Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States

2009 Polling data - suggestion for presentation of polling

I am going to suggest that we put the results here not in narrative form but in as much detail as we legally can and in chronological sequence. Otherwise there will be continual argument about selectiveness of questions and which results get listed before others, as it is clear that there are some editors here who are intent on using poll data to "tell a story". Publishing the data raw in chronolocial order with no narrative is the best way to avoid this. What I am not sure about is how to avoid issues of copyright. Is there anyone here with knowledge of copyright law to help us determine how best to do this? --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, rest assured that the NYT news article is copyrighted - in fact, in any comparable matter, the only safe approach is to assume copyright unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Then it becomes a question of the manner in which the content is added. If you quote large excerpts from the article, you must follow the guidelines at WP:NFC:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

That being said, with the exhaustive approach you are proposing in the spirit of NPOV runs afoul the spirit of that last provision: "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". While I'm sympathetic to the notion, the fact is that if you quote the essential parts of the article, you're no longer writing an encyclopedia article, you're reprinting. Which then begs the question, in terms of purpose, why the reader would want to have a reprint here rather than be directed to the original NYT article and read it for himself.

The key part here is really minding the spirit of the non-free content criteria, in particular:

3. a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
8. 'Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.(underlining mine)

Is an exhaustive list of every single question and answer really absolutely key to understand the poll? And for that matter (not having read the NYT article myself), are even absolutely certain that the NYT has presented every question to their readers? Wouldn't the purpose being better served by presenting a synthesis of the article's conclusion instead of the minute detail of every poll question?

What I mean to say, don't tell a story with the poll result, and don't worry about others using them to tell a different one. Tell what the NYT says about the poll, that's verifiable and satisfies WP:NOR. If their own interpretation of the poll data contradicts the data, point out the inconsistency. And if there is another poll or paper that contradicts the NYT poll (and is taken seriously), use that one to counterbalance the NYT POV. NPOV means we synthetise what WP:RS say on the matter. Not that we have to maintain a balance of coverage between POV A and POV B if one is mainstream and the other fringe as if they had equal weight in public opinion. State what the sources say, synthetise their conclusions. Refute with other RS if there are, and represent the weight as it is in reality, not in loudness. MLauba (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's liberal and who's conservative? Also, WTF does "extreme" mean?

NBC News is liberally biased. The Wall Street Journal has a leftist main article section and a conservative editorial page (the leftist part ran the study). Rasmussen has a conservative bias. [All of these I can verify with sources if asked].

Instead of noting all this in the article, and starting a food fight over labeling, why not forget labels altogether? Also, the claim that any one poll is "extreme" relative to another is transparently false. So false, that in my opinion that it qualifies as vandalism. We would never say that a poll with 60% support for gay marriage is "extreme" in an article (think of any other example that you want). The Squicks (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Worst of all, none of this labeling has sources. You can't just call something "extreme" without, well, evidence. The Squicks (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections and Related articles on Current Debate in desperate need of overhaul

I have added this note to all major articles related to the current healthcare reform debate. The related sections in this article and all related articles on the current healthcare debate desperately need to be overhauled and expanded. There is practically nothing in this article about the ongoing major events around the current debate, a subject area that is absolutely required.

The main discussion around generating an overhaul effort is on the talk page on the main article: Health care reform debate in the United States

For now, for this overhaul effort, please discuss anything not pertaining specifically to this article on that talk page.

NittyG (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WSJ article, "Support for Health Overhaul Wanes"

On December 17, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Support for Health Overhaul Wanes."[1] In fact, the statistics reported within the text are mainly within the margin of error, meaning the differences among the numbers are stastically insignificant, so the article doesn't say anything noteworthy. However, an anonymous URL has thrice inserted the article as a source for the statement that the public option has "good support" or "plurality support," and has said this likely "effected" [sic] the Massachusetts Senate race. (In reality, the Massachusetts Senate race was effected by legislation calling for a special election.) Calling the numbers "good support" was obviously opinion, but even calling it "plurality support" overlooks the margin of error. If the anonymous editor would please take a moment to read the existing WP article before edit warring over it, you will see that the WP article already reports majority support for the public option, so your insistence on finding "good support" somewhere is not helped by quoting the WSJ anyway.TVC 15 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Hauskalainen reverted, including restoring the bad grammar and WP:OR ("likely effected"), I've moved the survey results to the appropriate section (2009) and added a quote from the article. Read properly, it actually shows a reduction in support for the public option, which had polled majority support earlier the same month. I'm not sure why Hauskalainen would want to include this WSJ survey, since it makes the opposite argument from Hauskalainen's usual adamant support for the bills, but since you insist, it's there.TVC 15 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the polling section

I cleaned up some accuracy issues on the polling section, which was largely distorting the evidence it was using. Specifically talking about "national health insurance" during the timeframe that the United States was discussing the so-called "public option" is not an implication regarding single payer, for instance. There are a few more issues that come up in light of this:

• The infographic provided is misstating the NYT poll completely. The poll does not show that much support for single payer, but for a "willing[ness] to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance" that would compete with private plans - decidedly not single payer.[2] With this in mind, I have removed the infographic.
• The first line shows 78% support for single payer according to FAIR citing a 1987 poll - do we have access to that poll anywhere? If we cannot see the actual poll, given the problems with polling on this issue, I'm not sure we should include that line at all.

Hopefully this helps. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

lead section POV

The lead section is strongly biased against PPACA and violates WP:NPV. (The one exception is the first sentence, which correctly says that public opinion is mixed.) The lead also cites a litany of statistics that should properly be put in the body of the article and then briefly summarized in the lead. The lead should be short and very high level and is not a place to introduce details, especially when those details are not in the body. Finally, public opinion about the constitutionality of a particular health care bill is far removed from public opinion about health care reform generally and is of little value. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs which were about specific legislation and not about public opinion or health care reform in general. I will leave the removed text here in case editors feel it is needed in the article body; my initial opinion is that it is not, as the subject is addressed elsewhere. Is this good enough for you, or do you still have objections?

The majority of Democrats in Congress coalesced in 2009 around private insurance reform proposals (examples included the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and the Wyden-Bennett Act), and passed a controversial bill in 2010 despite unified Republican opposition. President Obama signed the legislation in March 2010, but most states have filed suit in federal courts arguing that it is unconstitutional. Public opinion hardened around the same levels found prior to enactment, i.e. around 40% support and 50% opposition, with some reporting a majority wanting to repeal the new law. Campaigning on promises to repeal the legislation, Republicans gained more Congressional seats in the November 2010 midterm elections than any party in more than 70 years, and won control of the United States House of Representatives. As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe the legislation's individual mandate is unconstitutional, and 50% want the Supreme Court to overturn the entire statute.

Chronological order

Right now the poll results are presented in reverse chronological order. This does put the most recent results first, but the "most recent" results are 2010, two years ago, so it's not even all that recent. I suggest switching to chronological order to more clearly show the evolution of opinions. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

suggest delete

I deleted the following sentence: "82% of Obama voters who voted for Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts support the public option.[38]". This is such a narrowly defined slice of the voters (party-switching voters in a single state) that I' don't think it is very informative about public opinion in general. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Harvard polls? Or one?

The 2008 polls section discusses "A poll released in March 2008 by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive", and then the next paragraph discusses "Another poll released in February 2008" by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive. Are these two different polls, or is this just two releases of different analyses of the same poll? 128.156.10.80 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

POV Check

A recent edit by CartoonDiabolo added a table of opinion polls relating to a single payer system, however the source for these appears to be a publication by a political advocacy group that is explicitly trying to present it in a favorable light, and thus may contain neutrality issues. I don't have time to check it thoroughly right now, so I am leaving this notice here. -- LWG ^talk 14:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll point people to this discussion which prompted him to hit up other articles. I'm making some light adjustments as well, more input is always welcome. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

For all purposes the dispute remains here. While wording does affect the outcome of the poll, the content of it, that is, comparing it to Medicare or Canada's system clearly makes it a "single-payer" poll since those are single-payer systems. Unless someone can find a source claiming otherwise, or that Americans are unaware of what single-payer is, then the weight of the sources clearly shows they are polls regarding single-payer. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person who wants to include the information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

To prove what? There are two sources calling them single-payer polls and even the Politifact article implies it had majority support up until 2007 (not to mention that Medicare/Canada are single-payer systems). The burden of proof is on the person with no sources claiming that Americans (a) don't know what single-payer is and (b) questions about Medicare/Canada are not good proxies for single-payer or not single-payer systems. That is the POV problem not saying it's single-payer when every source is calling it single-payer. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the polls themselves, with a couple exceptions, do not call them single payer polls in their questions. The politifact source notes the difference in responses based on the questions. As this specific article is not about single payer, and the poll questions are not uniformly about single payer, we cannot do that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes wording affects it but the content of comparing them to Canada and Medicare do make them single-payer polls as PNHP and others call them. No one is saying that Medicare/Canada's system is not single-payer. As far as I can tell since we reached a deadlock I think it's worth doing dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

discussion copied from the dispute resolution discussion -- LWG ^talk 02:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This ultimately seems premature. Discussion is happening at the talk page, and I'm relatively confident we can come to some sort of conclusion. If anyone feels the need to input, the polls are described by media organizations differently than the questions that were asked. Thus, the questions reflect an opinion from the populace that is different than what CartoonDiablo wants to include in the article. I thought we reached a good compromise, apparently s/he disagrees. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed the pov-check tag that prompted this dispute, but I am otherwise unfamiliar with the past history of the editors and articles involved. I placed the tag after noticing that the polls CartoonDiabolo added were sourced from an explicitly partisan and non-neutral web site. I would like a clearer idea of where this data is from, what it is intended to add to the article, and whether there might be other data that was selectively omitted from the source web site (as I noted that even that website qualified their list as "polls showing support for a single payer system", suggesting that there might be other polls not on the list which had different results). All that said, I am not on any particular side of this dispute and would prefer that someone more familiar with the issues in question take a look at it. -- LWG ^talk 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It seemed at a deadlock but I suppose there can be a way to reconcile it. From what I can tell, there are 3 polls which can be argued not to be about single-payer and thus can be removed (although I think they are effectively the same thing) but everything relating to Medicare, Canada's/England's system and single-payer are explicitly single-payer polls since Medicare (US) and Canada/England had at the time the questions were asked and continue to have single-payer systems.

While the organizations that cite the polls are political they cite the original questions which, since the polls are comparing the US system to single-payer systems, are clearly single-payer polls. I would ask the other editors how such polls by virtue of using Canada's system and Medicare are anything but; there is no evidence or sources that suggest Americans don't consider those systems to be single-payer, that Americans don't know what single-payer is or that those are not single-payer systems so how are the polls not asking about single-payer? CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really a discussion that should be had at the talk page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with whether the polls are about a single payer system or whether Americans know what a single payer system is (or the much more relevant question "whether Americans know that Medicare is a single-payer system"). What I want to know is two things:

• What purpose are these polls intended to serve in the overall context of the article? What useful information are they meant to communicate to the reader?
• What assurance do we have that the analysis of the polls provides by an explicitly partisan advocacy group does not introduce pov problems to the article?

These are the concerns which led to my placing the pov-check tag, regardless of whatever existing questions about the polls may be going on at the other article. -- LWG ^talk 02:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

end of copied discussion

To answer both questions:

• The article is about public opinion regarding different types of healthcare reform; since single-payer is a kind of reform it's important to get opinion of it. It's the same reason why there's a section for the public option.
• The sources are advocacy based but they are non-partisan. For instance, PNHP wanted the healthcare mandate struck down during the ACA supreme court case. To the problem of POV, all the polls are not only cited (and linked) in both sources but they also show the original questions in their entirety. The only way you could say that this violates POV is if you thought the sources are fabricating poll questions and numbers (which when checked against the original polls is not the case).

This brings us back to the problem of whether or not these are single-payer polls are not. For the sake of definitiveness, I'll remove the 3 ambiguous polls and call the remaining ones single-payer.

If this stays I'll drop the dispute resolution but if it doesn't then the editors will need to explain why a poll question regarding a single-payer system is not a single-payer poll. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Because, yet again, you're going off of the reporting and not the question. You're bundling questions about things that are not described in the questions as single payer simply because the media incorrectly describes the poll question as such, and you're assuming that "like Medicare" means "single payer" to poll respondents with no evidence to support it other than your understanding of Medicare as a single-payer system. There's also a question of undue weight to the single payer viewpoint given the significant history of health care reform and public opinion in the US - as it stands, you've essentially cut-and-pasted the section from single payer health care without adjusting it for the current article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as how the problem of single-payer definition was not solved here we're going back to dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not solved because you're not engaging us. You've restated your case a few times, but you haven't explained the why or presented anything in the way of support to your claim. Your rush to dispute resolution is not doing anything to resolve the dispute because it's premature. Are you looking to sort this out or not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiabolo, I fail to see what repeatedly taking this to dispute resolution will accomplish. I have been involved in a number of content disputes on this wiki, and it is not uncommon for them to continue for extensive periods of time. This talk page is a perfectly suitable venue for discussing these issues, and should be used if at all possible so future editors can see what has been discussed in the past. Now, down to business. Again, I don't really care about the definition issue of whether medicare is single-payer, however in all of your discussion with Thergor Orlando thus far you have been ignoring a very important possibility: it is possible, and even likely, that most Americans do know what a single-payer system is, and that Medicare/Canada are a single-payer systems, but many Americans do not know that Medicare/Canada is a single payer system. Second, I should clarify what I meant by "partisan". I did not mean that that group aligns with a particular US political party, but that they exist for the purpose of causing a particular type of healthcare reform to occur (whether that type of reform is supported by democrats or republicans at the moment is irrelevant) and are thus suspect as a source of information relating to this subject. Hopefully I will have time to take a closer look at it myself and see what if any issues are indeed present, but in the meantime I suggest caution when working this information into the article as a whole. I have a few other concerns with the way the information is presented, but those can wait until you can Thargor settle your differences. -- LWG ^talk 04:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I went to dispute resolution because it's a binary problem (not including the related issues), either they are single-payer polls or not. Since we can't agree on it I think a third opinion via dispute resolution is needed or else it will be a revert war over a yes or no answer. That aside, I think I have been earnestly engaged considering I removed 3 polls for the sake of conciliation.

To the point about Americans not recognizing what single-payer is, it's certainly possible (and I asked for that as an explanation multiple times) but there is no source or evidence to suggest it and even if there was, would that by definition still invalidate it? If that were the case, it would mean that most Americans were still supporting single-payer systems and not aware of it.

Regarding the sources, it's obviously a concern but since it gives the original question along with the poll results the only way it could be unreliable is if the sources were literally fabricating results and questions which I don't think is the case. CartoonDiablo (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is for long-term, intractable issues. You took this to dispute resolution within 27 hours of bringing up the situation here, so I'm not sure what the rush is. Regarding the questions, some show asking about single payer, some do not - put aside the media's stories on the polls for a moment and look at the questions - if you think people understand that Medicare and Canada are single-payer, why, then do the questions result in wildly different answers when the questions change (per Politifact)? That should be a huge warning sign for your position on the matter, which is why I've continually asked you for some backup on that matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no time limit for when dispute resolution can be used and this is an intractable issue since we are arguing over a yes or no question. Secondly, they don't result in "wildly different" answers, the vast majority of the results are 60%+ support and Politifact's findings were somewhat contradictory, they said that majority support existed until 2007 but also seemed to imply that Medicare is not a single-payer system. And the only result that wasn't within the 60%+ was the Rasmussen poll which is alleged for bias.

Since it's clear that this is a binary and intractable issue I'll continue this discussion in dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your continued desire to rush to dispute resolution is baffling, and is working against our ability to come to a consensus here. We're arguing over a yes or no question right now because the result of that is important to the overall discussion. Is there a reason you're reluctant to answer the questions I've posed? Is there a reason you're complaining about Rasmussen's alleged bias, but not concerned about the bias of any of the polls you continue to add? Maybe a polling section is detrimental to actually giving good information. After thinking about it a bit, we can incorporate those polls if necessary into the public opinion section - since the "public opinion" section is about all forms of reform, it gives us an opportunity to be more balanced about it. I've been bold and removed the section, and we should discuss which polls from the single payer section we want to incorporate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've answered your questions multiple times, the real problem seems to be your reluctance to solve the yes or no question either here or in the dispute resolution (which btw I'm pretty sure is required by policy to participate in).

Once we solve the yes or no question, that is, if those are single-payer polls then we can restructure the article as needed. As it stands you have not given a clear answer either here or in dispute resolution for why it's a "no." CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll quote the DR page for you:

It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Wikipedia.

It is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.

It is not a place that issues binding decisions on content. The focus here is on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See the page on closing discussions for general background to this principle.

You're using DR as a way to circumvent the discussion at this page, and perhaps only to try and get your way at arbitration instead of working with us to fix the article. If you've actually answered my questions, I cannot see them anywhere here - you're insisting it's a yes or no question, but the fact remains that you have zero evidence for your belief that people polled understand that "like Medicare" equals "single payer." It's up to those who want to include information to provide verification for it, period. You have not done so, and we now have an article that's showing some significant bias issues. That's good for no one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, we're still waiting for a response. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found time for a closer look at this. Please see my summary of my thoughts in the dispute resolution thread and let me know if you have any problems with it before I proceed to suggestions of what to do. -- LWG ^talk 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, it appears CartoonDiablo has chosen not to engage us further on this. If there's nothing more to say on his end to defend his changes, then we'll revert them back and move onward to fix other parts of this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As CartoonDiablo has decided not to engage us in 10 days, I'm reverting his changes. Hopefully, if there's further discussion on the matter to be had, he'll offer it up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, after not checking in here for close to 2 weeks, reverted basically without comment. Does anyone have any other input on this, or maybe CartoonDiablo would like to chime in? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets reiterate the basic issue: we don't know whether or not they are polls regarding single-payer. I have said that they are for the reasons mentioned and have removed polls that might not be considered as such. Thargor can move the discussion forward by saying why or why not they are such polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you not looking at the questions asked? Why are you assuming, against all available evidence to this point, that people know that Medicare is the same as single payer? There are plenty of unanswered questions above that we'd love some answers to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To the question of whether or not people know:

• The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The a priori assumption is they do unless proven otherwise.
• Even if we discover (or assume) most people don't know, by definition they are supporting a single-payer system since they are supporting the single-payer systems of Canada/England and Medicare. Unless you want to change the Medicare (United States), Canada and NHS articles then the polls clearly show Americans support single-payer systems.

That and it would be an issue of WP:Undue since no source is claiming Americans don't know what single-payer is but two sources are claiming they support it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is fulfilled by Politifact, who notes the differential between the way the questions are asked. As the polls do not ask about single payer explicitly, it's original research to assume *anything* other than what the polls tell us. And I quote:

• Both those polls are nearly two years old, though, and we think it's safe to say Americans are far more tuned in to the health care question now than they were then. We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing).
• "Single-payer is not a concept that people are very familiar with," said Karlyn Bowman, polling analyst with the American Enterprise Institute.
• Which brings us to this point: Words matter. Drop in the words "like Medicare" and some polls have found the public responds better. People generally like Medicare. Call it universal health care run by the government, and you often do better than calling it "single-payer." And if you call it a "socialized" system, well, you can guess the results.

It's not "undue weight" (you clearly don't know what that means) to simply go by the polls as they are written. You're engaging in original research to assume anything other than what the polls say, so I'm making the change back based on policy and based on the fact that you cannot support the inclusion of your information and are engaging in original research to do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No what Politifact says is it no longer became popular after 2007 (which is dubious given the polls after 2007); the citation of the American Enterprise Institute on public understanding of single-payer (even if true) would still be undermined by the fact that they are polls asking people about single-payer systems. And wording might affect the poll but it doesn't change the content of it.

And it's not OR since PNHP and other groups are explicitly saying they are single-payer polls. The fact is, whether or not Americans know, a poll of a single-payer system is a poll of a single-payer system which is why the other sources say so.

Actually in looking at it again there are other sources in addition to ones we have now saying they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Some polls are about single payer, yes. Not all. The problem is you labeling them as all about single payer. They are not, and you must stop doing so. You're actively introducing misinformation into this entry without consensus or supporting evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, it's now been two days - what is your response to this and the facts presented above? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You have presented no facts, if a question is asking about a single payer system it's a single-payer poll; that's what four sources are saying and that's what Politifact is implying. The fact that you are still arguing about this (since no one else is) is ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I presented many facts. It's up to the person who wants to include it to prove what it says - where is your proof that people know they're uniformly describing single payer, because Politifact clearly notes the differences in how the questions are asked. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is in the four (edit: six) sources, even if it can be proven either way that people know or don't know about single-payer (which its not and Politifact's obvious statement that wording affects a poll doesn't change the content of it), by virtue of them being asked about single-payer systems, makes it a single-payer poll (which all the sources explicitly say). To claim otherwise is to use WP:OR since no one is claiming, not even Politifact, that Americans' lack of knowledge makes it so they support single-payer systems. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources, again, do not explictly say that. You're still assuming, with no supporting evidence, that people consider Medicare, single payer, and "universal" or "guaranteed" health insurance as the same thing. Where is your proof to meet WP:V to include such wording? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they do, all six sources, literally all six of them, say that a poll of Americans supporting Medicare for all, Canadian healthcare etc. is evidence that Americans support single-payer. By this point it's just your opinion versus those six sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's 1 or 100 selected polls, polls in that area create the desired answer by how they are worded. When it's explained what single payer means (governmentalized) the polls show strong opposition. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are not polls, they are sources commenting on the polls and all of them say that a poll that asks Americans about Medicare for all, Canada's system etc. are single-payer polls. That is to say, the interpretations of the wording of the sources are that they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, you're referencing the polls directly. That's what you've been edit warring on for months - the questions themselves? They do not all talk about single payer. Some do, yes - others talk about "Medicare for all," others talk about "like Canada" or "like Medicare," others "universal health insurance." If everyone understood those things to be synonymous with each other, the polling would also be identical. It's not, and Politifact notes it. You appear to be 100% incorrect on this, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your viewpoint on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise you to actually look at the six sources; none of them are links to the original polls, while they may cite them they are explicitly saying that: a question regarding a single-payer system (whether or not Americans know that Medicare for all or Canada's healthcare is single-payer) IS a single-payer poll. This includes The Washington Post and NPR as well as four other groups.

What you say is a single-payer poll is certainly your opinion but it is not the opinion of the six sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If they're not links to the actual polls, then you must have changed the links when you made them a table. We should be linking to the original polls, are you against that? Regardless, if a poll is not explicitly asking about single payer, we cannot call it a single payer poll. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Because one of the citations includes the original question from old polls. That aside, the sources are saying that they are explicitly asking about single-payer. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't the polls a better source, since it brings us direct, unfiltered data? And if the questions aren't about single payer explicitly, they're not explicitly asking about single payer. An example: your Kaiser poll that asks about "[H]aving a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?" You and I know the similarities, but that's not explicitly asking about single payer. Furthermore, you removed a bunch of polls that were in this section that didn't ask about single payer. I didn't catch that, and we'll have to add those back. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought a second ago you said we shouldn't use the direct polls? At any rate, you might think it's better but sources including the Washington Post and NPR as well as the four other groups don't. That aside to my knowledge the polls I removed where not called single-payer polls by the sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been arguing we should be using the polls directly from the beginning. You removed polls that had information that is contrary to what you want to express, and you left polls in that you're incorrectly interpreting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something is being mixed up here. The sources claiming they're single-payer polls are not the direct polls, however the polls in the chart are linked to the direct polls (which are themselves also mentioned in the sources). CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. My proposal to you, then, is to use the polls you've added as well as the ones that were in the paragraph that you changed into a table. Add them all together, and we have a nice table of polling for all versions of health care reform, not giving undue weight to a specific type. Sound good? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think one of us is misunderstanding here. If you mean to add the polls in the paragraph prior to the chart, they are all present (with probably more now) or put another way there aren't any polls to add. If you mean adding non-single-payer polls then I'm not sure what kind of sense that would make; the article is structured by giving polls to different kinds of reforms (public option, insurance mandate etc.) so it would mess up the layout of the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The layout of the article is a mess right now with one random table while the rest is in prose. If there's nothing different data wise, why not go back to the paragraph, then? The paragraph, by the way, included non-single payer polls, so I'm pretty sure something's either a) missing or b) being misstated here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The table format can be applied to other sections and it works much better at conveying the information then the paragraph did. Also the four or so non-single-payer polls were removed for that reason, they aren't single-payer polls in a single-payer section, so I'm not sure why kind of sense it would make to add them back into a single-payer section. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to the single payer aspect in this case - we both know that the discussion of single payer is not a serious one in the United States and has little to no chance of actually becoming reality. If a table is good, then the table a) needs to be consistent among eras as the paragraphs are in this article and b) needs to have the single payer polls added to those sections, as opposed to having its own section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you or I think it's a serious discussion is irrelevant to the fact that it is being discussed, with six sources including The Washington Post, NPR as well as four other groups. That aside, it's clearly not undue weight since other sections have as many polls cited as the single-payer section if not more so. The other problem is how you would format the public option, insurance mandate sections since they are different proposals as well.

In general I think the article should be separated into sections of different proposals including price controls for drugs, free market/private solutions, legislative proposals etc. and "general" or timelines of polls should be phased out or turned into a possible "general solutions" section if they don't fit any other policy sections. As it stands now, having paragraphs for timelines of every solution (ie year by year) is confusing and difficult to navigate. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this "discussion" is coming in part due to your continued misunderstanding of what the polls are asking, not to mention your scrubbing of the discussion of all the actual probable/possible reforms talked about. By sectioning off single payer, however, you are giving it undue weight as if it's a serious discussion in the United States. There is no chance of single payer being offered in the United States in the near future. The article may, in fact, be too long. However, your use of tables is probably improper style-wise, given the disparity in the questions and such. Prose is a much better option, and I think it's a better choice to move these polls into the prose, re-adding what you took out. This way, we lose no data and the article conforms to the same standard all the way through. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am using the definitions of polls given by the sources, the fact that you think something is not a single payer poll doesn't change the fact that six sources do. Secondly, single-payer has been widely discussed and polled for decades, undue is based on the actual discussion of something, not whether or not it will succeed legislatively.

I don't see what's incorrect about the way I used the table especially since you praised its use when I first added it, that aside, prose for polling can be difficult to navigate, charts seem like the natural solution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If we have the exact wording of the polls, we should be consistent and use those whenever possible. I did praise it because I didn't notice that you removed other polls to create a section of undue weight toward a fringe viewpoint in the US. I'm still in favor of the prose standard we have in place, with a secondary preference to have tables by decade/era rather than by type of reform. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The biggest item is missing or obscured

The main law / system on this is Obamacare /ACA I would think that overall public opinion on that (when it was passed and now) would be core information for the article, yet it seems missing or obscured. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The complicating factor is that public opinion on ACA as a whole is inexplicably different from the views about various pieces of it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the case on any topic, but does not preclude covering the overall view. North8000 (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Phasing out timelines (ie year by year) in favor of policy sections

It seems to me that having year by year or timeline sections is confusing and difficult to navigate and is redundant since there are a lot of different years for each policy solution. My proposal is to have it separated by policy solution and give multiple years for each one in the style of the single-payer section. This could be separated into:

• Public option
• Individual Mandate
• Single-payer healthcare
• Price controls for drugs
• Free market/private healthcare solutions

• Trading across state lines
• Letting states decide etc.

• General opinion of bills

• ACA/Obamacare

• State proposals

• Specific state

Each one of these would have significant histories and would eliminate the redundancy of having policy and timeline sections as well as reactions to bills and the specific parts to them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Policy sections will give undue weight to unlikely policy proposals, and will skew the idea of having an understanding of the shifting viewpoints of the population over time. A better idea is to use the prose to clarify the timeline, relying on polls when necessary but instead focusing on the overarching public debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight is determined by the discussion of something not whether it will succeed legislatively. That aside, shifting opinion over time will be reflected by the polling in each policy solution or a section can be created if it's an actual issue and public opinion has not been consistent.

As compared to a normal article, polls are small bits of information which don't lend well to prose because it's easy to miss a poll and difficult to incorporate it into a paragraph but they do work better as charts. Other public opinion articles such as that of same-same marriage more or less do this. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's essentially giving weight to a fringe viewpoint, which is what single payer proponents hold in the US. If we separate it by issue, it will make it look as if the issues themselves have equal validity in the court of public opinion which they don't. Same sex marriage is not equatable to this because there are essentially three positions - no, civil unions, or yes. There are a myriad of reforms to cover here of differing validity. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You might think its a fringe viewpoint but the polls themselves show support and its widely discussed among the sources including The Washington Post and NPR. Again, Undue and Fringe is based on public discussion of it, not whether it will succeed legislatively and not on the opinions of editors. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The polls, for the umpeenth time, show support for things "like Medicare" or similar to "Canada," thus the disparity in polling for when single payer is specifically asked. Undue weight for fringe viewpoints is specifically about those viewpoints. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is YOUR view of what the polls say, unless your view happens to supersede NPR and The Washington Post as well as four other organizations then that is what the sources say the polls are. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not my view, but rather the exact wording of the polls in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is your view, all the sources say those exact polls, regardless of what you think the wording indicates, are single-payer polls.

That's fine. It's up to us to discern between good and bad information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Single-payer table

So let me get this straight, after complaining about the prose for months all of a sudden Thargor Orlando and North8000 not only delete about a dozen polls but revert back to the original prose they had problems with.

I hope you two realize this edit isn't going to hold up anywhere and is an obvious attempt to delete content you disagree with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So add the polls you feel belong in the article within the prose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It was my impression that the material is still there in prose form. But, either way, it's almost unimaginable that there is so much space given to indirectly-related polls and the article totally avoids providing the polling data on the main law concerning health care in the US. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my impression as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the content it seems clear its not a format dispute but a definitional dispute. Unless North8000 and Thargor Orlando happen to supersede six different sources, those are single payer polls, not "government at various levels of healthcare" polls. If you two want to dispute that we can take it to DRN but its obvious that what your using is your POV in defining the polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's both. If they were single payer polls, they'd ask about it. Hopefully someone will chime in at the NPOV soon to help sort this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV discussion will be moved to DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If they move it there, fine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Time to start fixing the BIG POV problems with this article, not the presentation format of the cherry-picked data. The results of polls on the nationalization of healthcare are controlled by the words used to describe it, and this whole article is based on selection on cherrypicking the polls that chose the words which gave the intended result. Also it's missing the polls on the main law and plan concernign this. Obamacare). The problems are so large that I think that fixing it might require deleting the whole article and starting over. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To North (this is prior to the DRN being opened up for comments) can you elaborate how those are "cherrypicked" polls? Are there some polls of single-payer that were missed? CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Where should we start? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to CartoonDiablo, those would be the polls where the the synonyms which create neutral or opposite results were used. Examples of the latter synonyms would be "nationalizaiton of healthcare" and "government takeover of healthcare". And also polls where the costs are included with the benefits instead of wordeing that incldes only th benefits e.g. opinions on Obamacare. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you post links to those polls please?TMCk (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll start finding them. Here's the first. 36% favorable on Obamacare, 52% unfavorable. [3] North8000 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you still on it or is that it?TMCk (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem that's being missed is that the idea that we need to separate "single payer" into a table gives severe undue weight to the concept in the US, where it is not something polls show support for. We have two users mischaracterizing polls that aren't about single payer as single payer, which makes it worse, while the article ignores other issues of public opinion as North has given an example of. The latest is the edit you keep reinstating for unexplained reasons - it's creating a pretty bad POV problem, which is why I've asked for input at the NPOV board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just an incredible statement, Thargor. There's overwhelming support for a single-payer system in America, with many polls taken over the last few years to support it. I think the problem here is that you don't seem to understand the meaning of single-payer, because you seem to dismiss perfectly acceptable polls that indicate/imply single-payer. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's incredible is your continued insistence that they're single-payer polls. They're not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides that they clearly are, let me catch on to your response/silly misguided attack on my edit above: So what you're saying is that they're own title of their poll is wrong or misleading or else and we shouldn't use it here on wiki? Is that right? If so, please explain why!TMCk (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Setting the cherrypicking question aside for the moment, I think that polls should be presented /titled by what they actually asked. The terminology is immensely important because in this area that (the terminology) determines the result of the poll. Editors relabeling them (including by "single payer" heading on a table) is OR at best. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Saying something is "like Medicare" does not stir up "single payer" in the minds of voters. The so-called "public option" is what many consider "universal health insurance funded by the government." There's a reason why, when asked directly about single payer, poll respondents reject it. It's why Politifact deemed a claim that the polls show that false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Medicare IS a single-payer system. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And the evidence that poll respondents understand it to be a single payer system is where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't ask any question about Medicare. I'm just pointing out that Medicare is a single-payer system, and if the question had been phrased as "do you want Medicare for everyone" instead of mention the evil federal government, the result would be completely different. But it's a push poll by the right wing, so it wouldn't do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There are polls in question that frame the question as "like Medicare." Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As an FYI to those continuing to try and force things on this article without engaging further here, the issue is the mistaken labeling of the Rasmussen poll as about Occupy Wall Street. It's not. 2 of 9 questions concern Occupy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's bullshit. It's a poll about OWS carried out at the height of the protests. By the time respondents get to the question on single-payer, they've been "prepped" for it by the previous questions. That's why it is called a push poll. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a push poll is false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Questions - Wall Street Protests - October 21-22, 2011".TMCk (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, but only two of the questions were about the protests. Clearly, as Rasmussen put the article out about health care reform when presenting the poll, it didn't end up that way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole poll is about OWS, and it begins with THREE questions about it. Can't you count? Having buttered up the respondent with those first 3 questions, it then goes on to ask related questions (couched as federal spending) and presents the results in a favorable-to-the-right light. It's totally a push poll. Either you are an agenda-driven editor, or you are suffering from the worse case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Seriously, dude. You need to stop lying. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What North said. I also didn't count the 3rd question as "about occupy" as it was about two things, but I'll grant you that for the sake of discussion. The other six are not about occupy, and trying to introduce that into the article makes no sense in the context of the poll or article. It's deliberately misleading. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be misleading not to provide the poll in context.TMCk (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about occupy. To pretend that the first few questions of the poll are impacting the 7th or 8th question is the same push poll conspiracy theory being peddled above. We don't do that with any other poll listed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're really funny in your responses... What else can be said...TMCk (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What could be said is how to fix this article from being the POV mess it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You are saying it is a "POV mess" because it doesn't reflect your point of view. Well, too bad. Although I think the poll uses questionable tactics, I do not object to its use; however, I insist it is used in the proper context and not used to create a false equivalence (with your "in contrast" original research) to support your fantasy view that single-payer is unpopular. It is clear that most polls indicate the American people want single-payer, so this particular poll is an outlier at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a POV mess because it doesn't reflect the evidence. As the evidence doesn't support your position on the polls and what they say, there's no chance of it standing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this, Thargor. You have consistently refused to believe the facts staring you in the face on almost every issue we have ever discussed. I see no point in continuing this discussion because it is clear you are only interested in POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Then lets just dissect and analyze it. Which sourcing says which of these is "single payer"? North8000 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The six sources mentioned earlier all consider them to be single-payer polls. The consensus of the sources is if they describe a single-payer system ("like medicare" or "like Canada" etc.) then it's a single-payer poll. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This source discusses that very issue, and offers expert analysis on various polls. It is a reliable source that can be used to explain the grouping of polls into the "single-payer" category. It also discusses the Rasmussen poll that has been so controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That sources is actually one of the six sources, among them the Washington Post and NPR. Although unless we can find a source that criticizes the Rasmussen poll directly it would be POV to criticize or remove it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The PNHP is the advocacy group "Physicians for a National Health Program." They are not neutral, the author of the piece a physician and medical professor, *not* an expert on statistics. He lists the polls in play as "single payer," but we look at the line of questioning ("like Medicare," "universal health insurance," "Canadian") and we see that the issue is more complex than that. As the author notes, "In other words, those questions didn’t just rely on the phrase 'single payer,' a phrase most people do not understand." He's outright stating that the polls do not ask about single payer, as it's his belief that people don't understand the issue. That's his opinion that they don't understand the issue, of course, but it backs up the problem with the polls - when people *are* asked explicitly about single payer, they tend to reject it. This is why Politifact says what it does. We can say that this specific group believes that Americans want single payer, but we cannot say that the individual polls do, as they clearly do not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So are NPR and the Washington Post political advocacy groups for single-payer? Seriously just answer the question, you have been avoiding the majority of what the sources affirmatively call single-payer polls. Notice PolitiFact didn't affirmatively say polls not specifically mentioning "single-payer" are not single-payer polls simply that wording gives different response. Those two sources did affirmatively say they are such polls.

I think we've all been waiting for you reconcile reliable sources saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I reconcile them with the actual language of the polls. The links in the article tend to support my point of view over yours as well - the NPR article linked says " backers of a single-payer plan frequently cite a December 2007 poll by the Associated Press and Yahoo," and then show the poll calling for "universal health insurance," not single payer. Looking closer at the WaPo piece, it's a blog post by Ezra Klein at the Post talking about the results of a special election where the Ryan Medicare plan was a major issue - it doesn't cite a single poll, and assumes a significant amount about the voters and about their knowledge of the Ryan plan and Medicare itself. It should probably just be removed entirely - it's an extremely local issue about one district in NYC. I clearly shouldn't have given those sources the benefit of the doubt that they say what you claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually yeah, my bad with the Washington Post, but you're literally saying "NPR is wrong" so unless Thargor Orlando is more reliable source than NPR then you're the one that's actually wrong. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm saying is that NPR is unquestioningly citing the statement of "backers of a single payer plan." NPR never actually takes a position on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah clearly they just cite a Harvard public opinion specialist and a single-payer supporter who both say that single-payer has lots of support and point to the poll as an example but are in way saying that this is a single-payer poll. Makes perfect sense.

But just in case it wasn't explicit enough already they say so even clearer in another article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

They're quoting activists with an agenda. In your NPR link, they're not quoting the poll but rather Dennis Kucinich, an advocate of single payer who quotes a poll not about single payer, but rather about national health insurance in both cases. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the article says the polls are "showing support for single-payer health care" not that he claimed those polls are showing support. It's making a distinction where none exists. I mean, you're certainly welcome to go to DRN but no one but yourself would go by that reasoning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it cites Kucinich's claims: "Kucinich points to public opinion polls from Annals of Internal Medicine and CBS News showing support for single-payer health care." There's no need to go to DRN - we have a discussion open at the NPOV noticeboard if you refuse to accept NPR's direct citation to Kucinich. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why didn't NPR say that Kucinich "claimed" that those polls showed support instead of affirmatively saying they did? You're asserting that there is a hidden "claimed" in the article which is POV, when I'm going by what it actually said. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording is clear that they're referencing to Kucinich's actions, Kucinich "pointing" to polls that he believes support his point of view. Why would NPR imply that Kucinich was pointing to polls that he believed didn't support him? The NPR article does no fact checking, it's straight reporting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird because I didn't see the words "he believes" or "he claims" but I did see him point to polls "showing support for single-payer health care." And no, news sources don't adapt the reality of those they interview they say what the facts are.

A news source wouldn't say "X person showed evidence that earth is flat". They would say that the person claims such, if they didn't it means they agree with "evidence that the earth is flat." CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The NPR piece rightfully is not making judgement calls. This happens throughout the article - the NPR story takes the beliefs and statements of the people they talk to at face value, from the person at the town hall they quote to the CAP fellow. The polls themselves clearly do not talk about single payer, and the best I could compromise on is quoting those two polls, via prose, as polls "NPR categorized as supporting single payer in a discussion with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich]]." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They clearly don't take someone's claim at face value, if they did then people like flat earth believers would be pointing to evidence that proves the earth is flat. If they don't qualify it (he "claims" something), then that is the reality that NPR or any other news takes. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And if NPR does an article about flat-earthers, we can make that distinction as well. They do qualify it by noting that Kucinich "points" to certain polls. This is Kucinich's claim, not the claim of NPR. You are incorrect. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I keep checking my Watchlist to see if there's any response to this, and it's not coming after a week. I assume we can remove this without controversy at this point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing material for POV would be controversial, sorry but no one but yourself thinks that somehow NPR takes on the viewpoint of the people they are interviewing.

To respond to your other point, yes, Kucinich "points" to what NPR considers single-payer polls, not "various levels of government involvement" polls and not Kucinich "claiming" they are such polls but actual single-payer polls. If you want to argue that you're not POV-pushing then do so in DRN and see if anyone would go for a consensus based on your reasoning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

So we need to qualify that as the words of Kucinich, not blindly cite it to NPR, correct? And we're still back to the beginning part of your inability to cite how the wording of the polls talk single payer. There's a thread at the NPOV noticeboard you've also been quiet on, perhaps you'd like to explain there since you're so interested in escalating it elsewhere. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For those interested, a merge to the Health care in the united states article was tossed out there and doesn't seem controversial at this time. If there's an argument against it, let me know or we'll put it through. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting this through. Discussion on other issues continues at the NPOV noticeboard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)