Talk:Health insurance cooperative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POV problems[edit]

Well, we have two paragraphs criticizing the concept and one tiny thing in support. This is way unbalanced. We need more pro-cooperative material here.

Of course, two editors with a long-time history of ideological biases, distortion of sources, and putting their own unsourced opinions into articles love this, but I don't- and no Wikipedia editors should either. The Squicks (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In the debate over healthcare reform, health care cooperatives are an alternative to both publicly-funded health care and single-payer health care. There once were numerous rural health cooperatives established by the Farm Security Administration (FSA). They have nearly all died from lack of economy of scale, i.e., too small to compete.[2]

It has been proposed as part of the health care reform debate in the United States by the Barack Obama administration as a possible compromise with Republicans in the search for universal health care in the United States.[3][4][5] As it is being proposed by President Obama, a future health insurance cooperative would not be government owned or run, but would instead receive an initial government investment and would then be operated as a non-profit organization.[6]

  • Well, here's the bias laid on thick already. The article states that previous co-operatives failed just before it goes on to discuss the recent proposals. It's leading the reader's mind to be slanted against what is coming up next.

While a health insurance co-op is not strictly run by the government, hence not making it a public entity, it has been described by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who is also the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Finance as "tough enough to keep insurance companies’ feet to the fire."[7] Others have suggested that this model has its own problems that should be closely studied before adoption.[8]

  • Note the use of "others" here, which clearly violates WP:SYN.

"... such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system." and "Nonprofit health-care cooperatives won't have any real bargaining leverage to get lower prices because they'll be too small and too numerous. Pharma and Insurance know they can roll them." - former US Secretary of Labor and economics professor Robert Reich[9]

  • By segmenting the text out this way, it makes Reich's opinions more prominent than Baucus'- which is biased and unfair.

"... according to the Congressional Budget Office, they (health insurance cooperatives) 'seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.'" - 2008 Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman[11]

The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you and our consensus against you. -MBHiii (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret the fact that I have to waste time with you, especially given your unrepentant use of sock-puppets to game the Wikipedia system and to get around things, but I'm afraid that I am stuck with you and you are stuck with me. Neither of us is going away. Both of us are here to stay.
I have no trouble reverting changes by you when they are blatant vandalism (as with doodle, yankee doodle, teabagger, and so on), but the issue on this article is different. It's a bias issue. A lot of what is here seems fine. Hopefully, you and I can work this out.
It should not be hard for you to find some pro-health-cooperative material and add it to this article. It also should not be hard for you to find anti-health-cooperative material that attacks it from the right (all of the stuff in the article now is from the left) as a trojan horse. Let's get working :) The Squicks (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, what you consider bias is its inherent quality. If you want more info, you find it. The controversy's over, not when you say so, but when a majority does. MBHiii (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

what you consider bias is its inherent quality I'm well aware of your left-wing personal views and that you prefer articles that reflect those. But this is an encyclopedia, and we must follow WP:NPOV.
If you want more info, you find it. Either you're finding material that is pro-cooperative and that is anti-cooperative from the right, or I am removing material from this article right now to keep it balanced.
The controversy's over Like I said before, you are stuck with me. Get used to it :) The Squicks (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The article as it is now looks pretty good. I would prefer to elaborate some of the points in the 'criticism section (i.e. exactly "why" does Krugman believe that they will not compete effectively), but I withdraw the POV tag now. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
...one reason he gave in the quote you deleted, the CBO said so. -MBHiii (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OR insertions removed[edit]

However, when an elected official's business dealings or campaign funding can reasonably be expected to influence his public positions, it should be reported.

  • This opinion belongs to Mbii. He cannot put his own opinion into an article. That violates WP:OR.

Senator Grassley, is considered to be the ranking Republican on taking funds from lobbyists for anti-health reform according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Grassley took in more than $2 million from health-related companies since 2003.

  • This information is not linked to the fact that Grassley supports co-opts by the source. Mbii is putting his own words into someone else's mouth, which violates WP:SYN. The Squicks (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


As well, Dean and the Democrats have taken plenty of special interest money. This fact should not be in this article given that no sources that I have seen connect that to their position on co-opts. The same is true for this side.
I would greatly prefer that Mbii edit constructively (for once) and discuss the issue here rather than start an edit war. The Squicks (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Concede the point. It is a generalization, to politicians, of what has become a WP practice w.r.t. the reporting of political polls. When a poll is paid for, largely or entirely, by some interest group, the funding source is often mentioned, esp. when the poll reflects the POV of the interest group. Politicians' positions reflecting the POV of very major donors should carry similar caviats. From the ref cited, both Baucus's and Grassley's positions should have one. -MBHiii (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Politicians' positions reflecting the POV of very major donors should carry similar caviats. This is your opinion. Once again, your opinion is not fact. You cannot claim that a source links the two issues- the funding and the pro-cooperative stance- when it does not do that. See WP:OR and WP:SYN. The Squicks (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The way it seems to be handled, for polls, is by the editors deciding, collectively, whether there is possible evidence of bias. If so, funding's reported, and sometimes it's just reported anyway, to be on the safe side. Applying that to politicians, as is often done in WP anyway, helps people understand issues better. "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh (1966) -MBHiii (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
by the editors deciding, collectively, whether there is possible evidence of bias No, its not. It is not acceptable for you or for any other editor to insert your own or their own personal opinion into an article. Whether or not this helps people understand issues better is, once again, your own personal opinion. I'm getting rather sick and tired of having to stop you from putting your personal opinions into articles and for you to pretend that your personal opinion is fact, as if you think that you are God. Even if I'm banned, blocked, or whatever, there will always be another editor who will stop you.
Read WP:V. And then read WP:RS. And then just try to understand that Wikipedia only has material cited to sources. You can't keep doing what you are doing. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't deserve an edit war. However I am puzzled by the argument that Jack Cafferty does not link Grassley's opinions to his funding. Cafferty seems to be quite explicit in his statement that funding influences members of Congress. We should tweak the wording of the paragraph that is being warred, but the sources are reliable, and no-one is trying to say anything that isn't said by the sources. If the criticism section is gutted the way some have proposed, the article becomes quite biased. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

However, Grassley's neutrality in the issue has been called into question. According to Wendell Potter "this senator has the insurance industry’s best interests at heart, not the American public and not his constituents."

If the information must be included, than we have to accept a core ground rules. The opinion of Wendell Potter is HIS OPINION. It is not objective fact. Do not treat it as objective fact. It's a opinion by a person. To claim that his opinion therefore implies that Grassley is lying as a matter of objective fact is pure OR that absolutely will not fly here. The Squicks (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor User:Mbhiii appears to again be using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.122.89.163 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)