A user has requested that the Good article community check whether this article's GA status is in need of reassessment. This is just an alert and reassessment may not be necessary: any uninvolved editor can remove this tag.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
A news item involving Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 22 March 2010.
A news item involving Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 28 June 2012.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid Americans" controversy
People are already forgetting that Jonathan Gruber's gaffe isn't just what he thinks about the American people, he has also exposed the fraudulent mechanisms behind what lead to the passage of the PPACA in the first place.
In other words, Jonathan Gruber did not just come on camera, say the four words "American voters are stupid", and then go back home. He has said on numerous videos that the lies and trickery that was required to get the PPACA (aka Obamacare) past the American voters, is what makes the American voter stupid.
If that cannot make it into the PPACA's content, considering how important Jonathan Gruber was/is to PPACA, then there is a violation of NPOV somewhere. Everybody is trying to distance themselves from Gruber now, but a few years ago his role was not in doubt.
Just the CBO sections alone need a wholesale re-write, to take into consideration the lies and trickery.
The entire page is a violation of NPOV. It is bought, paid for and monitored for the purposes of promoting the subject material.
It's extremely hard to get around these editors' tight control of their narratives. For example, I tried editing JournoList in an impartial manner using sources from all political aisles (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JournoList), and editors and administrator friends reverted my changes without a citing a justifiable reason that was consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. They instead inserted original research to make it seem as if JournoList was a conservative conspiracy. They also used ad hominem attacks against me and blocked me even though I followed all Wikipedia guidelines. It's appalling what these activist editors do to manipulate the public.Sy9045 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
No mention of these suits? I realize they are not directly challenging the ACA, but rather the IRS implementation of the ACA, but surely we should link the user over to them? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially as King is at the Supreme Court, it's a no-brainer. Support a section highlighting the two lawsuits with main article links to each at the top. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently we have a combined article for all the suits, since they are arguing all the same issues (and have now all been put into abeyance except for king which will resolve them all) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)