Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Kikodawgzzz's edit

Kikodawgzzz (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted text that lists what this act is not, rather than what it is, has included original research as to the "main thrust" of the act, and set the "public option" up as a struggle between Obama advocates and "free-market health care" advocates. In my opinion, none of these assertions are within policy, and have therefore removed them. Is there consensus that I am incorrect?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked several areas of Wikipedia to debate the merits of my intro changes with me, but none has; instead, many seem to simply engage in wp:edit-warring. I've even been "accused" of potentially "outing" someone who might be in the employ of the private health insurance companies (when did such "outing" actually become a bad thing?). So I'd really appreciate some honest, mature discussion about this here. Yes, I know there are many who disagree with the idea that the bill's struggle should be framed in any particular way at all. But events really did go down in certain ways, and nothing I wrote is objectively false information, albeit the tone is probably quite weighted. But instead of deleting and suppressing what's written, why don't we work together to basically get across the same information, but in a possibly less-weighted fashion? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm... pretty much since always. COI investigations are not a license to speculate about other editor's identity and affiliations. Also, you keep saying that you want to discuss instead of edit warring, but then you just complain about other people not discussing, instead of explaining why your edits were good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My edits are good because they lay out what actually objectively happened; others' reverts are bad because they remove that information on what happened on "NPOV" grounds. I am all for NPOV -- if I weren't, I wouldn't kid myself that Wikipedia is the place for me -- but NPOV doesn't mean censoring what happened and making what happened "neutral". It wasn't. It was the private health insurance companies WINNING, and the rest of us losing out. And the people of the world need to know that. These days we get a lot of Europeans going "Well, didn't Obama pass universal health care?" and it's that kind of presumption that is so frustrating, because no, he didn't, and no, in fact the private health insurances didn't lose, and no, in fact the people didn't win. Wikipedia has to reflect what actually happened. Otherwise it's not the truth. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph of mine that is repeatedly removed

...is done so on the basis of the language being NPOV, but I argue here and elsewhere that this is not the case. In my view, it is simply fleshing out what really happened. What do others think-- and how would others include the same information but have it be NPOV? I wouldn't want the only choice to always be just to purge that paragraph; I would appreciate seeing someone re-writing it so that it can be NPOV according to Wikipedia while still getting across the core truth of what actually happened in the lead-up-to and actioning of this bill. Proposals? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your arguments as to why your paragraph should be included in the article, but ultimately it does not maintain a NPOV. Also, it is apparent that original research composes significant portions. Using terms such as "main thrust" points to research that you have formulated on your own. Also "being blasted as socialism" is not appropriate academic terminology. Stating that the act is not "National Health Insurance" is an opinion, not a fact. If you can re-word your paragraph so it meets Wikipedia's NPOV standards, then that would be great and should be included in the article. Please consult the act (http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf) for all salient information. Thank you for your help. Myownworst (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, your paragraph best fits in the related article about health insurance exchanges, and that is probably where it should stay, as this article gives overall information about the act, while the article on the exchanges is where specifics, like your information, should be discussed/debated. Myownworst (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Myownworst's stipulation that "Stating that the act is not "National Health Insurance" is an opinion, not a fact" is simply not true. If you look at any accepted definition of National Health Insurance or any of its derivatives such as the National Health Service, especially here on Wikipedia, you will find that the core definition of any National Health Insurance is that the insurance is available to every citizen of that nation regardless of any other status, and is a cradle-to-grave concept, paid for nominally through the existing tax system, similar to citizen tax payments that sustain a fire department, a police force, and sometimes the armed forces. Neither a fire department nor a police force is used all the time by everybody, but everybody pays for it all of the time so that it can be utilized by those who need it when they need it. National Health of any type worldwide does indeed appear to function this way, or mostly this way, when taken on a fundamental-definition level. Therefore, "Stating that the act is not "National Health Insurance" is an opinion, not a fact" is just because Myownworst wants it to be an opinion and not a fact. Probably because s/he disapproves of the truth of the matter that PPACA isn't National Health, being exposed. S/he probably wants the U.S. population to continue falsely believing that PPACA is some form of National Health. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I think this line perfectly sums up why your "this is not National Health Insurance" assertion is an opinion - 'S/he probably wants the U.S. population to continue falsely believing that PPACA is some form of National Health' - but I've stated why I believe your paragraph should be excluded from the article, so I believe it would be left for other editors to include their views as to why it ought to be left out. Myownworst (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1099s Again

There's a lot of talk of the new 1099 reporting requirements recently. Seems like we should expand this section. From what I've read, the real change right now is that if you spend more than $600 someplace, and it isn't exempted on the 1099 IRS form, you submit a 1099. However, the IRS can change what is/is not exempted before 2012. Seems like this section should be given a little more love :) desk003 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have talked to local IRS about it. They said the 1099 will only need to be issued for business related payments, so this change only affects companies, not individuals. Under the existing law, businesses already required to issue the Form 1099 to individuals who provided services or property to a business, so PPACA expands this requirement to companies also. There is number of exceptions, for example: payments for retail merchandise, telephone, freight, storage, payments of rent to real estate agents are excepted. They also said that IRS really happy about this change, because a lot of income used to go unreported by dishonest companies, giving them unfair advantage over the good ones. Innab (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Question: "Retail merchandise" Does this include items like office supplies, as in Business A buys staples from Business B (Business A is not reselling the staples, just using them), does Business A have to submit a 1099 to business B? Or does this only include merchandise that is to be sold by Business A? If you read around, most websites are reporting it like EVERYTHING over $600 gets a 1099, however that isn't how I read it. At least currently (unless the IRS changes the exceptions) there are exceptions that most of these sites are saying will be 1099-MISC'd. (Okay, $600 is one hell of a lot of staples, but you get the idea.) It seems like this should be expanded to say that (at least in my reading) the IRS could change the exceptions before this actually becomes active, too. Cameron Conner (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For 1099 purposes merchandise are the good sold when no service, such as installation, training, technical support, customizing, etc., is included in the purchase. So I think staples are definetely a retail merchandise. Currently when business purchase a merchandise from individual (such as hand-made craft), they do not have to file 1099. See this article: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_adviser/20040602a1.asp Innab (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please leave details about 1099 because there are a lot of confused folks there. Innab (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This has diddly sqat to do with health care reform.. it is a tax avoidance measure pure and simple. Your complex text made me completely puzzled until I investigated it im more depth and even then it was still puzzling what it had to do with health reform. So no, I am not going to leave it alone. My edit was perfectly sound. There is a separate WP article on IS forms so I suggest that you put the extra information there. If the link conveys the wrong information then add a link with the right information to that article. My summary was perfectly accurate as far as I can see. All you have done is to add back the mystery...--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is pure tax avoidance measure. I think it is one of these "special deals" they had to put into bill to balance the budget. Anyway, I like your version, just want to add to it about the exceptions, because some people think every payment over 600$ is now reportable to IRS. :-) Innab (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The section _APPEARS_ to be incorrect. The last sentence seems to suggest that purchase of goods will continue to be exempt. The "Source" is a FY2011 1099 form. The two other sources seem to indicate that the purchase of goods will NOT be exempt when the provision takes effect. My accountant has indicated the same thing.

Someone should change it. Brotherchristian (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Effective June 21, 2010

The part about the pre-existing condition pool is not neutral. It mentions how this is a temporary solution in this law but a permanent Republican idea. It is worded in a very misleading way. Myownworst (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue was looked at by politifact.com in some detail when it investigated Pelosi's claim that "The Democrats' health care bills would end "the denial of ... coverage to those who have a pre-existing condition," while the Republican bill would not." which they found to be "mostly true"

In this piece, Politifact described the a replacement amendment bill put forward by the then House Republican leader John Boehner. It said

"The bill in question is an amendment offered by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that was voted down along party lines shortly before the Democratic bill passed. This measure explicitly targets the issue of pre-existing conditions -- in fact, in the bill's preamble, it says the purpose of the act "is to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage (especially for individuals with pre-existing conditions). However, it goes about it in a very different way from the Democratic bill -- and that led our sources to vary widely in their assessments of Pelosi's claim. Rather than outlawing such denials by insurance companies, the Republican bill would instead make sure that those with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage -- somewhere. It would do this by creating -- here's that phrase again -- "high-risk pools." These pools would guarantee those with pre-existing conditions an offer of coverage. The Republican bill would also cap the premiums charged by such pools and provide funding to help states manage them."

In what way is this misleading?¨06:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is misleading because it is an unrelated fact that does not belong in that portion of the article and not a provision from the law. Please consult the actual law for definite provisions. Myownworst (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Myownworst (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Deficit impact

ThinkEnemies, what do you say we just leave it as it is? Dumaka (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments should be removed as it is speculation and opinion from a bias man. Dumaka (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence uses the word "opine". I think readers around here are intelligent enough to know what that means. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to remove speculation and replace it with hard numbers where possible? In other words, why not say under assumption x,y,z it saves $$$, and under assumption a,b,c it costs $$$. Since listing every combination of assumptions is impractical we could rely on a selection of the most prevalent estimates from differing viewpoints. This provides the reader with the facts and lets them decide how to interpret them. At the very least only providing quoted costs/savings from sources that also cite their list of assumptions would ensure these numbers have context and could also provide readers with a sense of the complicated issues underlying the disagreement. Sqrlmonger (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the big talking points of the bill and I think the section should only include the facts, not some opinionated bias. It currently reads out of point of view.T This is supposed to be an encylopedia of facts not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.255.187 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Democratic-controlled Congress

The correct usage of the adjective is Democratic-controlled-Congress, not "Democrat-controlled". One is the correct reference, the other is an epithet. I don't bother with these minute slights usually, but Wikipedia should use correct references. As news results show(1,2), the more popular reference is 'Democratic' by a huge margin. Dave Dial (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I (as is probably obvious) disagree with your analysis. You are conflating two issues, one political and one grammatical. Politically, "Democrat Party" is used pejoratively, I would assume (without reading the article, because I'm not all that interested) in order to imply the party is not truly democratic (small "d") or something like that. Grammatically, "[D/d]emocratic" (caps or not) is an adjective; it is neither a noun nor an adverb so cannot properly be used as a modifier for the verb "controlled". I did eventually do a Google search, and found uses of both variations in reputable (i.e. not right-wing birther blogs) publications, but then again modern journalism isn't exactly a model of grammatical correctness. So what we appear to have is a version ("Democrat-controlled Congress") which had been stable for a while:

• being changed by a new editor pointing out correctly that "Democratic" is the right adjective (which would be controlling if an adjective was appropriate)
• being re-framed by me to be grammatically correct while still using "Democratic"
• being restored to "Democrat-controlled Congress" by a long time editor of the anti-Republican persuasion with a comment indicating (s)he believed that to be the correct formulation
• being changed again without explanation by an anon IP
• being reverted by me, followed by a mini-war

I still favor rewording the sentence to avoid the problem, but I admit my first attempt was a bit lacking. OTOH, there is no over-riding reason to change the previous stable version,since "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Democratic" is the correct adjective; "democrat" is acceptable only as a noun. This is a little confusing admitedly because Republican is both a noun and an adjective, but it's by no means a new distinction. This is a longstanding issue, and there is a settled consensus that Democratic is the proper adjectival use. There is even a wikipedia article devoted to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase) Peacewashlove (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I reread what you said Fat and Happy, and I see that you're saying that in a "BLANK-controlled" construction, BLANK should be a noun not an adjective. I'm not a grammar expert but would you say, "We are now flying through French-controlled airspace" or "We are now flying through France-controlled airspace"? To my ear, you'd say French-controlled. Similarly, "Was this shirt American-made?" vs. "America-made" sounds better with the former to me. I think Democratic-controlled is grammatically correct, but if you want to change it to Democratic Party-controlled that's fine with me too. Democrat-controlled is a (minor) epithet, though, and should be avoided. Peacewashlove (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I'm no grammar expert, but perhaps this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives) shows examples of similar adjective-verb compound adjective constructions:

"The following compound adjectives are always hyphenated when they are not written as one word: An adjective preceding a noun to which -d or -ed has been added as a past-participle construction, used before a noun:

"loud-mouthed hooligan"

"middle-aged lady"

"rose-tinted glasses"

Hope that helps! Peacewashlove (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I was trying to get the discussion going on the talk page, so we don't keep having to change back and forth, in good faith. I believe all the editors involved are trying to make the article better. But I am aware of the Democrat/Democratic irritation, having been scolded(and my comment hidden) before on a Democratic website. In any case, hopefully the wording everyone agrees with(and is correct) can be stable in the article. Thanks to both of you for not taking offense to the changes. Dave Dial (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole passage in which the contested wording appears is a digression. If the objective fact sought to be conveyed by "controlled" is that there were more Democrats than Republicans in Congress at the time, the vote totals establish that. I checked two other major bills, the USA PATRIOT Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Neither of those Wikipedia articles clutters the introductory section with commentary about who allegedly controlled Congress.

Thus, we can avoid the whole "Democrat" versus "Democratic" battle with a reworded passage that gives information similar to what's found in the introductory sections of comparable articles: key dates, votes, and a brief statement of what the bill was about.

If we were to get into describing the lay of the political land, I would object to saying "controlled", as noted in my ES. If the Senate had been under Democratic control, then a provision (the public option) on which the Democratic presidential candidate had successfully campaigned, and which had the support of the Democratic leadership and most of the Democratic Senators, would have been enacted. It wasn't enacted, because the threat of a Republican filibuster meant that: (1) in 2009, Lieberman or any lone conservative Democrat could block action; and (2) after Scott Brown's election, the Democrats in the Senate, even with Lieberman, couldn't do anything on this subject except what they could squeeze through the needle's eye of the reconciliation rule. Go tell Harry Reid that he "controlled" the Senate and hear him laugh. JamesMLane t c 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with this edit. To me, it makes a tighter intro section.

However, I do not endorse your logic that the 111th Congress was not "Democratic-controlled," and the intro to this article is certainly not the place to argue that point. This talk page is probably not the place to argue it either, but the Senate Majority Leader does control what legislation is brought to the Senate floor. The PPACA was passed by the full Senate Democratic Caucus (including 2 independents), and no Republican members. The fact that the public option may have had majority support in the Senate is not really relevant here. Not all Senate Democrats supported the public option, as became evident in 2009-10. Peacewashlove (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that this talk page isn't the right place to argue about "controlled". There may be no right place anywhere to argue about it. There's not much point to arguing about whether the Democrats' undeniable (but not unlimited) power in the last Congress rose to the level of "controlled" -- it doesn't matter whether we call their cup half-full or half-empty. I'm glad you're fine with the edit and we can move on. JamesMLane t c 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. To -ic or not to -ic aside, I think it's a significant improvement to the lead. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about the semantics of one word, how about we discuss shortening this article. I think most of us can agree that it has become way too long, and will probably just become longer unless something is done soon. Myownworst (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Length of Article

The length of the article is 114 kilobytes long. As a rule of thumb according to Wikipedia's suggestion on article length, articles <100 KB long should be separated into other articles. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Myownworst (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is getting long. I took out some of the history of the legislation (perhaps that should go to health care reform in the United States?) and repetition in the section on legal challenges. Many of the challenges seem basically on the same grounds so I merged the text and kept the references. This does unforunateöy drop the names of the states, but perhaps they could be added as a note in a reference. I don't believe that I have merged challenges based on other reasons, but if I have I apologize. I think there are just 2 or 3 legal bases being cited right now. The history of the challenges (which state challenged when is not terribly revealing and it was becoming repetitive so I tried as much as possible to get that out. If someone else could re-arrange it to show what the main challenged are that would be helpful. If I had the time I'd move on to the court decisions, which I feel sure could be merged with the legal challenges section.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the information into the Provisions section. I would like to change some of the wording and make it sound more academic if possible. Some of the sentences run a bit long and the information in them could be condensed. Also, I think some words could be cut out altogether. Myownworst (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not known for using few words. Go ahead! I agree its getting too long. There is so much in there, its hard to know where to stop. The stuff on getting rid of pay for service is actually going to be quite important (all the main voices say so anyway) as is team based working and the patient centered home thingy (I forget the proper term). These and an integrated Health IT will be transformative if they come to pass. When it works, it is fantastic. Hauskalainen (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds great. I start the semester on Tuesday, and it's going to be a busy one, but I will try my hardest to edit relevant parts as best as possible. While I'd like to print out the entire statute and dissect it like that (it would be good practice for me)...but that's not really feasible =). So please, to everyone editing this article, let's leave out original research and personal viewpoints. As I said before, unraveling the actual act is beyond boring, but is a really great source for information. Myownworst (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Challenges

Should a new article be created for constitutional/legal challenges of the law? I think it seems logical to make this into its own article, as it is significant enough to be its own. Myownworst (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is bound to be a lot of news and information regarding constitutional challenges to this law (there already is), Judge Vinson's decision is an example. A well-written and well-source separate article is will likely prove useful. But the separate article should probably not be limited to constitutional challenges (i.e. judicial review); it should include legislative challenges (state and federal) as well. If a separate article is created, "executive summary" paragraphs should be included in this article to contrast the substance and intent of the Act, along with Wikipedia links to the Challenges article. 199.2.126.188 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely one or more of the current challenges will eventually end up at the Supreme Court. Due to the Supremacy Clause, the same is likely for any state legislation attempting to counteract provisions of the law. At that time, an article on the case(s) involved would probably be appropriate, but right now a separate article can't contain much more than (irrelevant) contrasting opinions from pundits and "experts", of which there are already enough in the current article. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: Should the article's title include "(United States)"?

Maybe this is nit-picky, maybe not, but should the article's title include "(United States)" since this is a U.S. law? I suggest the following revised Wikipedia article title:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (United States)

199.2.126.188 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless another law shows up with that title, there's no reason to disambiguate it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

State-controlled option

The following point:

Employed individuals who pay more than 9.5% of their income on health insurance premiums will be permitted to purchase insurance policies from a state-controlled health insurance option

was supported by a dead link and I'm pretty sure it's phony. I tried to find this in the actual bill but there's nothing, nor do any sources mention it aside from those that parrot Wikipedia. —Designate (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It could possibly be phrased more clearly, but the essence of the sentence seems correct. The on-line URL for a published newspaper story having gone dead is not a reason to delete the cite and {{fact}}-tag the statement. As far as other sources, while I suppose we can't assume anything in the wake of the Jayson Blair incident, I don't think The New York Times has a reputation as a Wiki mirror site. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

'Obamacare'

Consider, i.e. the word "Redskin." It does not redirect to 'Native American' or 'American Indian', but rather discusses the history of how the word was used over time.

The word 'Obamacare' is, similarly, a phenomenon in its own right. An article discussing its coinage attempts to use it in both negative and positive senses, and its current state of being an obvious pejorative, would seem to be in order. Aldenrw (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting idea....it would be full of examples of how people use the word to mean something that is generally absent from the bill....but I could see how some people would get upset by the politicization potential of such an article. It could easily become a fighting ground.... On balance I am inclined to reject the idea.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I support Hauskalainen, - the term "Obamacare" is not encyclopedic enough to use it in the header of the article. However, we already have mentioning of it in the "Public opinions and views" section, so it appropriate there. Innab (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually personally support the healthcare bill, so this shouldn't be construed as a political pitch - but I think that "Obamacare" should be added to the colloquial names section along with the parenthetical "(pejorative)." I don't like it, but the fact remains that it is one of the most commonly-heard names for the bill in media stories about it, admittedly usually in the context of a Republican opponent of the bill using it. In any case, I think that the widespread use of the pejorative nickname necessitates that it be mentioned along with the other colloquial names. Niremetal (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Obamacare redirects here... if anyone was looking for the new law, this is the way they'll find it. I'm not so sure that WP should use it but given the way that health care reform in Canada and the UK considerably raised the historical profile of the people associated with pushing the reform in a very positive way, perhaps the president ought not to be too worried about the label.Hauskalainen (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Obamacare is the commonly used name for the health bill. It may not be the technical name, but it is the name it is mostly commonly referred to. I have heard nobody - except maybe Obama and a few politicans - refer to it as the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'. Therefore I have included this to help people know what this is referring to. When I first read the term 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act', I had no idea what they were referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.58.38 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Obamacare is the [most] commonly used name for the health bill." According to what study? Citation needed. 75.45.238.87 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OC Break 1

The subheading entitled "The 'ObamaCare' Nickname" was created because this nickname continues to be a point of contention in discussion about the law. Supporters of the law do not regard the nickname as neutral (citations given).

Also, the subheading as I've written it provides concrete reasons for negative perception of this nickname by those who favor the law:

1. The "Hillary Care" correlation (valid citations given)

2. Google AdWords purchase of the nickname by HHS (again, citation given; or Google it if you don't believe me)

3. Most important, the nickname removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent. In other words, the real title of the law--Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--tells the reader what the law is intended to do ("patient protection"; "affordable care") whereas the nickname obfuscates this intent.

Folks, the US is a free country. It's absolutely okay to obfuscate this intent; call it "ObamaCare," "YourMamaCare," or "KillYourNanaCare." This subheading was simply added to this article because the nickname is not a neutral term. Non-neutral is not "illegal"; it just means "editorial," and discussion between supporters and opponents stops when such language is used (the Montana legislature clip I provided is but only one example to this effect).

"ObamaCare" is not the name of the law. Regardless of how ubiquitous the nickname is, proffering it as neutral is inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. Citation guidelines are necessary because users of this nickname seem to mistake (seriously?) ubiquitousness with consensus. The guidelines I use only refer to the Wikipedia article itself and the official hhs site. Todd.st (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to only your last point, It is not Wikipedia's job to explain to readers how they should refer to the subject of an article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No joke, please indicate where I might find Wikipedia's policy against citation guidelines. Todd.st (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you have removed factual and attributed information from the article (the numbered bullets I've listed above). Why? Todd.st (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From your numbered bullets above:

1. The "Hillary Care" correlation (valid citations given)

The citations had nothing to do with the claim. They used the term "HillaryCare". They did not assert that "Obamacare" is considered pejorative because of it's similarity to the earlier term. Although you didn't include this in your bullets, the same concern applies to the New York Times article originally referenced in the first sentence – use of the term in that article neither asserts nor establishes widespread use of the term. The Politico article from the Google paragraph, on the other hand, does say the term is widely used, so is a better source for the clause.

2. Google AdWords purchase of the nickname by HHS (again, citation given; or Google it if you don't believe me)

What's the problem? The Google AdWords portion was edited a bit for clarity, the original cite was retained, and internal links were added. The cited article did not say the official site risks being lost, and there is no need to include an inline link to the official site, which is already the first listing in the "External Links" section.

3. Most important, the nickname removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent. In other words, the real title of the law--Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--tells the reader what the law is intended to do ("patient protection"; "affordable care") whereas the nickname obfuscates this intent.

This is obviously true; it's a trait of nicknames in general to supplant the real name of the person or thing being referred to. Technically, PPACA in stand-alone mode does the same unless one looks further. But there were no cites provided saying nicknaming, in general or in the specific case, is pejorative for this reason alone.

Fat&Happy (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy:

(the NY Times link is the only remnant of the original blurb on this subject; I kept it out of courtesy. Feel free to remove it, though. The ObamaCare nickname sees widespread usage; I think we can both agree on that)

1. "HillaryCare" is a nickname for the failed Clinton health care plan of 1993. Both citations provided were written in clear opposition to the Affordable Care Act when is was a bill; linking it to a failed health care initiative--even by inclusion in the same title--is pejorative.

2. The Google Ads edit is fine with exception of removing the Politico footnote; Bill Smith's article makes a very important statement: "'ObamaCare' -- coined and used largely by detractors of the plan -- is in wide circulation. A search for the term on Google yields 2.5 million results.'"

3. What? I just stated this fact. The nickname for this law removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent. The drafters of the bill did not call it "ObamaCare," so why would you? I cited four examples of this law's supporters disagreeing--vehemently--with use of the nickname, so why would you think it's non-pejorative?

The accurate, neutral name of the law is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" or the "PPACA" or "The Affordable Care Act." Why use the nickname unless you intend to be provocative? Todd.st (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On points 1 and 3, you really need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. On point 2, I haven't looked back the change history, but I don't think the "2.5 million results" or "coined by detractors" comments were in things I deleted or rewrote – I at least know I didn't remove them on purpose, though I might have if an entire sentence seemed inappropriate or something. And you (note I mean this as a word of direct address) should be careful in the use of the word "you" if you mean "one" or "someone" – "I" do not use the word, whether to be provocative or not, and "I" never said it's not a pejorative... Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy:

1. Please stop changing the subject. The two works I cited did indeed associate the failed Clinton health care plan of 1993 ("Hillary Care") with the Affordable Care Act. Both works did not utilize this association in any unclear terms; they were opposition pieces to the Affordable Care Act when it was in bill form, and they hardly represent original research or inappropriate attribution.

2. The link to the Politico article is gone; yes, it is important. When Bill Smith says that the nickname "ObamaCare" was coined largely by detractors of the plan, it's important.

3. The nickname for this law removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent; this is a statement of fact, not original research. In other words, the real name of the law describes--on the surface--what the law claims to do ("patient protection"; "affordable care"); the nickname obfuscates this. I am not saying the nickname is "evil" or that people can't use it; it's just not neutral and shouldn't be represented as such.

Again, this subheading was written because supporters of the law currently do not consider the "ObamaCare" nickname to be neutral. I provided accurate and verifiable information to this effect, yet all of the reasons why supporters disfavor the nickname were removed (the only thing kept was the ObamaCare subheading itself).

Fat&Happy, I did not use "you" as an attack; truly, if you personally do not use the nickname, why are you posting to this discussion? Todd.st (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1. This is original research.
2. Bill Smith's opinion is...just that, his opinion, but his opinion does not imply fact.
3. This is original research.

In general the last re-write that you provided was in violation of NPOV. It read like the HHS position on the use of the word Obamacare, and was largely synthesis of several sources to prove/defend the government position. The current version is very neutral. It makes the primary points you illustrated (being used as a prejorative, and the HHS using google to get in front of the term). The current version also doesn't sound like WP is taking a position on the use of the term. In the grand scheme there is nothing that you or the HHS can do now. This will forever be known as Obamacare, just like Reagonomics, Hillary Care, The Bush Tax Cuts, FDR's New Deal.....ect. Ironically, if public perception of this was really high supporters of the bill would be parading the use of the term. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Todd:
1. I'm not changing the subject. The problem appears to be in your failure to understand what the subject actually is. The subject is not whether the term "Obamacare" is insulting, complimentary, or completely neutral. The subject is what content can be added to the encyclopedia according to Wikipedia's rules. Neither of the two works you cited say:

• the term "HillaryCare" is pejorative,
• the term "Obamacare" is pejorative, or,
• the term "Obamacare" is viewed as being pejorative because of its similarity to the term "HillaryCare".

Therefore, any assertion of the last point based on the works is pure original research according to Wikipedia policies, no matter how obvious you may consider the connection to be.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about. I presume you mean Ben Smith; that article is still cited. In fact, it is now cited in two places instead of the one place you originally used it. Not only that, the link now points to the actual Politico article, rather than a "page not found" error message as your originally posted version did.

3. Again, there is no source cited to establish that use of a nickname that does not incorporate the actual name is necessarily pejorative. It might be possible to make a case that "Obamacare" is not appropriate usage because of the omission of certain keywords, but again that would need to be based on a reliable source saying so, not your intuitive observation. Maybe if you want to make that case, you could start by reading the most recent link I added from Kaiser Health News; while I don't think it says exactly what you want, it seems to at least broach the subject... Fat&Happy (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy:

The subject of this subheading has only ever been the following: that the nickname "ObamaCare" is not currently considered neutral by supporters of the law.

1. Thanks for the guidance on this one. The citations will be changed. The sentence should probably stay the same unless you think otherwise:

"One reason the nickname is regarded as non-neutral concerns connections drawn—before the bill was passed—between it and the failed Clinton health care plan of 1993, coined 'Hillary Care.'"

Citations (not in the proper format yet):

The National Review Article that states "Americans wisely rejected HillaryCare. ObamaCare is the same poison, different bottle."

This article calls both "ObamaCare" and "HillaryCare" poison. I shouldn't have to cite an article calling the terms "pejorative." I'm citing an article that calls both plans "poison."

Stop saying 'Obamacare­'! Like "Hillaryca­re" it's derogatory

This post is a supporter of the law who considers both terms derogatory.

2. Thank you for returning the citation. With all the smoke, I'm lucky I remembered "Smith."

3. The nickname for this law removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent. I am citing the actual name of the law. I'm not offering a novel observation on someone's interpretation of the name. Todd.st (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Kaiser Health News link does say the nickname is pejorative; thanks for putting it up. Todd.st (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OC Break 2

Hi Arzel:

1. How is this original research? I've stated twice already how it is not. Here's the original sentence for the record, because I'm starting to forget it:

"One reason the nickname is regarded as non-neutral concerns connections drawn—before the bill was passed—between it and the failed Clinton health care plan of 1993, coined 'Hillary Care.'"

For the third time, both works cited for this sentence were written in clear opposition to the Affordable Care Act when is was a bill; connecting it to a failed health care initiative is not neutral.

2. I was citing Bill Smith's email conversation with HHS. His conclusion--that "ObamaCare" was coined largely by detractors of the plan-- was verifiable before the link was deleted.

3. The nickname for this law removes the actual title's summary explanation of the law's intent. I am citing the actual name of the law; how is this original research?

Arzel, I am not trying to get rid of the nickname. This subheading is not about getting rid of the nickname. Everyone, use the nickname as much as it pleases you. The last re-write I provided only details how this nickname is not neutral.

The present version of the article is still not neutral because it removes substantiated and verifiable reasons for rejection of the nickname by current supporters of the law.

The name of the law on the HHS site is "The Affordable Care Act." HHS is not "taking a position"; that's the name of the law. Todd.st (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Todd,

1. You saying it is not OR does not make it not OR. Your connection is not needed, the fact that supporters view the term as a perjorative pretty much confirms that they don't think it is neutral.
2. Bill Smith's opinion is not relevant. If you are going to make a factual statement you need a verified source reporting that the HHS says that the term was coined by detractors. Even then I don't even know if that assertion is correct. It has been pretty common for major initiatives to have the name of the president tacked onto them.
3. Who cares? The article is the name of the bill, why do you need a section that states the obvious?

Finally, I don't really see the big deal in making sure that it says that the name is not neutral. The section implies that supporters don't think it is neutral. Perhaps it might help if you better explained what point it is that you are trying to get across. On a side note, if you add ":'s" before your comments you can indent the talk and make it easier to follow. You can do the same with numbers like this "::#" The numbers will follow correctly if you don't put a blank line between sections. Arzel (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arzel:

1. I changed the citations and asked for Fat&Happy's opinion; I would certainly like yours.

2. I had the name wrong; the author is "Ben Smith." The link has been restored; I believe Fat&Happy did it. I'm not doing any more edits without a consensus because I received a notice today for "edit warring" from SarekOfVulcan. The article is important due to the fact that it is the earliest report of HHS securing the "ObamaCare" adword.

3. I'm not trying to be funny here: The actual name of the law does not indicate that the law will build a Death Star, invest in cold fusion, or provide for a US invasion of Canada. The actual name of the law indicates summarily that it will "protect patients." Using the nickname robs the law of this indication. Whether or not the law actually protects patients is up for debate. I'm only saying the summary indication in the actual name disappears with the nickname, so using the nickname is provocative. I'm citing the actual name of the law. How do the words "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" indicate something other than a claim that the act will protect patients?

I believe it's bad style for this subheading to say supporters of the law resent the nickname and simply leave it at that. Why do they resent the nickname? Attributable reasons for this resentment can only serve the entire article's veracity.

Many thanks for the formatting instruction. Todd.st (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks:

Can someone tell me why the subheading was removed? I put it back. The nickname remains a serious point of contention in discussion about the law. Todd.st (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody:

I added a sentence because the one before it includes an understanding that "ObamaCare" might be a term used by the HHS.

This is my sentence:

The HHS site only uses the actual name of the law or the following abbreviation: "The Affordable Care Act."

Again, this is not "taking a position." The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. The nickname may be ubiquitous, but it's not used by the people running the program. Todd.st (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

1. Why did you remove this subheading? The nickname is a serious point of contention in discussion about the law.

2. How is the HHS citation irrelevant? The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. The nickname may be ubiquitous, but it's not used by the people running the program.

I'm putting the subheading and the sentence back. Arzel and Fat&Happy explain their changes on the article's discussion page; why won't you? Todd.st (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, three people have reverted your change, and you're still trying to make it. You really want an edit warring block that much? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

Of course I don't want blocked. I only re-added the subheading once.

1. How can you say the subheading is not necessary? The nickname is a serious point of contention.

2. How is the HHS citation irrelevant? Todd.st (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Because we already know what the name of the act is, we don't need to say what one site or another happens to call it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

1. The nickname is a serious point of contention. Why was the subheading removed?

2. How is the HHS citation irrelevant?

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. Which one of these questions did you answer? Todd.st (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks:

I've put the subheading, the HHS sentence, and the HillaryCare sentence back; please, before or after you remove them, discuss your edits on this page. I can't collaborate with people who only say things to the effect of "we don't need this" or "this is irrelevant"; that's not discussion--that's dismissal (way to welcome the noob').

1. The ObamaCare nickname is a distinct point of contention in current discussion of the law (the Montana legislature came to a screeching halt when the nickname was uttered). If you disagree with this statement, please discuss it.

2. Please check the HillaryCare citation before deleting the entire sentence and post why you feel it needs deleted.

3. At least two other editors helped with the sentence describing HHS and the Google Adword "ObamaCare" (they're on this talk page). I added the following sentence:

The HHS site only uses the actual name of the law or the following abbreviation: "The Affordable Care Act."

Without this sentence, "ObamaCare" is understood as a term that might used by the HHS. The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. The nickname may be ubiquitous, but it's not used by people running the program.

The HHS site is not "one site or the other"; it's the government-maintained website for the law. How is it irrelevant? Todd.st (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OC Break 3

Hi Brothejr:

The article has been reverted. I can't work toward consensus if editors don't discuss their edits on the talk page. I have no problem with you editing first and then talking about it. Many Thanks. Todd.st (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

Might I request a little WWSD? The non-human Sarek wouldn't be this heavyhanded (even the old, TNG, cries-at-Mozart Sarek).

Since you're an admin, I would certainly appreciate more guidance and less shutdown. I received your edit-warring notice on Feb 9. On Feb 11, I edited the article twice. How is this edit warring? More importantly, if I had come close to instigating your block on Feb 11, it certainly wouldn't have been over-the-top for you to drop me a message saying, "I'm changing the article back. If you edit again today, you'll be blocked." I read and understood the ew article the first time.

I also read the "Be Bold" and "Don't Bite the Newcomer" articles.

I made the changes because the only two editors who engaged in discussion about the article had no objections with the subheading. One even said the article was neutral. Both of these editors did most of the work after my first edit.

I had consensus on this issue--at least on the subheading. Read the talk page if you don't believe me, [ahem] a talk page discussing pejorative nicknaming that you saw fit to parcel into "Bamabreaks" lol.

Todd.st (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that 'Obamacare' is not the official name of the program, but it is the most commonly used name for the program. How many people know what the 'Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program' is? I doubt many people do. That is the official name of 'Social Security'. Like it or not, 'Obamacare' is what the program is being called and referred to. 222.90.7.183 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic. And it's not about like or dislike. You're trying to push POV, rather than fact. The factual name of the law is NOT "Obamacare". Furthermore, you have no proof that Obamacare is the most common name. YOu need sources and studies that back this claim. 75.45.238.87 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to refrain from editing article

Hi Everyone! Please, don't edit the main listing. Some people need to do research, and they need reliable information, which Wikipedia can't have when ppl edit it. Unless you know what you are talking about, please keep the editing confined to this page. Thanks, ande0729. Skype @ callto:tornadocaleb2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ande0729 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A strange request. —Designate (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And who are you again, Andre0729? Requesting an end to edits? Haha, Wikipedia is a perpetual work-in-progress. The edits never end. 75.45.238.87 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical origins

In this section of the Talk archives, one editor expressed the opinion that the article should exclude material about prior proposals that to some extent influenced the PPACA. I disagree. Complex legislation like this doesn't generally emerge full-blown from someone's word processor. In this case, the content of the bill was influenced by years of prior debate. The article should cover that background history, unless someone can explain to me what I'm missing. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most non-biographical articles have a "background" section of some type. This should too. It shouldn't be excessively detailed, of course, but it should briefly discuss the precursors of this bill. —Designate (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this administration even know what it is doing?

http://blog.pomcogroup.com/?p=150

Obamacare! Did they make another boo boo! Recent college grad gets married and no job and plays video games from sun-up to sun-down qualifies for parents healthcare plan. Recent college grad volunteers in the community or travels the world and qualfies for parent’s healthcare. Recent grad working part-time paying off student loans looking for full-time work in this economy and he/she disqualifed from parents healthcare. And it does not matter if the healthcare is one of the thousands receiving $750,000 waivers allowed these companies until 2014 that offer plans charging hundreds of dollars a month for coverage as low as $1,000 Accident Hospital Medical Coverage (about the cost to sign your name). Does this administration even know what it is doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRyno (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a politics forum. We're just writing an objective article based on reliable sources. Try WSJ.com or Politico or Redstate or whatever if you want to voice your opinion about things. —Designate (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Public Opinion section

Having now updated the section, I am updating my Discussion comment here instead of appending a new comment. The earlier section on "Public opinions and views" was long and confused, and confusing, partly because it narrated a 'blow-by-blow' sequence of many individual polls instead of citing secondary sources that combine multiple polls. Per WP:RS, WP should cite secondary sources where available. So, I edited the section to cite these secondary sources: [1] [2] [3] Both liberal (Huffington Post) and conservative (RealClearPolitics) sources show the same clear pattern: heavy net opposition since President Obama reportedly "changed his mind" [4] and dropped the plan that he had campaigned on in 2008, switching instead to the plan he had campaigned against (FKA Hillary's Plan, now ObamaCare). Streamlining the section to match the secondary sources removed the confusing alternation of individual polls, and the resulting section is shorter and more clearly supported.TVC 15 (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the Mckinsey study: I added it back in with a clarification of its limits. I can understand though why some would be in favor of taking it out, however, it seems that since the publishers still stand by it, it should be included so long as this is the case. Mpgviolist (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the beginning of the Public Opinion section to before the edits by an anonymous IP that has since been blocked as a sock puppet of a blocked user.[5]

Repeal of Free Choice Vouchers

There is a provision in the PPACA regarding free choice vouchers. As of 2014, if an employee's cost of an employer's health plan exceeds 8% of their family income (up to 4 times the federal poverty level) and the employee received subsidized health insurance through an exchange, then the employer would be required to make payments ("vouchers") to the health insurance exchange. This free choice voucher provision was repealed by Section 1858 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.[6][7][8] The section about the free choice voucher provision is now commented out of the Wikipedia article. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said it?

Two different judges are attributed to the exact same quote in the Federal Court rulings section:

¶2:

District Court Judge George Caram Steeh .... "Far from ‘inactivity," he said, "by choosing to forgo insurance [the challengers] are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants."

¶4:

U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon.... He said, “Regardless of whether one relies on an insurance policy, one’s savings, or the backstop of free or reduced-cost emergency room services, one has made a choice regarding the method of payment for the health care services one expects to receive. Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, [individuals] are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance….

Did they both say it? Did Moon partially repeat Steeh's statement? My guess is no, but this should be clarified. - 174.46.204.210 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My research is likely incomplete, but the first few google results say that both said it. [9][10][11][12][13] Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! It's a typographical error in the original text. The second sentence is supposed to have quotation marks around it. Moon is actually quoting Steeh's decision (Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, Lexis 107416), which he cites correctly. Judge Steeh's decision (p. 16) and Judge Moon's decision (p. 27) are here so you can see it. —Designate (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the issue has been resolved, I've removed the tag. I've also been updating the section on judicial decisions now that there is a circuit split, and condensing some of the coverage of district cases. We can likewise condense or remove some of the reactions from legal experts; those were notable mainly as predictors of how courts might decide.TVC 15 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Claim of NPOV violation

An editor reverted the following text from the "Impact" section of the article, and commented that the text violated NPOV:

"In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, "... new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26... meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.""

I believe that the text is neutrally worded, so I have reverted their reversion, and placed the text back into the article.

Do other editors think that this text is neutral, or non-neutral?

173.75.152.63 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The current sourcing is less than satisfying, probably not acceptable. Aside from that, the notability is pretty questionable. BigK HeX (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. That's a very POV interpretation of the article. Hmmm, in the article, who does the union claim forced the change? You need to read the article again, and really the information needs to go on the union WP article, not here. The notability is really pushing it, and your source does not help much. Ravensfire (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The reverted, inappropriate, intentionally misleading section, cited an outdated, inaccurate blog entry:

• Chernova, Yuliya (November 20, 2010). Union drops health coverage for workers’ children. blogs.wsj.com/metropolis.
• (November 30, 2010). Statement of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East regarding November 20th Wall Street Journal article, "Union drops health coverage for workers' children." 1199SEIU.org.

  The 1199 SEIU Home Care Employees Benefit Fund did not drop dependent coverage because of the new federal healthcare reform law. We applaud the new law's commitment to extend coverage to millions of working Americans who are currently uninsured.
  Our Fund was compelled to discontinue coverage for dependent children solely because insurance costs continued to rise, but state funding for these vulnerable, low-wage workers did not. Instead, state Medicaid funding to the home health services sector has been cut 9 separate times in just the last 3 years.

• Chernova, Yuliya (December 1, 2010). Health-care reforms not to blame for coverage woes, union says. blogs.wsj.com/metropolis.

Apatens (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaction from legal experts

Completely one-sided. Where are arguments and statements from experts like Randy Barnett, Ilya Somin, Jonathan H. Adler, or Rob Natelson, inter alia? The idea that there is consensus among legal academia is a myth. This article is just as mythical when it cites seven law professors and a DOJ spokesman as experts, all of whom support constitutionality, and offers no arguments that disfavor the legislation as unconstitutional. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I came to this page to supplement my current research with arguments against the constitutionality of the law, but as I was reading, it eventually felt like I was reading a Q&A refuting any challenges to the law's constitutionality by appealing to obscure authorities who support it and leaving/minimizing experts who oppose it. Your debate below has provided more material [for opposition] than the page's actual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has not been resolved, and the tag says not to remove it until it has been so resolved. Yeah, I'm looking at you NuclearWarfare. Claiming there's been no discussion is not evidence of a resolved dispute. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Returning this to the active talk page after it was removed to the Archive. It has not been resolved by reaching a consensus. While the analysis has been trimmed, the section is now slanted entirely to the other side. The article, if it's going to discuss opinion of legal experts need to state each point thought true by each side, and the counterpoints by the other. Right now the description of the legal discussion simply no longer exists. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the current Discussion below rather than copying and pasting an archived exchange from seven months ago here.TVC 15 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FooFighter20, your presenting problems but no solutions. Maybe you don't know how wikipedia works, but you can edit articles yourself. If you know of statements from 'experts' put them in and cite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, had some intrepid editor not moved an open, unfinished discussion to the archive, I wouldn't have had to yank it back out of there. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PoV tag

I propose removing the July 2011 PoV tag from the top of the article. The content has improved significantly since then, presenting a much more realistic picture of the legislation. One reason is collaboration towards consensus among editors who have varying opinions of the subject. Another reason is events have clarified issues that previously had been the subject of speculation and heated disagreement; most recently, the abandonment of the C.L.A.S.S. Act vindicated critics, while the judicial split on constitutionality has validated both sides. The article now reflects a broad spectrum of verifiable WP:RS: the statute expands medical insurance but most voters oppose it because the costs (including increased spending and government power) exceed the benefits, and the individual mandate is considered unconstitutional by most of the states and around half the federal judges who have issued opinions on it. Considering that the legislation itself remains controversial and divisive, its presentation in the article has achieved an impressive degree of WP:NPOV.TVC 15 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've removed the tag.TVC 15 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

backsliding into PoV

These two edits skew very partisan: the summaries say they are about wordiness but the words deleted are those that show the partisan and judicial split while the words retained are sales talking points.[14][15] Rather than simply revert, I hope to get some comment from other editors.TVC 15 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree these edits slide into PoV, and should be reverted.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Federal court rulings

I think it might be helpful to break up the federal court ruling section by level of court. Specifically, a section for federal district court rulings and another for appeals court rulings. Is there any objection to this? If there is then I won't do it. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep entire history of each case (circuit and district court) together. To the extent that Supreme Court has, I believe agreed to consider a number of these together, that should be a separate discussion. --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased.

I'm sorry, but even as a non-Wiki member this article is incredibly biased towards the left. It presents the Democratic view on repeal and there is no mention of the actual cost of the bill, nor that the CBO is notoriously liberal.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, I thought- this proves that you cannot be a reliable source with such biased and partisan political articles. As an independent, I will get my information from Fox News and CNN from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.105.95 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an opinion forum to discuss how "biased" an article is. This page is to discuss changes that would help improve the article. You have not suggested any modifications - your post only voices your perceived problems with the article being biased. Myownworst (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When you get that information feel free to add it and cite it. Wikipedia can be a reliable and neutral source, but only if many people contribute. The article will be biased if people choose to walk away rather than get involved. —Designate (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia it's not being neutral, there is no criticism or controversies and also when you add something it gets immediately changed back.

And I'm not talking about vandalizing or writing garbage see article about the program Grass Valley Edius (don't know how to put links but you can straight search it. I marked it for speedy deletion and a "moderator" always immediately switches back and removes it letting the ad stay. Let's see how long this post lasts I'll check back often to see if wikipedia can still be trusted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.244.236 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The two subsections, Job Consequences of Repeal and Cost of Repeal, in Repeal Efforts under 112th Congress are offtopic and subjective statements that do no pertain to the category, therefore, need to be removed or moved to another wikipedia page that lists the controversies of the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.106.5 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to balance the worst parts of it, but yes, there is much POV in the article. Seeing how large it is, help would be appreciated :). Until then, I am putting a pov box on the article.Mpgviolist (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the section on "Reactions from legal experts" and removed that section's PoV tag, and am writing here to explain why. As I wrote earlier today in the Discussion section on the court cases, the reactions from legal experts were notable mainly as predictors of how courts might decide. Now that we have several court decisions, including a circuit split, the earlier predictions have been superseded and are less likely notable. Also, the few experts cited were almost all in favor of the PPACA, not reflecting the widespread controversy, which is probably what provoked the PoV tag. I've left in the one paragraph that noted the existence of disagreement, and I think that source remains notable because it traces the change in opinion, i.e. many experts initially assumed (and said) the PPACA was constitutional, but Judge Vinson's analysis of the history of the commerce clause caused many to reconsider. Also, that source's prediction of a 5-4 split in the Supreme Court is consistent with the developing cases reported in the article: the district courts split 3-2, and the circuit judges split 3-3.TVC 15 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think it is better this way. Mpgviolist (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.249.54 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this article to underline the fact that Illegal immigrants are covered in the law. Stated specifically from the bill. Page Page 50/section 152: "The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally." I will continue to edit this page until it complies with the actual citation from the law, or Wikipedia keeps/holds this edit by omission from the "Change in number insured" section. (10/14/11)

The legislation comprises at least 10,000 pages of statutory and regulatory complication, so the statement above would require verifiable citation in order to meet the requirements of WP:RS and verifiability. The citation above seems to come from a chain e-mail referring to a draft bill prior to enactment,[16] while a statutory citation would include a specific USC or CFR volume and section or a court opinion. As others have noted, illegal/undocumented immigrants are exempt from (and ineligible for) mandatory insurance, but remain eligible for emergency care under EMTALA, so perhaps that is what you meant. That would actually be a favored combination except that ObamaCare increases the tax on vaccines, which means more people go without vaccines and get sick, which means costs/spending increase. There are valid reasons why most Americans oppose this legislation, but there are also spurious claims on all sides, and in any event WP must reflect WP:RS. BTW, please sign your comments with four ~ (tilde) characters.TVC 15 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources of funding for the PPACA?

The "Summary of funding" section is woefully vague and leaves out crucial specifics. It seems that the largest single source of funding is "a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively..." But what does "a much-broadened Medicare tax" mean? A higher rate? If so, it would be more accurately worded as an increased Medicare tax than a "broadened" one. If not...then it goes back to my question of what a "broadened" Medicare tax is.

Likewise, this section also refers to "an annual fee on insurance providers", but what is the fee? How much is it? How is it calculated? In the same vein, the section mentions an "annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs" but again, absolutely no indication whatsoever as to the amount of the fee or how it's calculated. The "Funding" section doesn't have to have an exhaustive dissertation on every aspect of the computation of the tax owed; just a general idea would be nice. (Indeed, the tax rate on "Cadillac" health plans is noted [40%], as is the excise tax rate on on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices [2.3%]. That's really all I'm asking for -- the tax rates on the other stuff I mentioned.) Captain Quirk (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And another item, similar to the above: the section mentions a reduction in the amount that can be put in a tax-deductible flexible spending account, but doesn't say what that limit is. (Later in the article, a $2500 figure appears, but it would be nice to include that in the funding section since it's part of how the PPACA is funded. [In fact, I'll just go ahead and do that now.] But it would be helpful to know what the current contribution limit is, so we know what the reduction to $2500 represents. [I believe the current limit is $5000, but that's just from memory.]) Captain Quirk (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Bankruptcies

Observations on the law and medical bankruptcies is not considered to be a main provision of the law and should not be in this section. Myownworst (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not considered by whom? WP:RS show it is a widely reported result of the balance billing provision, and an obvious consequence of forcing people to spend their savings on insurance policies so they can no longer afford emergencies.TVC 15 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Minimum standards and prohibition of annual/lifetime limits causing medical bankruptcies is a hypothetical until they have completely kicked in and actually have caused individuals to declare bankruptcies due to medical issues.Myownworst (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is widely reported (WP:RS) and notable, because for many people it will be the most direct consequence of the legislation.We can add more sources if you don't like the LA Times article and the related point from the GOP, but Families USA is not a neutral source either - they are an advocacy group with a huge financial stake in PPACA.TVC 15 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK fine, but all the families citation is used for is to verify that annual and lifetime limits will be eliminated - which is a truism. Using gop.com for a citation for this article in nearly any capacity is a poor choice and clearly not going to be neutral.Myownworst (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but this is more of an afterthought than a provision. Forcing people into bankruptcy is not a provision. This observation should be placed in a different section of the article (one that doesn't discuss an overview of provisions)Myownworst (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Stating that minimum standards and the prohibition of annual and lifetime limits will cause bankruptcies is a PoV observation.Myownworst (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to repeat one of the advocates' widely observed partisan errors, which is to take provisions out of context. The stated purpose of eliminating caps was purportedly to reduce (some even said "end") medical bankruptcy, but the reality was to shift some of that risk off of specific interest groups (e.g. smokers and the morbidly obese) and increase it for everyone else. To limit the "overview" to the advocates' talking points is not neutral, because it does not really explain the legislation and its effects. If the article is NPoV, then a reader should be able to see why advocates support the legislation (it increases $pending) and why most people oppose it (it increases the $pending and therefore the risk of bankruptcy).TVC 15 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing both annual and lifetime limits ARE provisions in the law, plain and simple. They are neither a talking point nor biased PoV. It is a cut and dry fact in the law. What more do you want? Just because your additional opinion is a partisan observation and not fact does not mean it should be included in the 'overview of provisions section of the article.' This is seriously getting silly. It is both superflous for the aforementioned section and also a biased PoV. If you would like to include it in another section of the article then by all means go ahead. This should be in the overview of provisions as they both are. Myownworst (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For now, I have temporarily removed the relevant section of the Overview so we can sort out how to present it in an NPoV way. Here is the balance of pro and con from before User:Myownworst's deletion:

• Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be prohibited,[17][18][19] but providers may "balance bill" including for emergency services,[20] forcing emergency patients into medical bankruptcies[21][22]

User:Myownworst deleted the provision related to balance billing, but kept the talking point about caps, thus turning the paragraph into a sales pitch rather than a pro-con balance. Since the purported goal of removing caps was to reduce bankruptcy (the actual goal was to increase spending), it is appropriate to note that the risk of bankruptcy was merely shifted, not reduced; some say it was actually increased. Regarding sources, Families USA and the GOP are both partisan, we could drop both or keep both because the underlying facts are sourced to WP:RS. Lastly, bankruptcy is either voluntary or involuntary, by definition, so "forced into bankruptcy" is appropriate, but I am open to other terms.TVC 15 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, now User:TVC 15 is just becoming petty. Do you suggest that a negative aspect of EVERY provision ought to be included because this is NOT a guideline as espoused by Wikipedia? I apologize that you clearly are unhappy with the law in general, but that does not mean you must inject partisan ideology in every facet of the article. For instance, from your PoV, it could be added to each provision (of the entire law) how great each one is. Eliminating annual and lifetime limits is a non-biased, clearly stated provision of the law. Please don't make one sentence in the article harder than it has to be.Myownworst (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Myownworst, I would like to reach WP:CONSENSUS on an WP:NPOV for the overview to address the provisions related to medical bankruptcy, but you seem to insist on the including only the provisions you like and deleting what you don't like. If you insist on edit warring over this, I will have to take it to another forum. Please reconsider your latest reversion.TVC 15 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! Taking it to another forum! Please don't issue threats because your original research does not belong in one sentence of an article. Again, this is becoming petty and silly.Myownworst (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the way the sentence is currently phrased DOES NOT mention that "Eliminating annual and lifetime limits will reduce medical bankruptcies." That would clearly be a PoV. Likewise, stating how this provision will cause medical bankruptcies is a PoV. Please be reasonable. You are both being petty and making a mountain out of a molehill, perhaps as a personal attack against me.Myownworst (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have put the balance billing provision into its own paragraph with a link to the WP article on medical bankruptcy. If you check the WP:RS, it reports medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts increased by a third following the implementation of Romneycare, which the Obama administration has acknowledged was the model for Obamacare.TVC 15 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is not correct. Balance billing is currently allowed. The PPACA does not provide for balance billing; in fact, if you read your first source it restricts it. Moreover, your WP:OR on the Himmelstein et al. study is also incorrect. Medical bankruptcies fell as a percentage of total bankruptcies in Massachusetts after Romneycare. Total medical bankruptcies increased only because total bankruptcies increased, which was obviously due to the recession, not Romneycare. You then jump from this incorrect inference to the even more incorrect claim that the PPACA will increase medical bankruptcies. Moreover, the Himmelstein et al. study does not say medical bankruptcies increased due to emergencies; you say that: WP:OR pure and simple. I am deleting. Academic38 (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Academic38 for your clarification. I had been trying ad nauseum to state that TVC 15's assertion that 'balanced billing' would negate the law's provisions on lifetime and annual limits and lead to more bankruptcies was both not needed in the 'Provisions' section and also that it was a subjective observation; more specifically - WP:OR for which TVC 15 has done multiple times with this article. I appreciate your help. For some reason, TVC 15 seems to think my edits are not worthy to be included in articles and undid nearly every revision on articles I had edited in the past. As you can imagine it was quite troubling, furthermore because s/he has not edited any articles since the date you stepped in to help. Thanks again. Myownworst (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to other responsibilities I had to take a break from WP and have not had time to reply. Academic38, you seem to mix the legislation and the regulations; the legislation does not restrict balance billing, though it does require the insurer to pay at least what Medicare would pay. The source says the regulators realized that and thought it would defeat what they considered to be the purpose of the legislation, so they raised the reimbursement floor slightly, but they did not restrict balance billing. A larger issue is framing and a "forest versus trees" problem: if you force people to spend more money, they are more likely to go bankrupt; you can call it "medical bankruptcy" or other bankruptcy, but the bottom line is Romneycare forced people to spend more money and more people went bankrupt (including medical bankruptcies, which were supposed to end). Also the section presents "provisions" rather than consequences, so it tends to devolve into talking points. Myownworst, your statements above are incorrect, as were some of your edits. If you have a problem with me personally, please bring it to an appropriate forum.TVC 15 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Here is the quote I was referring to regarding the regulators' view of the purpose of the legislation: "The Departments concluded that even though PPACA does not prohibit balance billing, they believe it defeats the purposes of the PPACA protections to permit such an arrangement to exist."[23] Opinions about the purposes of Obamacare vary; the lobbyists backing the legislation saw it as an opportunity to increase spending, and HHS projections[24] corroborate the lobbyists' perception. Nevertheless, the regulators cited in the WP:RS are obviously correct that balance billing defeats the stated purpose of "PPACA protections" because the patients remain unprotected. That would still be true even after the regulators raised the reimbursement floor slightly. The cited example is only one; HHS reports that California urban hospital bills average triple what Medicare would pay,[25] so even the regulators' increase would leave the insured patient paying most of the bill if the hospital is out of network. Patients who spent all they could afford on those "affordable" Obamacare premiums, instead of saving that money for a rainy day, are more likely to go bankrupt. Whether it's called "medical bankruptcy" will depend on whether the hospital gets paid; illness and injury also commonly lead to a loss of income, which can increase the risk of bankruptcy too, even if it isn't called "medical bankruptcy." Either way, forcing people to spend more money increases the risk they will go bankrupt. It's math.TVC 15 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

new requirements 2012

will i have to claim my companys contribution to health care as part of my income this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.200.168 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial protection?

I visited this page recently and was mildly surprised to find it unprotected, given all the controversy the bill has sparked in the US. I'm sure that there has been vandalism, so I'd like to suggest at least partial protection for the page. If there hasn't been more than normal, please disregard my question entirely. Thank you Prmcd16 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT. This being an election year, the article is now experiencing giant additions by WP:SPAs apparently trying to assemble constituencies to support the legislation: [26][27]. Due to the vast amount of money and power at stake, this pattern is likely to continue: partisan uncritical sales pitches targeted towards particular markets, turning WP from a general audience encyclopedia into a sales rally. (See Amway, with apologies to Amway.) Rather than risk edit warring line-by-line with hordes of anonymous pitchmen, it would make more sense to protect the article from anonymous and SPA edits until after the election.TVC 15 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Impact on religious institutions

{{Request edit}}

Hi, currently this article doesn't contain any mention of the impact of the Act on religious institutions, a topic which has recently been the subject of media commentary. The criticism of the Act by religious leaders and the potential impact upon religious institutions is an important aspect of the wider debate around the Act, but is not addressed at all in the present article. I'd like to offer a suggested new section to add to "Impact" that provides some information on the recent criticisms. One of the references I've used here is written by a colleague of mine at The Heritage Foundation, so I want to make sure this meets consensus. If it seems like a reasonable addition, please can you add it to the article. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

==Impact for religious institutions==

Religious leaders, particularly those within the Catholic church, have criticized the provision within the Act that requires all employers to provide coverage for contraception within their health insurance packages. This mandate would require religious institutions to provide employees with coverage for birth control. Conservative commentators have argued that the mandate to provide health coverage for contraception is in conflict with religious employers' free exercise of religion as it clashes with religious mandates to protect life. According to The Telegraph, 153 bishops in the United States have made statements criticizing the provision, including Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who stated that the provision "represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty." The decision not to allow religious institutions to control the benefits they provide as part of employees' health insurance has also been criticized by Agudath Israel of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. According to Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, "this mandate, which is binding on all faith-based entities other than a narrowly confined group of religious institutions, offends First Amendment principles." Following requests to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand an exemption to the mandate to cover all religious institutions (currently it focuses on houses of worship and ministers only), on January 20, 2012, a statement was issued by Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius that she would provide institutions with another year to comply with the Act.

Thanks for soliciting comment on the Talk page. This particular issue has moved quickly, including a compromise reportedly endorsed by Catholic hospitals and many others.[28] While some religious institutions object that contraceptives and abortifacients are covered, others demand mandatory coverage for faith healing.[29] Sections 1311(d)(4)(H) and 5000A(d)(2)(A) exempt members of certain sects,[30] provided they furnish "such information as the Secretary shall prescribe" pursuant to section 1411(b)(5)(A), get a certificate, and adhere to the "established tenets or teachings of such sect." (The legislation does not specify how or whether such adherence will be enforced.) Other sources reported the latest acrimony illustrates "the problem with putting the Federal government in charge of health care"[31] and what the WSJ called its "entire thrust," i.e. mandatory standardization.[32] Although Subtitle B (Elder Justice Act) section 2012(b) respects elders' right to rely on "prayer alone for healing," nothing protects younger people, e.g. against insurers overusing subsidiaries' CT scanners to satisfy most profitably the MLR requirements. If anything, the legislation and regulations appear to have respected some religious establishments while overruling other objections expressed by most Americans, but that isn't really an objection to inclusion in the article; all sections can be updated and expanded.TVC 15 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of our neutral point of view policy, we will need to also show the people supporting the policy. As noted by TVC 15, a compromise has proposed changing the details of this policy. We should describe both the original and modified versions. This new version was supported by some Catholics, including Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association Ideally, we would have some quotes supporting and opposing both the original and modified version. However, at the very least, there should be a couple quotes in support. Superm401 - Talk 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Contraceptive coverage for employees of institutions controlled by religious organizations

I have created Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Contraceptive coverage for employees of institutions controlled by religious organizations which addresses this issue. The impact of the act is on women and is in that section, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Changes for Women. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the blog by your friend at the Heritage Foundation. It is very informative on the position of the Catholic church. However, it is not an appropriate reference as it is a blog, not a news report. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggested edit "Religious leaders, particularly those within the Catholic church, have criticized the provision" is unacceptable because it does not characterize or specify which religious leaders object to the regulations. Fundamentalist religious leaders? Fundamentalist and Catholic religious leaders? Neutral point of view would require alternative views of liberal religious leaders. Also missing is an attempt to address the law with respect to activities conducted by religious organizations or practitioners which are not themselves religious. Reynolds v. United States addressed some of those issues, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order". User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added discussion of the supporters, based primarily on the Sun article above. Superm401 - Talk 07:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for taking a look at the material I'd suggested here. I've read the comments and the new section of the article carefully, and I have a few points that I'd like to make.

Fred Bauder noted that one of the references I'd used "is not an appropriate reference as it is a blog". This is actually a post written by David Addington, the former chief of staff for Dick Cheney and a legal expert. Since he has expert knowledge of this subject, I feel that this makes his post an appropriate reference to use here.

With regards to the current wording of the section, I realize that it should strive for neutrality and so I noticed that there is an imbalance in the quotes used. A quote from the vice president of Catholic identity and mission at Mount St. Mary's University is included in favor of the suggested compromise, but no quotes are used to illustrate the criticism of the mandate. For example, my suggested wording had included a quote from the Archbishop of New York (arguably a more important Catholic leader to mention here). To bring balance back to the section, if it meets consensus, I propose adding the following to the first paragraph:

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the provision "represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

Finally, the way the section currently reads seems to imply that the only criticism of the provision was from the Catholic church, or that Catholic groups are the only religious institutions affected. I'd like to suggest that the following be included so that other institutions' viewpoints are mentioned:

The Agudath Israel of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have also opposed the regulations. According to Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, "this mandate, which is binding on all faith-based entities other than a narrowly confined group of religious institutions, offends First Amendment principles."

Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your friend does not seem to even know the title of the act. A legal expert should be able to cite it correctly even when engaged in zealous advocacy, which is what he seems to be doing. I'd like to use a quote from Humanae Vitae:

We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

This, also from Humanae Vitae:

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

is the crux of the matter as the church contests with civil authorities over power to regulate procreation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred, I'm not altogether sure what you're saying here—are you raising the question of whether the two quotes should be included in the article? As to David Addington, he did quote the full title of the Act in the second paragraph of his post, so I am confused about this also. Meanwhile, The Foundry is a news blog published by The Heritage Foundation. I've noticed that Wikipedia has a NEWSBLOG policy permitting use in some cases, including opinionated journalism. For these reasons, it seems that it should be an OK link, especially to represent conservative viewpoints. What do you think?

In any case, I see that you have made the two additions that I suggested. Thank you, and please let me know if I can offer any further resources on this topic. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you find a good source for opposition and the basis for it by conservative think tanks such as Heritage to the act and specifically to the regulations concerning contraceptive coverage? I'm unable to formulate a sound opinion on The Foundry, although most of the conservative think tanks generally seem to insist on basic factual accuracy. For example, in this case, the source, and nature, of the Catholic opinion was set forth. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just went there, and here is the first sentence in a posting to the blog, "One of the greatest drivers of poverty in the United States is the breakdown of marriage." Obviously false, everyone knows that poverty results from unemployment resulting from concentration of wealth in the hands of capitalists who pay as little for labor as possible resulting in the working class being unable to form families. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Equally bogus of course. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm not asking that you agree with the content of the blog, neither that information from the blog be presented as completely neutral. What I would argue is that The Foundry is a useful and good source for demonstrating U.S. conservative opinion. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is a primary source, thus not useable, for that purpose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section about the assertion that the act affects religious interests, Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Religious_impact, and used the Foundry blog as an illustration. I believe framing the issue as religious oppression of women is probably not neutral, not sure that belongs in the article, but might in a stand alone article which covers this controversy, I've heard that idea expressed a time or two in the media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)