Talk:Kaiser Permanente

Archive

I have created an archive of the old discussions. There were no current discussions about improving this article, and the talk page was really long. In case anyone needs to know in the future, I used the Move Page method. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaiser Permanente.png

Image:Kaiser Permanente.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lupoe murders

We have to be careful what we write. BLP is for people, not entities, but even entities deserve fair consideration. We don't know if a clerk told Lupoe to kill himself. Disclaimer: I don't have any relationship, past or present, with Kaiser. In fact, I don't think particularly highly of them Spevw (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We do know what we read in reliable sources. We can report what they say, but need to make sure we don't go beyond what they say. However I'm not sure that this tragedy belongs in the article. I'm sure that, unfortunately, many corporations have fired people who've gone on to commit suicide. Even if the boss did make the alleged comment, it does not make the corporation culpable.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. Agree. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the material, and it was restored, so I looked into it to see if there was more reporting - if the story had "legs". The only two reports in the past week have been a general editorial about seeking assistance before situations become desperate [1] and a report about the funerals.[2] The latter includes the information that the parents were fired "for trying to defraud their employer". Rather than fill out the story with this unhappy detail, I again think it's better to remove the material from this article so that's what I'm goping to do. It's a sad case, but it really isn't about Kaiser.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So I am not sure who is behind the IP that has multiple times cut the story and references both from the KP article and from the hospitals.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2009_January_27&diff=prev&oldid=267145941 current event page when the story happened. I personally am fine with Lupoe not being in the KP article, feel that as they are dead, they cannot defend against the charge of "trying to defraud their employer" (which I feel is suspect, but what ever), and believe that Kaiser did not pull the trigger on Lupoe to pull the trigger on his family. I do believe it is part of a larger story reflective of Kaiser's handling and support of it's employees as well as reflective of the economy of Wilmington. But that is not what the Wikipedia article is about.

Thank you for letting me having my say. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?

"One of the most dubious ventures of the Permanente Company is Kaiser Permanente Ventures, a venture capital firm that invests in emerging medical technologies.[4]" Why is this dubious? Magmagoblin2 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's weasely at best, and likely just a random editor's opinion. I suspect the editor that inserted it may find it "dubious" that a not-for-profit health plan has a for-profit investment arm, but it's unsourced and ought to be removed. jæs (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article not NPOV

In reading through this article, it appears to have a flavor more like a polemic antipathetic to Henry Kaiser and appears editorial and very POV in nature, especially in the HISTORY section. I would suggest the following: 1) if there is serious evidence that Henry Kaiser's re-involvement with the organization caused problems, then remove judgmental words like 'micromanaged' and cite sources with hard numbers, ie show with properly footnoted citations that revenue X1 and membership X2 went to some lower levels Y1 and Y2. 2) while some of the language used here may be quoted from footnoted sources, it is still clearly judgmental in nature and needs to be toned down to meet the NPOV criterion "Prefer non-judgmental language"; 3 Follow the NPOV standards throughout the article... I see from a preceding post here that much of the editing here has been done by a former KP employee with an ax grind... perhaps a more neutral editor who has access to the mentioned and footnoted sources and to other citations on the subject that balances the OPINION shown here can come up with a reasonable re-wording L. Greg (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is neutral; you're reading too much into it. I drafted most of the first part of the history section, which was based on a history of Kaiser Permanente that was done with KP's cooperation (but was not sponsored by it) and was clearly pro-KP and pro-HMO. There was a LOT of detail in there about how Henry Kaiser came in and along with the hapless Garfield nearly ran KP into the ground until Clifford Keene took over. But I didn't have the time or energy to put all that in, plus 90% of people aren't interested in reading all that tedious detail (this is an encyclopedia, not a compendium). That's why I wrote that section the way I did, to summarize the content of the book so readers interested in the gory details can go pursue them if they need it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser Foundation

This Canadian mental health organization shares a logo, thus is somehow connected. a link should be provided, not sure where, or whether it deserves a full section.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The "somehow connected" appears to be via people, and disclaims any institutional links. The Canadian group's "about the founder" page states

"In 1985, Mr. Kaiser established and funded the Kaiser Foundation as a separate and distinct entity from other Kaiser family endeavours."

"Mr. Kaiser and his family have a long history in the not-for-profit health care field through the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and through the Kaiser Permanente HMO. Kaiser Permanente was the first HMO established in the United States. Mr. Kaiser is Chairman Emeritus of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation."

So there may be some linkage to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but there appears to be no formal connection to Kaiser Permanente. Argyriou (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical centers

with 35 medical centers (hospitals), i think we should have them included in the article. any of them which offer Emergency Services should have their own articles, esp. if they have high trauma center ratings.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)