'm not sure what a good catch all title would be. Suggestions? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the relevant issue is the rather large difference between the ACA law as passed by the Peoples' representatives and "ObamaCare", which is the actual law as passed, then redefined by the SCOTUS, implemented with changes by royal decree, a small sub-set of those changes affirmed by the lower body of Congress, virtually none of them affirmed by the upper body yet all of them being imposed upon the people, who apparently have had and will have no say in the matter until this November. Thus I believe any such section should deal with the difference between the law the people were told they were getting and the law that is actually being imposed upon them, which seems to change every week at the whim of a POTUS who obviously feels that he is the only one with any legal authority to change or selectively enforce what we have been told is the "law of the land". Apparently it's his law and his land, not ours. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not change the article, then? It's an embarrassment how woefully inadequate, incomplete, and out of date it is. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave up on that some time ago... the Obamatons are in charge and edits that bring the article into balance or reality are rarely spawned and almost never survive the masterful weaponization of WP rules and guidelines exhibited by the Left. In the years leading up to the actual implementation the arguments were over the theoretical outcomes (all rosy, of course) but now that the reality is turning out to be quite different and the arbitrary, lawless enforcement behavior of POTUS somewhat embarrassing, the editors have decided to simply freeze the article in it's theoretical ivory time capsule, using their WP expertise to systematically shoot down any and all suggestions that attempt to change the tone or bias of the article. That's how you end up with Michael Moore being accepted as an authoritative source but not Sarah Palin or George Will. Best to just let the article become an ever more perfect example of why WP should never be considered an authoritative and unbiased source for any topic where politics is involved. InterpreDemon (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still embarrassing. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not "good"
The article is out-of date. It does not address the numerous delays (for large employers and union plans) and ongoing serious issues in implementation. It does not address recent court cases.

The article is not NPOV. I have spent my career writing summaries of legislation for courts (which require NPOV) and I find that the "cheerleading" comment above is valid shorthand for the tone of the article, and not "uncivil" at all.

I will try to return to work through this piece-by-piece, but it is a huge undertaking.

Avocats (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I modified reference list for you. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good job George! The 4000 plus edits you made to this page as if it was a full time job repeatedly violating any and all rules regarding NPOV have served this mission well.

Time to archive the bottom talk material though.

Inside story on implementation
I stumbled across this really fine piece of journalism that describes the true story of what happened during the implementation of healthcare.gov. For whoever wants to take this on, it ought to be cited here as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled across? But up until last December you edited this page over 2000 times as if it was a full time job. Then proudly proclaimed you were finished, coincidently as of the end of 2013.

Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid Americans" controversy
People are already forgetting that Jonathan Gruber's gaffe isn't just what he thinks about the American people, he has also exposed the fraudulent mechanisms behind what lead to the passage of the PPACA in the first place.

In other words, Jonathan Gruber did not just come on camera, say the four words "American voters are stupid", and then go back home. He has said on numerous videos that the lies and trickery that was required to get the PPACA (aka Obamacare) past the American voters, is what makes the American voter stupid.

If that cannot make it into the PPACA's content, considering how important Jonathan Gruber was/is to PPACA, then there is a violation of NPOV somewhere. Everybody is trying to distance themselves from Gruber now, but a few years ago his role was not in doubt.

Just the CBO sections alone need a wholesale re-write, to take into consideration the lies and trickery.

The entire page is a violation of NPOV. It is bought, paid for and monitored for the purposes of promoting the subject material.


 * It's extremely hard to get around these editors' tight control of their narratives. For example, I tried editing JournoList in an impartial manner using sources from all political aisles (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JournoList), and editors and administrator friends reverted my changes without a citing a justifiable reason that was consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. They instead inserted original research to make it seem as if JournoList was a conservative conspiracy. They also used ad hominem attacks against me and blocked me even though I followed all Wikipedia guidelines. It's appalling what these activist editors do to manipulate the public.Sy9045 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

king v halbig
No mention of these suits? I realize they are not directly challenging the ACA, but rather the IRS implementation of the ACA, but surely we should link the user over to them? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially as King is at the Supreme Court, it's a no-brainer. Support a section highlighting the two lawsuits with main article links to each at the top. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently we have a combined article for all the suits, since they are arguing all the same issues (and have now all been put into abeyance except for king which will resolve them all) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I see King v. Burwell in the '''See also. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Article relevant for wikipedia?
I'm new to wikikpedia but got my hours cut from 40 to 29 at a company I've worked at 15 years (call center for a bank) but I'm new to wikipedia however have lots of spare time now. Here's the article, just tell me what to do and I'll add a blurb (1-2 sentences not a whole section) here ya go: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/30/health-law-impact/21067751/ ADWCTA (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You could try to improve Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I suggest that you start off with small changes such as rewording a sentence or adding a reference, and see how other editors react. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Silver plan deleted from Wikipedia
FYI I had created redirects to help readers find definitions of Bronze plan, Silver plan, Gold plan and platinum plan, but all four have been deleted. Maybe someone else knows how to help readers without upsetting wiki-rules? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are non-specific to Obamacare. There are plans concerning or named bronze/silver/gold/platinum in other areas, so nothing like a redirect should exist. These terms existed before as comparatives, and were discussed during Hillarycare, and exist in credit cards, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move to Affordable Care Act
It's long overdue for this page to be moved to Affordable Care Act. The reliable news media came to a consensus to use that name a while back, around when Supreme Court decided NFIB v. Sebelius. The relevant guideline policy here is WP:COMMONNAME. Comments please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (This does not prevent anyone supporting that proposal or a different move from submitting a new RM request.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Affordable Care Act – WP:COMMONNAME, no opposition a full week after proposal. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:IDLI, but support per AT policy. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the common name is Obamacare, which is used by both Dems and GOP and independents, conservatives and liberals and libertarians. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support roughly per nom, i.e the suggested title is more common than the current one. I agree that "Obamacare" seems even more common but there might be WP:NPOV issues among Americans with that, with the act's unpopularity, Obama and his supporters seem to want to distance him personally from the act.  —  AjaxSmack   04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I'm not going to entertain this again - just go back and re-read the last 4 failed requests to move. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No new arguments have been presented for moving since the last times this was proposed.
 * Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Archive_7
 * Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Archive_8
 * Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Archive_13
 * George Orwell III says there were four previous discussion. I only found these three.
 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support PPACA is a mouthful, most sources now refer to it as the Affordable Care Act. BTW where can one view the previous (4?) move proposals? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (as nom) and nom's request for close: In researching this issue I have concluded that, to my surprise, by far the most common name used by reliable sources is actually "Obamacare," not "Affordable Care Act." Therefore I have changed my !vote, request a close, and will start a new move request for "Obamacare" (and present the evidence there). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Calidum 16:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act → Obamacare – This request is intended to replace my previous request to move to "Affordable Care Act." Per WP:COMMONNAME. To my surprise, recent reliable sources are in fact overwhelmingly using "Obamacare" these days. Google News searches: I understand there are neutrality concerns, but the Obama administration reclaimed the term long ago, and the news sources using "Obamacare" run the ideological spectrum (including NPR, WaPo, and ChiTri). And no, the move requests from 2013 and before do not apply because reliable sources have changed how they refer to the subject. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "obamacare" -"affordable care act": 5,370,000 results
 * "affordable care act" -"patient protection and affordable care act" -obamacare: 808,000 results
 * "patient protection and affordable care act" -obamacare: 9,610 results
 * Oppose Obamacare is a nebulous concept: the Affordable Care Act is a specific bill. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think the above discussion should have been closed as withdrawn, since there were people supporting the move to ACA. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Obamacare" is no more nebulous than Medicare. The reliable sources certainly seem to have no difficulty talking about "Obamacare." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: In response to a request on my Talk page to reconsider the wisdom of my declaration that the prior RM discussion was closed, I reviewed the rules and I regret doing that. I had thought it was within the rights of a nominator to withdraw an RM request, but now I'm not so sure that it's proper to perform a close on that basis. I would undo my close declaration, but unfortunately events have moved on already, with the submission of this new RM. Since the prior RM was only open briefly, with only a few people commenting, it may be best to just let the discussion of this new RM proceed and have alternatives discussed here in that context. For what it's worth, I apologize for the questionable close. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to go with it. This is Wikipedia and sometimes processes are flexible.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with BlueRaspberry, and sorry all for contributing to the confusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the multiple previous move discussions listed above in the move discussion posted yesterday. Also, while I acknowledge that "Obamacare" is a commonly used terms, it also has a social connotation beyond the scope of the article on the PPACA. The offical name meets enough of the standards in Official names to be kept, particularly because it is unambiguous and consistent with use in many sources. It might not be the most commonly used name in popular media but that does not outweigh the usefulness of its official name.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread or misunderstood Wikipedia:Official names. It says official names "should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used," which you acknowledged is not the case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule page is not internally consistent and there are multiple interpretations. It also says that titles should be "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". PPACA meets all of those, but it weakest in being recognizable. I am most persuaded that PPACA is unambiguous and it is the name used in all the best sources. "Obamacare" is used in fewer high-quality sources and more crackpot sources, and additionally in most popular media. There has to be a tradeoff because no name really seems right to me.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please back up "'Obamacare' is used in fewer high-quality sources" -- I think you have not reviewed the evidence I presented to the contrary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made that up. I assumed that government sources and academic sources use the name PPACA, and that the "Obamacare" name came from critics who wanted to ridicule the idea and associate it with death panels. I agree that reputable sources now use the term "Obamacare" but the word is still new and standard usage is not settled yet, and just a few years ago the term "Obamacare" was a nearly meaningless buzzword. Instead of fewer, I will say "lower percentage". Practically all academic and high-quality sources use the official name. A higher percentage of other sources use the slang term which became adopted as an official alternative name.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me for harping on this but I'm not sure how you can conclude that NPR, WaPo, ChiTri, and the like are not "high quality" sources. Regardless, the threshold isn't "high quality," its "reliable." And in fact government sources are generally considered unreliable for government subjects. Especially for naming purposes, where government use almost always favors official names over what is "commonly used" (the WP standard). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The news agencies you described are further downstream than the academic sources from which they get their information. PPACA is complicated enough that people are devoting their careers to studying it, whereas for news outlets this is just a news story. Academic publications are more reliable than news sources, which is why news sources are typically derived from them.
 * Government sources are among the best sources in this case. In the same way that commercial newspapers often talk about the commercial sector without a conflict, the US government is large enough that some excellent critiques in one part of the sector have unique expertise in critiquing other parts. I disagree that the "US government" is a single voice or "generally considered unreliable", and instead argue that government sources feed the sources you mention and give them credibility.
 * I am sharing a government source that I like here. Other sources from think tanks look like this one as well, and are great presentations of other perspectives that are never presented so fully in popular media.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Obamacare" is not the most common name used by scholarly publications and books; on both counts, it is actually the least common name. "Affordable Care Act" is, in contrast, the most common name:
 * Google Scholar
 * Obamacare - 18,600
 * "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" - 30,000
 * "Affordable Care Act" - 46,200
 * Google Books
 * Obamacare - 30,300
 * "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" - 69,800
 * "Affordable Care Act" - 196,000
 * Given the discrepancy between the terminology used by the news on one hand and scholarly publications and books on the other, I'm inclined to support the term used by scholarly publications and books; Wikipedia is itself an encyclopedia. Moreover, "Affordable Care Act" has the benefit of precision, referring to a particular piece of legislation, P.L 111-148; "Obamacare" is generally used to encompass both that law and P.L. 111-152, the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010", which amended P.L. 111-148 and has its own separate Wikipedia article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA - concise, natural, recognizable, not inconsistent and not imprecise. That's 3-0-2 in favor of the proposed name. Red Slash 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Obamacare" is actually very imprecise compared to both "Affordable Care Act" and "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"; the latter two terms refer to a specific piece of legislation, P.L. 111-148, while "Obamacare" is used to collectively refer to P.L. 111-148, P.L. 111-152 (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), and regulations promulgated pursuant to those acts by the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Personnel Management, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Social Security Administration, and Department of Veterans Affairs. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I opposed this once, and I oppose this again. This still is too soon, so wait until Obama ends his second term in January 2017. --George Ho (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The term "Obamacare" is used to refer to a variety of things related to the Act, not just to the Act itself. The correct title of the Act is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," which is also the title of the article. No compelling reason to change. Famspear (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to WP:COMMONNAMES, inaccurate names are avoided. "Obamacare" has never been proven accurate, much to my understanding. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is inaccurate about Obamacare? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the name itself. "Obama" + "care", even though there is Reaganomics, a current title which I'll contest when this discussion is over. Initially used by GOPs who despise Obama, the name became prevalent among Democrats. Use your critical thinking. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is correct, exact and completely unambigous to all the world, whether in USA or anywhere else. Other commonly used nicknames or mis-names can be redirects. Nicknames obscure the information communicated in the name given by Congress to the Act, like it or not. Qexigator (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Google [sez] search results? Really? Even the free Alexa analysis shows the decline in 1st click-ins being generated by search engines (i.e. Google) to Wikipedia (and 70% of that is still to English WP). To entertain this again, in the here and now, based on what ♥Googlie-poo♥ sez or does is a bit concerning (imho) to say the least. Just go back and re-read the last 3 or 4 failed requests to move; most, if not all, of these points have been covered already and doesn't seem like much has happened in the interim to change anything either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The suggested name is potentially non-neutral, it was initially used by Obama-haters, and a Google search should not dictate what title is to be used, or even what is the common name. The most exact and unambiguous title is "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", with "Affordable Care Act" being a shortened version of the title. Dustin  ( talk ) 16:14, 25 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Information about Jonathan Gruber
I would not be an unbiased person if I were to write about Jonathan Gruber, but I think it is something worth including perhaps in the Criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaendfinger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? This page is about the ACA, Jonathan Gruber (economist) already has a wiki page. What do you think would be beneficial to this page? Sevenpatch (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please offer your opinion on this content that was just deleted.

 * Note: Comment from banned Grundle2600 removed.--TMCk (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is obviously another sockpuppet of Grundle2600 Moonboy54 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. Thus I removed his edit.--TMCk (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for article
This may be a good source of content to add to this article: 5 Years In, 5 Busted Predictions About Obamacare. --Frmorrison (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: "Affordable Care Act" redirect
"Affordable Care Act" and "the Affordable Care Act" should redirect to this page. I typed it in several different ways only to be told that no such article existed. I finally typed in "Obamacare" and was redirected here, seeing the correct, longer title of the law. Could a savvy editor add that redirect in? I don't know how. --MattMauler (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Affordable Care Act" does in fact lead to this page (my mistake, sorry, may have been a spelling error). Still when "the" is added, this page does not appear. --MattMauler (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the redirect using "The Affordable Care Act". --Frmorrison (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed post

 * I support any edit that is sourced reliably.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed post #2

 * I support an edit LIKE that but must be shortened AND be sure to archive the Yahoonews link because it is notoriously short- lived. I suggest: In February 2008, Obama said, he was going to work to lower premiums by $2,500 by the end of his first term as president. By 2012, family premiums had increased by $3,065 per family per a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion
Accurate, reliably sourced historical information was recently deleted in, apparently based on two false beliefs stated in the edit summary. This information should be restored (possibly with a clarification of the difference between HR 3962 and the similarly named HR 3590). 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ok JKruger13 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Updating Stats
I updated the intro with the correct rate. I don't think I cited everything correctly. I'm terrible, I know. >.< Myownworst (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Obamacare
I don't understand. You said 'opposition' is "WP:BATTLEGROUND", but WP:BATTLEGROUND is about edit warring and trying to "win" a dispute. I wasn't edit warring, was I? --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Guye, I moved this to the Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page where content discussions belong. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are rightly confused because I shouldnt have used WP:Battleground as an argument. I apologize. The rest of my edit summary (that "challenge" is more neutral than "opposition" is correct. That said, ironically you are going towards edit warring by not awaiting my reply ( definition of a discussion) per WP:BRD, and you are re-revertin( =edit warring). so if I was to re delete without awaiting your answer where would this lead us?. I think it's a disagreement of POV here. I am awaiting your reply, marking your edit in the text.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Reverted my edit. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Need new source
Source 10 points to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Feuilles mortes (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

tense issue
we describe the 1st open enrollment as "will last from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014" since this is 2015, a little updating is in order.

35.24.32.134 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Silver plan
A new disambig page, Silver plan, has just replaced my old deleted redirect with the same name. The problem is that the first four entries are actually all the same. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me


 * I've grouped them to make their relationship to one another clearer. If you have any further edits you can go ahead and make them. And you might want to make any comments related to the disambiguation pages on that page rather than here. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You said, but the topic of Bronze plan / silver plan / gold plan / Platinum plan is very relevant here. You have recently created all these new disambig pages but those pages do nothing to  help the readers of pages in Category:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act understand what these plans are. If you think it is good to involve editors who are disambig experts to this discussion, why not post a notice of this discussion there instead of moving this over?  Ottawahitech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me


 * I'm not seeking to work on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page or related pages. The only thing I was attempting to accomplish was to find a satisfactory solution to the deletion of the several metal plan redirects, based on the discussion at the Village Pump. If you want to improve the page, I suggest you improve it or take the steps that you are suggesting I take. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. In that case do you believe you solved the problem? All the old links(redirects) which have not been removed after the redirects were deleted now point to a disambig page, how does this help the reader? See for example Silver plan in Premium_tax_credit. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me


 * What are you proposing? The redirect was ruled deleted. The disambiguation page gets people to the health care plan with one additional click. It also gets people to other uses of the metal plan, which I'm hearing was the objection to the redirect. Would you prefer that the metal plan links go to pages saying the page has been deleted? Anyway, I've updated the links from articles to the metal plans to link to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is where the redirects would have sent them.


 * I've made my contribution and am moving on to other things. If you think my changes hurt more than help, be bold and improve them; I don't own them. This is my last post on this matter. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not think wikipedia was ruled by anyone -- am I wrong? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016
Please change reference 21's reference link to https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/

Bvansick (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for finding the new URL - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

US Private Sector Job creation and ACA
Can someone add in a section about US private sector job creation and the implementation of the ACA?

What do the numbers show from 2010 onwards. Why has US private job creation been sustained for so long? Is there any link from the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.9.30 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This article STILL is poorly named
No one, anywhere, in normal literature uses the name Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to refer to this law. I understand that reasonable folks will differ on whether Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is WP:CommonName. I think ACA is the best title. But PPACA clearly is not. Despite multiple move requests. My reading of the archives is that part of the reason is the PPACA is retained is disagreement on whether Obamacare or ACA is a better name. That is a poor reason for the third best name to be retained.

The issue is not that readers will be 'confused', but that below average intelligence readers (half of us) will need to spend an extra 10s digesting the first sentence and making sure they are in the right place. And, some will be so distracted that they'll actually waste more time posting posts like this.

My two cents. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Legislative history/process
First time posting to a talk page on Wikipedia and suggesting edits to an article, so I might be running afoul of some procedure, but I wanted to bring up something substantial, although I don't have time now (or currently enough familiarity with the issue or with how Wiki changes should be made) to make the necessary changes, I may later or someone else may be able to follow my suggestions.

Overall, the details of the legislative history and process to enactment are very garbled, for obvious reasons given the complexity of the process. Some things really jump out in this article as being, if not false, very misleading. For instance, the graphic that summarizes important information about the bill states that it passed the House on 10/8/2009 with a unanimous 416-0 vote. This is correct if this is referring to HR 3590, but wrong if it is referring to what eventually became the law known as the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare/healthcare reform. On 10/8/2009 when it passed the House, it was a different bill about a different matter entirely, and this seems to be a pretty important difference given the significance of a bill passing unanimously vs by only members of a single party. For procedural reasons, this was the bill selected by Dem Majority Leader Reid to act as the "vehicle" for the Senate's legislation for a while.

There is more that could be perfected about the legislative history/process in this article, but this is the biggest and most illustrative example of them. Best source I've found on the truth of these matters is here: http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-105/no-2/2013-7.pdf. 50.245.23.195 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Interested in HCR process

Implementation section (top level)
The article would benefit from a section covering the many twists and turns the act has undergone since passage. Things like:


 * waivers from the administration
 * the demise of CLASS
 * the fate of the state exchanges
 * the fate of the coops
 * the changing role/participation of private insurers (they are not mentioned)
 * the fate of the risk corridors

Other things could go in this section that are already covered. Comments encouraged! Lfstevens (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea. Sometimes it's hard to believe how fast the world changes. A lot of the original details have lost their relevance; but as you state, a lot of the twists and turns have yet to be covered. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit
Completed a copyedit. Feedback encouraged! Comments:
 * Removed >3k words.
 * The article is horribly outdated.
 * Can't see how the Good article designation is warranted, although I did not conduct an individual reassessment.
 * I suggest a reorg that builds on my suggestion above. Much of the post-implementation info should go in an Implementation or Implementation history section (to parallel the Legislative history section. Alternatively, have one History section that covers both.)

I intend to begin working along these lines. I would much appreciate feedback on the proposal and on the changes already made. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Effects on premiums, jobs, costs, lack of enrollment and liberal denialism
CBO sharply downgrades: enrollment projections and costs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/03/10/cbo-downgrades-obamacares-enrollment-projections-subsidy-costs/

Fed Survey: Obamacare Causing Companies to Cut Jobs http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2016/08/16/fed-survey-obamacare-causing-companies-to-cut-jobs/

Moody's downgrades health insurers citing this "new health-care law". http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/moodys-downgrades-outlook-for-health-insurers/2014/01/23/1a670a32-846f-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

Although there is a list of 388 employers that have directly cited the ACA as reason for job cuts http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/121913-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm Any search of "jobs cut citing obamacare" returns pages of unique citations yet the article here is still is trying so hard to make believe otherwise.

CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law. The president likewise claimed lower premiums http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html

Any source will show premiums have risen every year since the ACA's passage.

Great job by the obviously not paid shill spinbots. No it is a full time hobby distorting in the name of objectivity.

How many times can one quote Jon Cohn in one piece? He is far, far away from a NPOV, his livelihood is in part selling books based on theoretical socialized healthcare systems. I counted six separate quotes of 100% Cohn opinion based on zero facts. Really good work presenting an encyclopedic article from a NPOV.

The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency’s report found the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

The CBO is now estimating the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017-2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected. This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs in 2021 by 2.3 million, the CBO said. It had previously estimated the decrease would be 800,000. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

Negative effects? Where?? not in this Wikipedia article. Here everything is still coming up roses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing, but I think your comments are a bit out of date. Many negative effects are noted, including the death of CLASS, insurer dropouts, price increases etc. Thanks for adding the links here. You're welcome to modify the article to reflect their points. Lfstevens (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Implementation history - 2015 & 2016
The "2015" and "2016" subsections of "Implementation history" need to be rejiggered and moved into another section, probably somewhere under "Impact" The subsections about 2010 to 2014 in "Implementation history" are all about what the section heading says, implementation--the rollout of the law, what came into effect when. But the 2015 and 2016 subsections aren't about that. They're about how the healthcare sector has responded to the law, i.e. impact. Also, I think these sections are a excessively detailed when considered in light of WP:10YT. Since we're an encyclopedia, we should be summarizing the larger trends and the most notable statistics, rather than providing survey results on an annual basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. Most articles have a "History" section. This one had a leg history but nothing thereafter. I'm treating the Imp history as a chronicle of important events. I'm not even sure there should be an Impact section. The impact changes over time, i.e., history. Right now I'm just trying to get everything current. Most work on the article stopped after its passage. It was grossly out of date when I showed up, and as the commenter above notes, utterly rose-colored. Of course, you're welcome to join the editing party. Lfstevens (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions. I prefer the distinction between the "Implementation history" and "Impact" sections, but I'm not wed to it. If we're going to take the approach you describe then we should collapse these sections into one. Right now we have bins labeled "Apples" and "Oranges" but one of the bins has both apples and oranges. There is no rush to fix, but please keep in mind as you add content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm gradually adding the stuff from Impact to Imp history (and replacing obsolete forecasts with actuals). When it's all there, I'll propose deleting the former. We'll be able to see if that's satisfactory at that time. Lfstevens (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

MEPS
Why remove the MEPS ref? The data is in there. Lfstevens (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean MEPS? You can't just point to a database and say the data is in there. Our verifiability policy requires that anyone can check our content, without having to figure out how to navigate and query a database. Also, I suspect the source says nothing about implicit subsidies. You must be very careful when using primary sources such as this one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing I found in verifiability that related was:
 * "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Thanks for correcting my acronym. Lfstevens (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. I suppose you could include in the footer instructions on how to retrieve the cited data. Right now I don't know how to verify it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This change is helpful, but it's clear you're misusing this primary source when you choose these parameters for the database query. Why did you choose those parameters? Why 2007? And again, the source also says nothing about implicit subsidies, so this is your own synthesis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm open to using a different year. What do you suggest? The implicit subsidy bit is just math, but I'll remove it. And thanks for holding my feet to the fire on these changes. I'm about to add this data (the table labeled Bigger Bite). Comments?
 * BTW, I heartily agree that this article is not GA, but that's not due to my changes. Go back and look at how it was before I showed up (early August). Gak. Lfstevens (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what year we use, this is original research so we can't do it. We aren't simply reporting data provided by a primary source--we're using our own expertise to choose the parameters for a query. The proper approach here is to find a secondary source that draws on this data, and then report on the secondary source's findings. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having removed the "implicit" bit, what is OR? I just cite what the query produced.It would be great if you responded to everything I said... Lfstevens (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, deciding what to include in a piece is inherently OR. Criteria such as notability and cites limit what goes in, but otherwise we rely on editors to choose. Lfstevens (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a noticeboard discussion at WP:NORN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * On the Somers study, you moved the ref? Also, the article refers to many studies. I've been removing in-line sources, as long as the ref has the details. The only exception I think makes sense is CBO stuff, because that is what Congress (supposedly) relies on. Does that sound reasonable? Added source or the Medicaid stats.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by moving the Somers ref. Sorry if I messed something up. As for your second question, I think it's important for all studies to have in-text attribution so that readers can more easily assess the credibility of the study. This is consistent with WP:WEASEL. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does WP have a policy on this? I don't think ACA is unique in that regard. Our readers don't know Sommers from anybody else. It doesn't help the article to put such details in the text. Either the study is citeable or not. The cites can handle those who want more. I don't value the authority of the cited institution that much (Haaaavaaad?) Either it's a good study or it isn't... Lfstevens (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong but I don't think there's a policy or guideline that addresses this issue, beyond WP:WEASEL. I do know that all news articles that discuss studies give in-text attribution, even when they hyperlink to the study itself. It would be interesting to get a third opinion on this. I could ask for a WP:3O if you'd like to go that route? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to have more opinions. WP has many many articles that mention studies but do not give author/institution info in the text. Lfstevens (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3O request made. To the 3O editor, if you want to see the specific content we're discussing, search the article for the by whom tags. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. I am not in a mood to search the article for a tag. If the question can be asked in one or two sentences, I will try to answer. Otherwise, I will leave the request for another editor who has more patience to parse the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry . If you don't feel like giving a 3O then that's of course your prerogative, participation in 3O is purely optional. I didn't list the passages in question because I didn't think it was important and there are a bunch of them. They are hatted below for your reference.


 * A 2016 study found that residents of Kentucky and Arkansas, which both accepted the Medicaid expansion, were more likely to receive health care services and less likely to incur emergency room costs or have trouble paying their medical bills than before the expansions.
 * A 2015 study found that retail prices for 115 widely used specialty drugs increased 10.6% from 2012 to 2013.
 * A 2013 study estimated that changes to the health system had been responsible for about a quarter of the recent reduction in inflation.
 * A 2016 study found only limited evidence that ACA had increased part-time employment.
 * A 2015 study found that states not expanding Medicaid left 7.74 million uninsured, leading to "between 7,076 and 16,945 more deaths".
 * According to one study, as of 2014, only 25% of firms saw themselves offering insurance in 10 years.
 * A 2013 study found that the MLR provision had saved individual insurance consumers $1.2 billion in 2011 and $2.1 billion in 2012, reducing their 2012 costs by 7.5%.
 * In June 2013, a study found that MLR had saved individual insurance consumers $1.2 billion in 2011 and $2.1 billion in 2012, reducing their 2012 costs by 7.5%.
 * A study found that average premiums for the second-cheapest silver plan were 10-21% less than average individual market premiums in 2013, while covering many more conditions.
 * A 2016 analysis found that health care spending by the middle class was the only major expense category to increase, reaching 8.9% of household income.
 * A 2015 study found 14% of privately insured consumers received a medical bill in the past two years from an out-of-network provider in the context of an overall in-network treatment event.
 * Another 2015 study found that the average out-of-network charges for the majority of 97 medical procedures examined "were 300% or higher compared to the corresponding Medicare fees" for those services.
 * A 2016 study on Healthcare.gov health plans found a 24 percent increase in the percentage of ACA plans that lacked standard out-of-network coverage.
 * A study released in May estimated that 664 counties would have one insurer in 2017.
 * Another analysis found that 17 percent of eligibles may have a single insurer option in 2017.
 * A 2016 study found that premiums were still lower than in 2013 and 20% below the original CBO projections.
 * A 2016 study investigated rate filings for 40-year-old non-smokers in each of 45 state's largest cities.


 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RegistryKey, but I don't understand. What is your opinion on the matter? We're talking specifically about WP:INTEXT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * can you provide some diffs in connection to the rather large swath of information in the list above so I can better clarify? RegistryKey(RegEdit) 10:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The closest we have is this. Focus on the addition of "led by Harvard University health economics professor Benjamin Sommers." The rest isn't in dispute. The question is whether we should add this sort of in-text attribution to all of the sentences listed above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Ok, looking at the diff you provided, and examining the source itself, I feel that adding in that information unnecessarily could cause WP:UNDUE and WP:PUFFERY concerns. The information provided from the source is summed up clearly in both forms, and if the reader wants to delve further into the source directly, then they should be led there in this case. So in short, if it is not critical to the objective information, then it is best left out as the normal inline citations are handling it. That said, as WP:INTEXT mentions just as you pointed out, if it is questionable then that is when it should be expanded upon. So now, the bottom line: looking at each one of those line items, assuming proper inline citations for them, I would find them acceptable. If I wanted more information about who did what study, I would follow up with the source, as previously stated. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 12:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your input. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the by whom tags. I don't share RK's neutrality concerns, as I think this kind of attribution is standard practice, but I won't contest this issue further without support from another editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the by whom tags. I don't share RK's neutrality concerns, as I think this kind of attribution is standard practice, but I won't contest this issue further without support from another editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

RS
Just noticed that you removed a bunch of refs, but left the content. Probably not the best way to improve the article. I've already shown that I will address your concerns, including re-sourcing. Maybe hash things out here first?

You say that the sources you removed are not reliable, but I (obviously) don't see what the problem is. Have they been found to be unreliable in other situations? In particular, the USA Today piece was not an editorial (that's why it's in their News section). Lfstevens (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If the ref is unreliable, in my view the "lightest touch" approach is to remove it, and if that leads to no sources, to add a citation needed tag. That flags the issue and lets other editors who are more familiar with the subject matter (such as yourself) find better sources. A "heavier touch" approach often seen is to remove the content outright, but I tend to reserve that for controversial or BLP content. As for the USA Today source, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you please provide a link either to the source or to my edit? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the USA Today diff. I understand your approach. I'm suggesting an alternative. And what of the other sources? Why are they unacceptable? The material they present is certainly not fringey or opinion. Lfstevens (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The USA Today source is an editorial (an opinion piece). Newspaper editorials are generally considered unreliable for their factual content because they haven't been subjected to the same fact-checking as newsroom stories. As for other sources, we'd have to look at them one-by-one I suppose. I removed a whole bunch of them because they were industry blogs or other marketing content for which I could find no indication of a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Generally speaking, for a source to be reliable it has to be published by an organization with a professional editorial staff or other fact-checking apparatus and/or the publisher has to be cited approvingly by other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How did you discern that it was an editorial? USA Today doesn't think so. Lfstevens (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same source? I'm talking about this one. The headline says "our view," the author is the editorial board, lots of the language is opinion-ish, and a note at the bottom says it's an editorial opinion separate from the news staff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. I somehow saw the USA Today link above it, which is from News. The WP:RS section on vendors talks only about pages that are used to sell products. These pages are informational, not promotional. You don't disbelieve a vendor who says "it's raining" just because they're a vendor. Do you find the content itself objectionable? Apparently not or I presume you would have removed it. Lfstevens (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing preventing an industry player from publishing reliable sources. That said the publisher must still have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Editors seeking to have content included bear the burden of establishing verifiability. It has nothing to do with the objectionable-ness of the content. This isn't a "the sky is blue" type of situation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

One of your fv's was over this:
 * The most important factor in the rate of increase was price changes, rather than increasing utilization.The shift to retail clinics and urgent care centers did increase utilization, although at lower unit cost. Increased provision of behavioral healthcare added to utilization.

In fact the source states:
 * "Price, not utilization, is the force behind historical medical cost trend"
 * "The proliferation of convenient ways to get care – such as retail clinics and urgent care centers – has led to higher utilization. "
 * "Inflator: Increased access for behavioral health

I'd sure appreciate some more detail on stuff like this. This is a valid source, so that's not it. It's very time consuming to try and guess what your objection is. Lfstevens (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was frustrated by that source because it doesn't seem clear enough to use for that particular purpose. It doesn't explain what it means by "Inflator." Does that mean increased access led to increased utilization, or increased employer costs? When you click on that tab it doesn't give the answer, which is perplexing. I suspect it meant both but I just don't know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Inflator obviously means something that increases the cost. In the case of behavioral health, it said "access". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable relying on source material that isn't explicit. In addition to what I see as ambiguity around the use of "Inflator," the source also goes back and forth between referring to employer costs and unspecified (total?) costs, making it even more ambiguous. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016
“similar to other unsubidized goods” contains a typo. “unsubidized” should be “unsubsidized”, with the added “s”.

RafBM (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ – See here. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016
The voting record for the House of Representatives is wrong. The voting outcome was 219 (AYES) to 212 (NAYS) - the figures given on the Wikipedia page are 416-0, which is incorrect. The voting record for this bill can be found from the Clerk of the House's Record (link = http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml)

Sladbob1998 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌, the 416-0 is the House vote, your 219-212 is listed further down as the House vote to concur with the Senate amendments. The infobox lists the legislative history of the bill and as such is correct. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that this statement is still incorrect: The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

It should read "voting for it" not "voting against it." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.201.167 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, check the roll call again. 34 Ds and 178 Rs voted against. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)