Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthcare rationing in the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. It may be prudent to revisit this issue in a few months, and move discussion to the article's talk page for the time being. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare rationing in the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not and cannot be a neutral encyclopedia article; it's a polemical attempt to claim that any access to healthcare is equivalent to explicit rationing of healthcare. In response to my earlier concerns, the page creator has made the page more polemical, not less. Note that there are two separate concerns here: the page contents cannot be a neutral article, and the page title cannot be that of a neutral article, unless healthcare rationing were in fact instituted in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The cited sources indicate that healthcare rationing is a reality today in the United States, with 46 million people excluded from insurance coverage based on income, nature of employment, or pre-existing conditions. David Axelrod, David Leonhardt of the New York Times, and several others have indicated that healthcare is rationed in the United States using those words; President Obama has used other words. To deny the existence of rationing is refuted by the facts. Saying our private system does not ration healthcare is a political tool used by conservatives to forward their own arguments regarding healthcare rationing as being the exclusive providence of a government entity, when in fact rationing is enforced by private enterprise. The article includes a variety of quotes from experts in major media indicating this fact. I would be happy to discuss a change of title or further clarify the distinction between end of life decisions and economic healthcare rationing.Farcaster (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- violates WP:NPOV, and probably WP:SOAPBOX as well, and I agree with nominator, that a neutral article is unlikely to ever be based on the current title. Umbralcorax (talk)
 * Delete. The very title of the article already is NPOV, however accurate it may be as a description. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind, NPOV is not a reason to delete an article. That can be improved with editing. What suggestions do others have for a title, as this is a contentious issue? Perhaps "Healthcare rationing debate in the United States"?Farcaster (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's incorrect. WP:NPOV is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia and content forks can rightfully be deleted under WP:DEL if there is a consensus to do so. — Rankiri (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered merging the content to Health care reform debate in the United States, Health care reform in the United States or Health care in the United States? — Rankiri (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. A summary appears in Health care reform debate in the United States and I've added a few wikilinks and "see also" pointers to this article. Several of us have been working on subarticles by major healthcare reform topic area to keep the main article from getting any larger. My thought was once this article is developed further we could add to the health care reform template as a specific article, as this topic will become increasingly critical with time.Farcaster (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article as titled is intrinsically POV. We have Health care in the United States, Health care reform in the United States and Health care reform debate in the United States with much redundancy already. This collection of articles needs pruning, not more spread. Plvekamp (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article just needs some historical perspective. There are already rations in existing schemes such as the Oregon Health Plan and entire books have been written on the subject, one of which I have cited.  A good treatment of the subject will address these, not just the current proposals.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears to me well written and well referenced. Every product and service is rationed by a bureaucrat or by market forces, it is THE principle of economics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - it is well-referenced, but as a POV fork, it probably ought to be smerged back into wherever it can from. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Gavia that this subject is in and of itself polemic, not encyclopedic. Also agree with Plvekamp that there are enough Wiki articles on this subject already. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Your point is unclear. Are you suggesting that all those other articles are fundamentally polemic too?  If the topic is controversial, as it seems to be considered, then WP:NPOV requires that we present all points of view.  If we delete coverage of some polemical positions but not others then this would be bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article could possibly use more books as sources such as Health care politics and policy in America By Kant Patel, Mark E. Rushefsky 3rd Ed. 2006 (ISBN 0765614790) or these other books, but there is no lack of sources from which to construct an encyclopedic article. Article is a good start and it should surely be encouraged not dismissed, especially not for ideological reasons. As these books show, the topic has existed for a long time long before the current health care debate. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.