User talk:Ratio101

Welcome
Hello, Ratio101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Universal health care
I added text which I believe does summarise the nature of the debate in recent weeks and you have deleted it. I think objecting to this on the basis of POV is rather pushing the envelope. It would be more helpful if you could either challenge what you think is wrong (e.g. by requesting a citation) or by moderating the language if you think it is too strong.

The language used in recent weeks has been overblown (such as government control and death panels) and has come from one side and has been inaccurate, though it has been done quite successfully (as witnessed by the Town Hall Meeting howlings). Pretending this isn't happening by deleting reference to it seems unhelpful rather than helpful.

What's more your characterization of Canada's ban on private health insurance for items covered by public insurance as being an objectionable aspect of universal health care is a gross misrepresentation. All the other countries with UHC (of which there are very many) DO allow private medical insurance. The reference did not even refer to UHC! --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)