Talk:American Health Care Act of 2017

Are "employer mandate" and "individual mandate" proper nouns?

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

Nope. They should be hyperlinks, but not capitalized. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Skinny repeal

This hasn't passed yet. If it does, I feel a bunch of the material regarding previous Senate bills will need to be moved or massively reduced in volume. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. But it will pass in about an hour so I think we can start. Always revert if it doesn't.Casprings (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

New lede sentence.

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

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

On May 4, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed the AHCA by a narrow margin of 217 to 213, sending the bill to the Senate for deliberation. The AHCA was passed as a budget reconciliation bill that is part of the 2017 federal budget process. It would repeal the parts of the Affordable Care Act within the scope of the federal budget, including provisions contained within the Internal Revenue Code such as the "individual mandates" (in IRC § 205), employer mandates (in IRC § 206) and various taxes (IRC § 201 et. seq.), and also modifications to the federal Medicaid program (in Sections 111-116 and 121). The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the AHCA would increase the number of uninsured people by 23 million over 10 years, but would decrease the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over the same period (about 1%). If enacted, insurance premiums are projected to decrease for younger, healthier, and wealthier people, while older and poorer people would likely see their premiums increase.

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

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

Refs
References

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

I think this thing might fail... if so, what the hell should the title of the article be?

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

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

The use of Category:Trump administration controversies

SlackerDelphi has just removed this category from 21 pages and counting, stating that controversies don't cover events, people, bills, books, etc., in addition to them accusing editors of trying to smear Donald Trump. My first instinct would be to implement the category back into all those pages, but I figured it would be more constructive if everyone could weigh in. From my perspective, a controversy could encapsulate every one of those subjects, such as the 2017 National Scout Jamboree, so I'd say removing it is the polar opposite of a smear campaign. But, let's weigh in, shall we? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of categories in general is, much less this one. It does seem problematic to list seemingly arbitrary "people in the news with Trump" in the same category as articles like Dismissal of James Comey. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe if any kind of subject should be barred from this category, it should be individuals. Events, on the other hand, probably warrant remaining. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agreed, the controversies themselves should only be included in the category, as in the event or situation, not the people. There would need to be a separate category for people involved in Trump administration controversies, but I don't think that is a category we necessarily need. That is just my opinion though. If we look at Category:Clinton administration controversies, Bush 43 or Obama, they include people as well though. Overall there are a lot of categories out there that I feel are really mispopulated. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @WikiVirusC and Power~enwiki: so SlackerDelphi removed the category from the events American Health Care Act of 2017 and 2017 National Scout Jamboree, with a Russian banks, a book and a few individuals. So, re-implement those two events for now and leave this topic open for debate, whether or not we should include individuals and other entities? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, now we are getting into defining what is a controversy or not. Personally I wouldn't call either of those one. One is a bill, regardless of how it goes or if/when/how it passes, that's just what happens with bills. The Jamboree I wouldn't call one either. The speech itself could be considered one yes, but not the entire event. If a redirect of Donald Trump's 2017 Boy Scott speech or something similar was created and redirected to the section about his speech, then I would put the redirect in the category and leave the main article alone. I'm not saying how anyone should do it, but it's just how I would. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to hear what @SlackerDelphi: has to say. Apart from leaving people off for now, I have no opinions here. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First then I will start with correcting a misrepresentation of what I stated in the edit comments. I did say including all people in the controversy category is a "smear". But I did not say it was a smear of Donald Trump. I never said that and the claim that I did is simply not true. What is a smear is tagging every single individual that has ANY relationship to Trump--even if tangentally--is a smear of that particular individual, not Trump. It is a classic case of guilt by association. There is a clear guidance in Wikipedia not to use the word "controversy" willy nilly (not to use it as a weasel word) and that is exactly what happened here. An editor placed one or two individuals into the TAdminControv category every few days and that is a smear of each of those individuals. There MUST be some kind of reliable source that uses the word "controversy" in relation to each and everyone of those individuals. Categories are not to used randomly without a reliable source supporting the inclusion and if the category specifically is a category of "controversies" then the category should include "controversies" and not a random list of people that a particular Wikipedia editor wants label a "controversy". Also, I removed the Boy Scout Jamboree from the list because, once again, a jamboree is not a controversy. And the Republican Health Care Act is not a "controversy" regardless of what you might think about it. Yes, there are many people that find it controversial, but article is not about the controversial aspects of it per se. It is about the bill. If there is an article about the Act's controvesial aspects then that article should have the category. There are rules about when to use a category or not and in ALL of these situations thoses rules were not followed.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, why is Mika Brzezinski's article tagged TAC controversies? Is Mika a controversy and not a actual human being. I would like the editor that tagged the article to provide a reliable source that proves that Brezezinski is a controversy and not a person. It is ludicrous to claim she is a controversy. She is not even a Republican. She is not even a member of the Trump Administration. I removed the category because it made zero sense. It was just an attempt to smear Brezezinski by association with Trump. That's all.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ck4829 and DarthBotto: Just for the record, the editor that keeps adding categories to inappropriate topics is at it again. Please see this edit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@SlackerDelphi: That's annoying. Yeah, my concern is for ensuring that we have consensus and by this user re-adding it in the midst of our discussion here, that notion is defied. With the reasoning presented on your end, I support removing the categories from most every one of those pages, even the Jamboree page, as the incident was a small portion of an event. If it somehow becomes notable enough for a new article, then sure, but until then... DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: The category rules are what they are. And until the jamboree turns into a controversy then there is no reason to have the TAC category listed at the bottom of this article. I'm pretty sure that the jamboree will turn into a controversy about the same time that pigs will grow wings and fly.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why 2017 National Scout Jamboree doesn't belong in Trump Administration Controversies, especially since it is a political controversy. Jimmy Carter rabbit incident has no connection to politics whatsoever, yet it is a Carter administration controversy.Radiohist (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this discussion copy pasted from at least 3 more talk pages (Trump Jr., Manaport, Vesselniskaya). I see nothing inhere that proves that the controversy category doesn't belong on the so-called Trumpcare page. The explanation for most of the deletions of the category was that it was added to pages concerning people and not events. That explanation doesn't hold water in this case. That is why I am returning it. Open to debating the issue.....not reading a copy-paste conversation.Radiohist (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you did not read it. You have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously did not read the rules about categories either. It is quite clear that if a category says, "controversy" for example then the article it is listed in must be about a controversy. It you were to write an article that only talks about controvesy surrounding American Health Care Act of 2017 (and there is plenty of controversy surrounding it) then THAT article would have that category. But this article is about the proposed law and it is not about the controversy. If you want to write that article and add that category to the new article you create then go ahead. But right now this article is about the proposed law and as such the category does not fit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would be fine with including this. The amount of protests over healthcare is certainly, "controversal". Why not include?Casprings (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the article is about the bill, not just the controversy. If there was an article on the controversies then fine. But that isn't this article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The bill is the reason for the controversy.Radiohist (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Every single bill is opposed by someone, somewhere. If we used your logic, which we don't, then every single bill must be categorized as Obama Administration Controversy or Trump Administration Controversy or Bush Administration Controversy. There are rules for the use of categories and your desire to slap every article about any bill promoted by Trump as a "controversy" violates thoses rules. With your logic every bill promoted by Obama should be categorized as Obama Administration Controversy. That line of thought is ludicrous and it is not the way that Wikipedia works.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Susan Collins Linked 4 Times In Article.

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

References

"Ameircan Health Care act" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ameircan Health Care act. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)