Template talk:Healthcare reform in the United States

Advocacy
I would hesitate to recommend PDA as an advocacy group for single-payer health care form.

Formally, PDA is not a single-payer reform advocacy group, but a political organization that supports many Democratic Party platforms, some of which are in favor of single-payer, some opposed. Specifically, PDA supports the non-single-payer "public option" that would not involve creating a new public insurance plan anyone could use. Single-payer refers to a public financing program, and while PDA's formational philosophy refers to a support for programs "in the public interest," PDA in fact supports a broad range of public policies, some in the public interest, some not, some supporting Single-Payer, some not.

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-07-22-12-09-53-news.php

http://pdamerica.org/about/what-is-pda.php

Still, many in the PDA leadership see that the "public option" is far from being what it's cracked up to be. http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-07-24-11-48-13-news.php

Single payer
I note that all the reform groups listed on this template support the United States National Health Care Act but that pending reform legislation has twice recently been removed from this template. Given that the bill enjoys substantial popular and congressional support, are there any reasons to exclude it from the template? This template has always had pending reform legislation. Are there any other pending legislative proposals which should be included? I have replaced the deleted groups, restored the longstanding section headers, and replaced the top pending legislative proposal again and ask that editors please discuss the issue here before reverting again. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you discussed the issue, and heard me say that it was in the template, you'd know not to revert on a faulty assumption. Jesanj (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See? Jesanj (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what do you mean? We are discussing it now. Are there any reasons to exclude? Dualus (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been hours so I replaced it. Dualus (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not excluded; it is in the legislation section. Click show. Jesanj (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you created a new section called "Failed proposals" a few days ago. But according to Thomas H.R. 676 is still pending. I can find no reliable source saying it failed, but many sources saying it is still pending.  So I am reverting again. Dualus (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we could remove the failed part if no sources say it is failed. Why does it belong at the top of the template? There isn't any other proposed legislation up there. I think it is undue to put it at the top. Jesanj (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gets two lines at the top, even though it has been enacted and is therefore the status quo, instead of a pending reform. Since the box is about reform and not the status quo, I propose to move the pending legislation which is supported by all of the advocacy organizations in the template to the top.  Are there any reasons not to? Dualus (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up the advocacy section. It should go in my opinion. It is an example of cherry-picked organizations, picked in a process of template creep. Why should we promote one piece of proposed legislation to the top of this template? Why not? Because it's inherently undue in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know of other healthcare advocacy groups in the U.S. which aren't listed? The list is within the scope of the template. Dualus (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there was no answer for several days to that, and no effort to address the seven sources above, I have replaced the deleted groups, restored the longstanding section headings, and replaced the top pending proposal. Dualus (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In a battle or war, we list both sides. Equal opportunity. So should those who oppose it be listed? It seems to trivialize the articles. Legislation is passed by Congress, signed by the President. Why should "advocacy groups" be separately listed except, maybe under a "lobbyist" subsection in the legislation. I support it. Should I be listed. "No, I don't have an article." How about all the legislators who supported it, and who, BTW, should have articles. Should they be listed individually? Why not? Their actual votes are surely more important than "advocacy groups." Student7 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it you support this edit then. Jesanj (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about this compromise? Dualus (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a fan. I think it inappropriately elevated a proposal to the top and inappropriately started a list of a list. Jesanj (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent version lists the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act three times: twice at the top and once in legislation. Why did you conflate the enacted and superceded legislation into one section again? Looking at the history of this template, it has usually had recent and pending reforms in the default visible location. Therefore I am reverting, again. How are we going to reach a compromise on this? What are your motivations and goals for this template? Dualus (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would be productive if I discussed making changes to this template with you. Jesanj (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the changes made most recently were not addressed in the message above, I propose to replace the template with the United States National Health Care Act because it has traditionally been on this template, is supported by all known US healthcare reform organizations, saves both the most lives and the most money,, enjoys the most popular support, and has the most congressional cosponsors of any pending reform bill. Dualus (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What does your proposal to replace mean? That proposal is already in the template. It's lonely though, it's the only proposal we list, so that's undue as it is. Those sound like great reasons to promote the bill, but we don't promote things on Wikipedia. It's something we're not. The real reform is the recent laws that passed. The current revision reflects their importance appropriately. Jesanj (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is about reform. It has always had proposed legislation and reform advocacy groups in it. Are there any other legislative proposals pending? It enjoys massive popular support, the most cosponsors, and we do report the facts. It is not promotion to list the facts about healthcare reform. Unless you can sufficiently address these issues, I intend to revert your deletions. Dualus (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just dropped by to mention that talk pages are generally intended to be used only for discussing the relevant merits of proposed content or other subject matter regarding the article or project the talk page is attached to, and attempting to reach a consensus among multiple editors regarding that proposed content or other subject matter.
 * If you wish to let another editor know that you plan to engage him in an edit-war, that user's talk page might be a more fitting place for such a message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus was blocked (indefinitely). I removed their RFC with this edit. Jesanj (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I note that all the reform groups listed on this template support the United States National Health Care Act but that pending reform legislation has twice recently been removed from this template. Given that the bill enjoys substantial popular and congressional support, are there any reasons to exclude it from the template? This template has always had pending reform legislation. Are there any other pending legislative proposals which should be included? I have replaced the deleted groups, restored the longstanding section headers, and replaced the top pending legislative proposal again and ask that editors please discuss the issue here before reverting again. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism
I would recommend changing the image on the series template, since the current one is not a symbol of healthcare, and confused with the Rod of Asclepius. notadev (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)