Talk:American Health Care Act of 2017

Are "employer mandate" and "individual mandate" proper nouns?
At the end of the "Senate bill" section, it says, "The skinny repeal, which was still being drafted on June 27th, allegedly only repeals certain provisions of the ACA - among them the Individual Mandate, requiring that all Americans buy insurance or pay a tax penalty, and parts of the Employer Mandate, which requires employers with greater than 50 employees to pay for health care for their employees." I'm pretty sure that "individual mandate" and "employer mandate" are not proper nouns and should therefore not be capitalized, contrary to how they're currently written; however, I'm not sure, so I'm discussing it here first. Are they proper nouns? PiratePablo (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. They should be hyperlinks, but not capitalized. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Skinny repeal
This hasn't passed yet. If it does, I feel a bunch of the material regarding previous Senate bills will need to be moved or massively reduced in volume. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree. But it will pass in about an hour so I think we can start. Always revert if it doesn't.Casprings (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

New lede sentence.
I can't make a change this large while Casprings is editing; here's my rough proposal:

"The Health Care Freedom Act is a substitute amendment to the American Health Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1628) (which draft Senate amendments have proposed renaming to the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017 or Health Care Freedom Act of 2017),   referred to by the acronyms AHCA or BCRA, is a United States Congress bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.

On May 4, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed the AHCA by a narrow margin of 217 to 213, sending the bill to the Senate for deliberation. The AHCA was passed as a budget reconciliation bill that is part of the 2017 federal budget process. It would repeal the parts of the Affordable Care Act within the scope of the federal budget, including provisions contained within the Internal Revenue Code such as the "individual mandates" (in ), employer mandates (in ) and various taxes ( et. seq.), and also modifications to the federal Medicaid program (in Sections 111-116 and 121). The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the AHCA would increase the number of uninsured people by 23 million over 10 years, but would decrease the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over the same period (about 1%). If enacted, insurance premiums are projected to decrease for younger, healthier, and wealthier people, while older and poorer people would likely see their premiums increase.

Senate Republicans initially approached the AHCA with an unprecedented level of secrecy; a group of 13 Republican Senators drafted the Senate's substitute version in private, raising bipartisan concerns about a lack of transparency. On July 25, 2017, the Senate voted to begin debate on health care, and are discussing various GOP proposals.

The Health Care Freedom Act will eliminate the individual mandate, eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, extends the moratorium on the excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices through 2020, increase the maximum contribution limit to Health Savings Accounts for 2018-2020, allows states to waive pre-existing conditions, defunds Planned Parenthood."


 * Works for me, but I think we can just take out the other names for this thing.Casprings (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this thing might fail... if so, what the hell should the title of the article be?
Watching this currently. They are holding the vote on the movement to send the bill to committee open and working McCain. I think that likely means they don't have the votes. If that is the case and this fails, maybe rename the article something like Health Care Reform Effort of 2017 or something like that? If this dies in a little bit, it won't be the bill names that will be remembered. It will be the process and the general ideas in the bills.Casprings (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, a lot of bill names and a lot of efforts.. that said, I think we should get one name for this failed effort and figure out how we are going to organize the page.Casprings (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of Category:Trump administration controversies

 * Why is this discussion copy pasted from at least 3 more talk pages (Trump Jr., Manaport, Vesselniskaya). I see nothing inhere that proves that the controversy category doesn't belong on the so-called Trumpcare page. The explanation for most of the deletions of the category was that it was added to pages concerning people and not events. That explanation doesn't hold water in this case. That is why I am returning it. Open to debating the issue.....not reading a copy-paste conversation.Radiohist (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you did not read it. You have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously did not read the rules about categories either. It is quite clear that if a category says, "controversy" for example then the article it is listed in must be about a controversy.  It you were to write an article that only talks about controvesy surrounding American Health Care Act of 2017 (and there is plenty of controversy surrounding it) then THAT article would have that category.  But this article is about the proposed law and it is not about the controversy. If you want to write that article and add that category to the new article you create then go ahead. But right now this article is about the proposed law and as such the category does not fit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with including this. The amount of protests over healthcare is certainly, "controversal". Why not include?Casprings (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, the article is about the bill, not just the controversy. If there was an article on the controversies then fine. But that isn't this article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bill is the reason for the controversy.Radiohist (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. Every single bill is opposed by someone, somewhere. If we used your logic, which we don't, then every single bill must be categorized as Obama Administration Controversy or Trump Administration Controversy or Bush Administration Controversy. There are rules for the use of categories and your desire to slap every article about any bill promoted by Trump as a "controversy" violates thoses rules. With your logic every bill promoted by Obama should be categorized as Obama Administration Controversy.  That line of thought is ludicrous and it is not the way that Wikipedia works.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Susan Collins Linked 4 Times In Article.
Senator Susan Collins is linked once in the beginning paragraph and 3 times in the Health Care Freedom Act of 2017 (HCFA) section (4.3.3). The last 3 should be removed to comply with Wikipedia's policy. She is also referred to as "Susan Collins" multiple times in the article instead of simply Collins. The same is applied to Senator Lisa Murkowski in the same section (4.3.3) (although she is referenced twice in the HCFA section). FireSparkling (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC) FireSparkling

"Ameircan Health Care act" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ameircan Health Care act. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)