Talk:Medicare for All Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename article[edit]

Proposal: This article should be re-named United States National Health Insurance Bill. The content may need slight rewording. An act is not created until a bill passes through congress and has presidential approval.--Tom 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a bill, but the title of the bill is "United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act)". 199.125.109.65 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article there is a similarly named bill to this that's not quite as all-encompassing, so I think this article should be "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act" to keep them more clearly separated. Jon 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. The name that this bill is known by is US National Health Insurance Act. There are no sponsors for the other bill, so it isn't very well known anyway, and it definitely doesn't fit the notability criteria to have its own article. It is included here for clarification just in case someone does a search for "National Health Insurance". 199.125.109.109 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquity of Single Payer[edit]

"The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of the United Kingdom's National Health Service and other similar systems in existence in every other industrialized nation; in which the government would provide every resident health care free of out-of-pocket expense, funded instead through U.S. federal taxes." Mordac (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single Payer[edit]

The Canadian-style single payer system advocated by Kucinich is not by any manner of means "equivalent to the United Kingdom's National Health Service", as this article erroneously states. The UK has socialized medicine, i.e. a public body that employs and pays the physicians. Kucinich's bill calls for a single national fund from which the physicians are paid for each service they perform for a patient, with the physicians continuing to be employed and salaried by whoever they're employed by now. That's not socialized medicine; that's not the British National Health Service.

The article says single payer is practiced by every industrialized nation except the US. What it should say is that every industrialized nation except the US has universal health care (whether by single-payer or by socialized medicine). 129.93.17.168 (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Canada does not have a "single-payer" system; it has a 15-payer-plus system, with 10 independent systems for the provinces, 3 for the territories, 1 for the military, and 1 for federal prisoners, plus a multitude of plans for everything not covered by the provincial and territorial systems (out-patient pharma, dental, vision, ambulance service in Quebec, and more). There are significant differences between national single-payer systems and "state-based" multi-payer systems in terms of administrative redundancy, monopsonistic bargaining power, race-to-the-top dynamics in provider fees, and race-to-the-bottom dynamics in regressivity of funding. Taiwan's National Health Insurance, proposed by American healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton and designed with input from American healthcare-insurance specialist William Hsiao of Harvard, is in fact the only true foreign analog. "Canadian Medicare" is not "Medicare for All." PCMartinSeattle (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Money?[edit]

Of course, the difficulty involves money, but there seems to be no discussion of this here or even an indication that money is even involved. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon was quoted as saying, "We're already spending $2.5 trillion a year...and now we're going to spend another $1 trillion. It just doesn't add up." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 July 2009

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Given that we are supposed to use reliable sources to determine the proper name for an article, and that the Library of Congress is the reliable source when it comes to Congress, this is the correct title for the article. Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


United States National Health Care Act → United States National Health Insurance Act — I moved this yesterday from the proposed title because it was listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves under "uncontroversial moves", and this was cited as a source for the name of the Act. It seems that this wasn't as uncontroversial as I thought, because Hauskalainen has then disputed the move. If there's no clear consensus on what the name of this article should be, I'm going to move this back to the original name. - Jafeluv (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. This is the name of the proposed Act as described at its sponsor's web page. Also the article had stood for a very long time on Wikipedia under its original title with no objection. Only one ip user suggested the move and that was at Wikipedia:Requested moves and subsequently actioned. The rename proposal had not even been placed first at the talk page as WP rules says it should. (There was an earlier discussion about the word Act being replaced with Bill, but that was because of my familiarity with English Law which refers to proposed legislation as Bills and which only become Acts one they have passed the legislative hurdless. Maybe this was a false distraction). This alone should be reason to revert immediately. This "survey" is actually unncessary and wrong because a person seeing this request on their watchlist UNDER THIS WRONG NAME will not even realize that the discussion is about the THE BILL UNDER ITS TRUE NAME. Please put the article and links back as they were NOW without waiting. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no obligation under Wikipedia rules to discuss uncontroversial moves, and I do believe that the IP thought the move was uncontroversial. Turned out it's not, but it would be a good idea to assume good faith on their part. Since there are at least two editors who disagree on what the article should be called, this survey is certainly not unnecessary. We would still need a discussion about the correct name even if the article was moved back. Since the result will be exactly the same in seven days regardless of where the article was in the meantime, I prefer not to move it unnecessarily. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you possibly declare it to be uncontroversial? It was never discussed anywhere! I repeat, many people will not be able to contribute to this discussion because it is now taking place IN ANOTHER PLACE and not the place where it should have been discussed. It should have been discussed at United States National Health Insurance Act but now everything has been moved here. Few people will be aware of that.The article has existed under its proper name for more that 18 months and people have the right to be aware that a move was about to happen and to have been able to challenge it. If you continue to fail to act I will have little option but to appeal to a higher authority.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, since United States National Health Insurance Act was moved here, anyone who has added that article to their watchlist now has this article on their watchlist as well. Also, anyone opening that article will be redirected to this article, and anyone opening its talk page will be redirected to this talk page. Also, this move discussion is linked to from Wikipedia:Requested moves, with both the old and new title clearly visible, so the number of people aware of this discussion would be exactly the same if this had been moved back before opening the move discussion. I encourage you to read my comment you responded to again: nowhere did I declare this move as uncontroversial (quite the opposite, in fact). That's why we need this discussion in the first place. As for the higher authority, you're of course welcome to seek other dispute resolution methods if you feel this discussion is not productive, but in my opinion the first and obvious step would be to discuss the situation with the IP below. For example: You say that the current name of the article is wrong. Why? You listed two sources on my talk page. Are you sure that the Act hasn't actually been renamed, as the IP claims? Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has, and as noted below the text of the bill was changed to in every place refer to USNHC instead of USNHI. All of the millions of people who have been opposing the bill may want to update their websites and literature and all of the millions of people who have been promoting the bill will need to update their websites and literature. It would have better if the bill had gotten the title right in the beginning, but back then nobody noticed, apparently. It would be interesting to have Wikinews: ask Conyers office why the title was changed. Could be a scoop. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I am not sure. But I would have expected the fact to have been discussed at the article BEFORE it was renamed. I have calmed down a bit since we had the previous discussion so I may take no further action.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It wasn't discussed because it didn't seem important. The bill is 99.9+% unchanged. It changed "physicians" to "physicians and other clinicians" in one place and USNHI to USNHC to reflect the bill title change and a few other cosmetic changes, but it really didn't seem important enough to even bring up. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is the original request by the IP address. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To say the least. That "one congressional web site", is the Library of Congress, and is the official record of the text, title, and legislative action of the bill. There is no other site, nor editor who needs to be consulted. It is, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth. However, a phone call to Conyers office and to the hr676.org folks should be sufficient to get them to update their SECONDARY websites. It isn't a miss-print - the text of the bill did not change, but insurance was always a misnomer, and has been corrected. There are many references available from folks who do read, and are cognizant of the change. It is now titled United States National Health Care Act, as it should have been way way back when it was first introduced, as a reading of the bill will show you that the bill does not provide insurance, it provides care. You get to walk into any doctor you want and you pay nothing. That is care not insurance. There are no limits, and no reimbursements like there would be if it was insurance.[1][2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] And if those are not enough for you, Google has 13,000 more. Request speedy close, per WP:SNOW. FYI, there are minor changes in the bill, such as everywhere USNHI is replaced with USNHC, and for example "physicians" is replaced in one place that I noticed with "physicians and other clinicians". In general a few things were cleaned up, but there is no substantive difference that I could see, other than recognition that the bill offers care, not insurance - but that is not a result of any change in the bill, it is a recognition rather than a change. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else. I think it is reasonable to Wikipedia to call it what it is. Clearly either of the above are possible names for H.R. 676 if it becomes law. I think by calling this, and probably a ton of others acts before they are enacted, is misleading. Is there a naming convention that addresses this fact? Maybe the answer is as simple as replacing 'Act' with HR 676. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this bill becomes law, it will be named the "United States National Health Care Act". This bill being the one introduced into the 111th Congress. The same bill with minor changes was introduced into earlier sessions, with "Insurance" in the title. Conyers website has a page discussing the changes.[10] 199.125.109.58 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • This one may be above my pay grade. I do have some thoughts, though. Proposed legislation, when it's introduced, includes a formal title that usually ends in "Act". On the other hand, until it is enacted, it is a proposed act or a "bill". In the news you see both the usage "the proposed . . . act" and and the usage "the Republican/Democratic . . . bill". Using the formal title would have the advantage that once legislation is passed, the article does not have to be renamed. On the other hand, the article name would not make it clear that it is discussing a legislative proposal rather than enacted legislation. It would be necessary for the lead to make it immediately clear that the subject was a proposal rather than a statute. As far as general usage goes, "proposed . . . act" seems to be the general usage when the formal title is used, and "bill" seems to be the general usage when the bill number (e.g., H.R. 676) is used. EastTN (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox for bills has a long list of sections to indicate status. I won't list them here, but if you look at the article you can see they are all blank, or most of them, as is normal for a bill that has not been passed yet. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No NPOV[edit]

I have been trying to find a source that will present only the facts of this bill without trying to sell me something. All the NEWS websites are either trying to push this or kick it. I was hoping Wikipedia would present a neutral point of view, but this is definitely geared towards selling the bill. The administrators need to tag this article with the "No NPOV" badge, till the situation is resolved. Bshengan (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific in your criticism. I have moved the neutrality dispute to the debate section. The first few sections are just facts similar to other healthcare articles, so the debate section is probably giving rise to the issue.Farcaster (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly rewritten the section also, so please take another look.Farcaster (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes good ideas seem self-evident just by describing the facts accurately.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B145:EB7B:FDB2:FEE5:3C91:2065 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AMA[edit]

While the AMA took a position on Medicare 40 years ago, Medicare has long ago been embraced and is now highly popular. The AMA's position on health care[1] is that doctors be the ones to make decisions with their patients on care, not the government, and what they call "Health insurance coverage for all Americans", although in practice that would be HR 676 and be "health care" for all Americans, not "health insurance" for all Americans. They also, of course, want an elimination of the discounts for Medicare payments, which have led many physicians to avoid taking Medicare patients. 199.125.109.115 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added this note to all major articles related to the current healthcare reform debate.

As the information in the articles such as this dealing with specific proposals are more up to date, the information should be added to the comprehensive articles, and in general all articles related to the current healthcare debate need to complement each other.

The comprehensive articles on the current healthcare debate desperately need to be overhauled and expanded. There is practically nothing in those articles about the ongoing major events around the current debate, a subject area that is absolutely required.

I recently created a WikiProject page to gather and discuss the overhaul effort: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Current Health Care Reform in the United States

Please discuss anything not pertaining specifically to this article on the WikiProject talk page.

NittyG (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK is not single payer[edit]

"The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and the United Kingdom's National Health Service."

The NHS is not single payer. It falls under the Beverage Model of health care, totally different than National Health Insurance. Keep that in mind when writing future articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.134.141 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of the Opening Paragraph[edit]

"The national system would be paid for through taxes, which would replace insurance premiums. Advocates of single-payer healthcare, such as economist Paul Krugman, have argued that by eliminating insurance company administrative overhead, healthcare costs would be reduced sufficiently to cover the uninsured.[1] One study estimated U.S. private insurer administrative costs at 30% of total healthcare costs, versus 17% for the single-payer Canadian system.[2]"

The introduction cites a study that argues for the monetary advantage of the bill, but does not give any counter evidence. This breaches the Wikipedia policy on neutrality, and I propose that this is either taken out or that evidence in the favor of the monetary disadvantage of the healthcare bill is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleedm (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't breach anything. If you have a reliable source the rebuts that study then it can be added to the article. But just because you don't like a fact doesn't mean that mention of it has to be removed. -- Jibal (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lead intro[edit]

@Sarek in particular.... rv to my previous 'expanded' edit- please do not keep reverting things without discussion on the talk page; my edits are not meant solely for my own ego, but also to spur discussion. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were BOLD, I reverted -- now we discuss, instead of repeating the reverts. For one thing, the very first line is wrong -- HR 676 is not the legal name of the act, it's the catalog designation for this particular Congress. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Resolution 676[edit]

Currently House Resolution 676 redirects to this page. This redirect has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 18#House Resolution 676 because "The bill in question was a regular bill, not a House Resolution".

When researching the term, I found that (inaccurate or not), the bill is widely referred to by this name (29 of the top 30 google web hits, 30 of the top 30 google news archive hits). Editors here might want to note this use of inaccurate terminology by the media and others in the article, particularly if the redirect is kept (the discussion will most likely be closed on or shortly after 25 January). Your comments on the redirect are of course welcome at the above link. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not believe that this particular hatnote would be a benefit to our readers. The distinction between the abbreviation HR and H.Res. is technical to the point of pedantic, in my opinion. Nor is the mistake unique to this particular bill. Many bills are mischaracterized as House Resolutions based on the ambiguity of their acronym. A minor footnote might be in order but a clunky hatnote at the top of the page is going to be more of a distraction than a help to the average reader. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction between H.R. and H.Res. is not "technical" or "pedantic" — they identify totally different types of items under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. items are actual bills, which can pass the house, go on to the Senate, get passed there, and go on to the president; if he/she signs the bill, it becomes law. H.Res. items are House resolutions, which never go on to the Senate or the president and never become law. They merely express the sentiment of the House of Representatives on some topic. H.R. and H.Res. are not acronyms and they are not ambiguous. If someone searches for House Resolution 676, the best thing in my opinion would be a short article explaining what a House Resolution is and that the numbers start at 1 again with every two-year session of Congress, and that H.R. 676 of the 111th Congress is the United States National Health Care Act. Why? because people who got to United States National Health Care Act don't need the civics lesson on resolutions vs. bills, but people who enter "House resolution" looking for a bill need to be informed that House resolutions are not bills. Otherwise the error perpetuates. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the polling section[edit]

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.[11] 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) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT poll seems to be asking about single payer as it is a plan "like medicare" and the article itself uses "Government-Run Health", the "willingness to pay higher taxes" is obviously in the context of the plan. We could ask for a third opinion but it seems overwhelmingly a poll about single-payer.
That aside, the part about national healthcare being "often times compared to Medicare" is redundant because A) Medicare is a form of single-payer for a specific group of people and B) it's covered in the next section. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the question was in the context of the health care bill and the public option. Having insurance is not having Medicare, and having something to compete with private plans, which is the contextual clue, is not single payer. As what they're describing is not single-payer, and is not defined as single-payer, I'm not convinced we should be treating the information as if it's about single-payer, especially when we can find polls, such as the Rasmussen and the details at politifact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and Diction[edit]

I noticed the use of 'realisation' as opposed to the US spelling of 'realization'. I realize that there are many non-US contributors to this article and that is fine, but was the use of non-US diction and spelling intentional? You might re-think this use because it makes the statements sound foreign to US readers and speakers. And non-US speakers may interpret this as criticism. Loyalgadfly (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PNHP poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:PNHP poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PNHP poster.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Use of polls / table[edit]

As advised at the npov noticeboard dialog, the best way forward is to delete the entire poll/table section and use secondary sources instead. An editor-built construction from primary sources is problematic at best, plus it appears cherry-picked. None of those are where the cost related decisions are included in the questions. Plus it is copied form another article and not even about United States National Health Care Act......related to but not about Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the prose section that existed prior to the table better or worse? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a date/vintage that you have in mind? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're not cutting/pasting the same thing everywhere, I'll suggest centralizing the issue of polling here, as the issues are very similar to both article sections. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See response in single-payer talk page, if you want to solve it it's through DRN, not canvassing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing polling section completely[edit]

We need to discuss removing the polling section completely here, as this article is about a specific bill, and none of the polls listed are about that bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, did you read the 538 links? None of the polls he cites are about single-payer at that link. It's an error by Huffington. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-read it: you're correct, those polls are all about the public option, rather than single-payer. My terminology was briefly confused. Re-reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we need to look closer at this option. Do we know of any polls specifically about this Act? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section with the latest news at Healthcare reform in the United States#Public option -- if there are recent polls about it (where? deleted?) then they should possibly be there and certainly be in Public health insurance option#Public opinion. Neo Poz (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure any polls about HR676 exist. Have you seen any? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[12] lists 17, all of which seem to be about single payer instead of an ACA public option. Neo Poz (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which means they're not about what this article is about. As for whether they're about single payer, a portion of them are, yes. That's been a bone of contention over at the single payer article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to get into that mess, but in my view it's possible to ask about the effects of a bill without using its name or number. Neo Poz (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

A lot of this page is editorializing about single payer health care, about costs, and about a lot of things that truly have nothing to do with the Act in question, and the Act didn't pass and never really had a chance anyway. Are we perhaps better off merging the relevant information into the proposals section of single-payer health care? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you decide inclusion by how many independent reliable sources write about it, I'm sure it should be included. But I'm biased because I think it's inevitable, because the ACA doesn't go far enough and will backfire completely making healthcare a top issue again this year and for next year's midterm elections. It's been introduced in the past four congresses (and will be again any day now) usually with 15-20% cosponsors, but what really makes it notable is that it's the solution of all but two other developed nations, both for household and national budgets, not to mention quality of care. Neo Poz (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's curious, though: there really hasn't been much written about it overall. Plenty of partisan blogging and advocacy groups, yes, but it seems to be as relevant as so many other bills that hit Congress on a regular basis with tons of cosponsors and no traction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing 165 Google News hits on ["United States National Health Care Act" OR "Medicare for All" OR "H.R. 676"] without going into the archives. Neo Poz (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
931 hits for the same search in Google Scholar. Neo Poz (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's basically nothing, especially when you consider "medicare for all" isn't necessarily about this bill. Heck, I do a Google News search simply for that string and get 138. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you set the date manually from 2003 to the present on "HR 676" you get 100 in Google News. I don't really have a good idea what to compare it to. Neo Poz (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. The closest I can think of in terms of governmental support in comparison to popular support/legislative success is the Fair Tax, but that's gotten actual books written about it. Part of why I think this could be merged is that most of the article isn't about the bill, but more about general single payer beliefs. We're better off fixing the tone of that (which is still a problem over at the single payer article) and highlight the only real national single payer plan in a few relevant paragraphs there, I think. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neo Poz, any further thoughts on this? Are you opposed to a merge or do you not really care one way or the other? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it easily meets WP:GNG, with at least a hundred news articles in the past decade. Neo Poz (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents. It was a major proposal. Wikipedia should cover it. Probably should knock out the highly problematic poll section including not being about the topic.....stick to the topic. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep it, there's a lot that needs to be excised out. Much of this has zero to do with the topic, polling included. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the opposite view. There are plenty of neutral news source stories about how HR 676 interacted with public option proposals multiple times in 2009, and those explain important details about why the CBO didn't get a combined score for this bill, and the betrayal that a lot of the people who agreed not to push HR 676 felt when the public option was dropped. I think readers are very likely to be interested in those details and I think they deserve to know them. I don't think there's anything wrong with the polling section. In the past week I trimmed about 3 kilobytes from this article and expanded the remainder by about two kilobytes. Neo Poz (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some examples of those sources? As for the polling, exactly zero of those polls are about the bill in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[13] is one example and it is easy to find others. And again, I am certain that pollsters do not typically use congressional bill titles or numbers when asking about the public opinion of legislation. Which polls in particular do you think are unrelated to the effect of the bill if it were to become law? Neo Poz (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. If the polls aren't about the bill they shouldn't be here. The article should be coverage of the topic, not creative "case building". North8000 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About what proportion of the time do you think pollsters asking about an issue pending as legislation refer to the corresponding bill's specific name or number? Neo Poz (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That article doesn't mention this bill once. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What other "single payer" proposals were pending in 2009? Neo Poz (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That question really isn't germane. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence was there that they were referring to a specific proposal? We have plenty of evidence of asking about specific bills throughout, from the health care reform bill to Arizona's immigration bill. That they didn't ask about this bill is probably telling information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main involvement on these articles was to get a civilized or at least normal article development and discussion process going. I see that that has finally happened. Other than some general goal of article quality, I'm really not concerned much on which way this goes, and am resisting getting in deeper. So I might just reiterate my advice and try to sign off. I think that this article should stay if it can be pared to being just coverage of it's actual subject. That "creative construction" poll section should go. It is problematic in its own right, plus doubly so if one includes preseence in this article. Trying to "sign off" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an RFC would get wider input on which to make a decision about a merge and whether or not to keep the opinion poll section? Neo Poz (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all married to the idea of a merge. I proposed it, there's an argument against it, we can revisit it if it still needs it following some trimming. I don't mind an RfC about the polling, although I've not found RfC to be that illuminating, but I'm also not seeing a really strong argument for those polls being about a specific bill, either, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask whether other editors feel the polling section is appropriate. I'm more partial to WP:COMPREHENSIVE than the idea that polls about single payer or universal government-sponsored coverage are not directly pertinent to this bill. Neo Poz (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A polling section is appropriate when there are relevant polls to put in. I'm a fan of being as comprehensive as possible as well, but I also think that the poll section is misleading and presents a belief about this specific bill that isn't entirely true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about 95% sure that the result would be to keep the article and drop the poll section. You might want to save all of that work to find out.  :-) But a nice friendly well-written RFC would also be fine. My involvement at these articles has been just to try to get a nice (or at least normal) process in place, (maybe throw in a few policy-based thoughts) not concern about the end result of that process. North8000 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does "single payer" refer to this bill?[edit]

I don't know what "creative construction" is, but in general, when a congressperson or a pollster or a news reporter in the U.S. has referred to "single payer" from 2003 to the present, is there any proposal other than this bill that they could have been referring to? Neo Poz (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a false premise in your question, that they were referring to a bill. What they were referring to is what was in their wordings. Respectfully, I think that your approach on this is incorrect twice over. One is trying to arrive at a deduction that does not follow from the material. The second is that even if it were a valid deduction, trying to put that deduction in article space is in direct violation of policies (wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Single payer" is not a term in the dictionary. If it doesn't refer to legislation, this bill in particular, then what does it refer to? Neo Poz (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are asking. There's a whole article that discusses single payer. But on the deductive side (which again, is not valid for content but still fun to discuss) a poll about a general topic is not statement a poll about anything or everything more specific that falls under that topic. If Jane Smith said "I hate men" , that does not mean that such justifies writing (because he is a man) that Jane Smith said that she hates Barack Obama. The latter is a more focused statement that did not occur. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that does not mean that ... [she] said that she hates Barack Obama -- straw man. She didn't say it, but her statement implies it. For that not to go through, she would have to not know that Obama is a man, or that her statement was insincere, hyperbole, etc. -- Jibal (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Single payer" is not a term in the dictionary. -- neither is "gasoline tax" or "national holiday" or a vast number of other multiword phrases, but that doesn't prove that they refer to specific legislation. If it doesn't refer to legislation, this bill in particular, then what does it refer to? -- Seriously? "healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund" -- Jibal (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that they've been referring to any bill. We have polls on single payer going back to the early 1990s, and they weren't referring to a nonexistent bill, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How much time have you looked for it? [14], in 2003 when the bill was first introduced, says "government-run, taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare." [15] says "a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare" and "a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan" which clearly corresponds to the detail of this particular bill. [16] and [17] specifically say "Medicare for All" which is what this bill was named in 2009. Sheesh. Neo Poz (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent entirely too much time with these polls. :) Those are general questions about single payer, not specific questions about this bill. Compare it to the polling about the "public option," or polls about the PPACA, where the bills are being discussed directly. Or even look at the polls PNHP incorrectly highlights as single payer: the language has been consistent before and after this bill was introduced. It's most certainly original research to assume that a poll that does not ask about a specific bill is still about a specific bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree; especially and most obviously in the case of the phrase "Medicare for All." Again, I suggest reaching out to other editors with an RFC on the questions. Neo Poz (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't agree, but you're providing no evidence as to why. Is there any source out there at all that bonds HR676 with a single payer poll? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that the use of the phrase "Medicare for all" while that was part of the name of the bill is not clear evidence that the poll questions including the phrase were referring to this bill? Neo Poz (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, only two polls since the introduction of HR676 have used that language in any form: a 2008 Time Magazine poll ("Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all") that says "similar to Medicare for all," not the bill, and the KFF poll (" a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?") that clearly wasn't referencing any specific bill as it was in a list of generalities. The KFF poll is probably closest to supporting your point of view, but even that's a bit messy given the Politfact piece that pretty much tears down the idea that the poll shows support for single payer. If I'm missing something specific here, I'm happy to look at it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the admission pertaining to the evidence provided. I have no further interest in this discussion and again suggest an RFC if you still think the section should be removed. Neo Poz (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no further interest and cannot defend its inclusion, WP:V tells us we need to remove it. If you want to add it, the RfC is in your court. not mine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of my defense was apparent when you retracted your assertion that I had presented "no evidence" as to why the polls should be included. I am asking for further editor input with the following RFC. Neo Poz (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where I retracted such an assertion. You claimed they were using the name of the bill, I showed quite clearly how that wasn't the case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh yourself. This is a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. Just because the bill is a single-payer "Medicare for All" bill doesn't mean that all references to those terms are about the bill. For example, https://www.thenation.com/article/single-payer-medicare-for-all-is-the-only-healthcare-system-that-makes-sense/ makes no reference to HR 676; it's about the form that health care should take, and focuses on California legislation as a vanguard for a national system. -- Jibal (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Opinion polling section[edit]

Is the United States National Health Care Act#Opinion polling section appropriate to include in the article?

  • Support as RFC requestor, because all of the polls presently included in the section ask about specific aspects of the legislation described by this article, and some even refer to it by name. Neo Poz (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that particular act actually the subject of 1 or more of those polls? I didn't see or hear about anything like that. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the bulk of the discussion in the super-section here above. The polls are clearly referring to some legislation, and there are no other possibilities. You don't see pollsters asking about the minimum wage or gender equality proposals pending with the names of the bills. Neo Poz (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because, like single payer, they're discussing the general concepts. The polls clearly aren't talking about specific legislation, just like they don't when they ask about minimum wage or equality discussions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
some even refer to it by name -- not true. The polls are clearly referring to some legislation -- they are hypotheticals; they don't refer explicitly to any extant legislation or proposed legislation. -- Jibal (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as none of the polls discuss the bill in question. The polls are more appropriate for other articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Polls are opinion, the Health Care Act is a fact - polls would be more appropriate here: Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States Patriot1010 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Neo Poz as well as the reasons I've given before. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest leaving them out It appears that none of them are specifically about the particular act which is the topic of the article. Putting in editor-selected polls on more general related topics is at best uninformative and off-topic regarding the subject of the article. On top of that, the current form also has it's own large set of policy problems (a separate question not included in this RFC. Including unsourced mis-labeling of the polls and unsourced wp-editor interpretation of the the results via the headings placed over them in the tabular form.) But more importantly nice to see a normal civilized process operating here. Kudos to Thargor Orlando's continuing eforts in that area and also to Neo Poz even though I disagree with them on this particular question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Patriot & North8000 ... if the polls dont specifically mention the USNHCA, then they belong in Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States , not here. I have not read the poll sources, so I cannot say if they mention USNHCA or not. If a top-quality poll does specifically mention USNHCA in the Q to the pollee, then maybe it could be included here. --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Are polls even more critically relevant to the article on Single Payer in general? Yes. Are poll data also very relevant to this article, at least for a brief mention? Yes. It passes the Martian Test: is a neutral person from Mars going to want to know this? Absolutely. Because it's highly relevant that 1. a sizable majority of Americans have said in polls for decades they support [descritpion of single payer] while 2. These guys (Conyers and others) have tried for some 20 years to propose such bills and have not been able to get it to pass. So it's not just this bill, this is just the latest version. They've been trying since the 1990s (maybe earlier, I'll have to check). 3. Just the other day Obama mentioned in a high profile speech that the Senate could not pass something (having background checks for guns not have the loophole for internet/gun show sales) despite 90% of Americans supporting it. Why? It's a striking fact about our democracy (and in the case of single payer, context for our being the only industrialized/western country without some version).
Similarly, that Rep. Conyers and others have tried for some 20 years to pass some version (this article is just the latest version) of Single payer, while polls show repeatedly and consistently that, something like 60%-70% or so support by Americans, yet Congress still hasn't been able to pass any such bill including this and earlier manifestations, despite strong majority public support, a striking, interesting fact readers would want to know. An outside observer of early 21st century happenings in the U.S. political realm would, without question want to know this context, want to know about these poll, even when reading up on "only" this one particular bill, in order to better understand this bill. Maybe a shorter mention (than in the Single Payer article), but a brief mention with links to a bunch of polls, for these reasons, yes is quite relevant and useful information.Harel (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting merge[edit]

Looking at the RfC, the opinion pretty clearly looks like it's in favor of removing the polling, so I have done so by the time you read this. Neo Poz was the only voice vocally against merging this into Single-payer health care, and Neo Poz has been indefinitely banned, so that's not really weighing into this. I think I'll do the merge soon unless there's more significant protest. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality ==Cost analysis of the bill==[edit]

I marked the section because neither Paul Krugman or Physicians for a National Health Program are a neutral and unbiased source for financial analysis, the topic of the section

Paul Krugman "described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows" writes an opinion page and derives income from advocating "Medicare for All"
Physicians for a National Health Program is an advocacy and lobby organization with a stated objective
please post a contribution from the CBO, a Congressionally recognized Cost analysis organization, or another non-agenda source

the bill would have had preliminary CBO cost scoring, and that would replace the opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpekServices (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this WashPo article, this bill never had a CBO done because it never even came out of committee. They (WashPo) did mention that the Lewin Group (some analyst consultancy) produced a report, that I found a pdf of on this Economic Policy Institute page. Looks like a reasonable source. Less obviously biased than Paul Krugman or NHP (though EPI, which funded the study, is kind of similar to). Greg G (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
neither Paul Krugman or Physicians for a National Health Program are a neutral and unbiased source for financial analysis -- that's not how NPOV works. non-agenda source -- Wikipedia is chock full of sources that someone or another thinks have an agenda. Having an agenda is not a reason for exclusion. -- Jibal (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to actually discuss things like this. The law of unintended consequences kicks in even when you're the only one talking about it, and WP:NOR kicks in pretty hard if you try to ask a question nobody has asked (don't do that). One of the 2018 candidates for Maryland's House of Representatives (hint: it's me) has asked some of those questions; someone else can decide if this page should reflect that unpleasant little question about overhead. --John Moser (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States National Health Care Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update for 2017 bill[edit]

This article should be updated to reflect the bill introduced in the 115th Congress in January 2017. The current article still refers to the bill from the previous session. I would do this, but this is not my area of expertise. B.Rossow · talk 13:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new bill is HR 1384; the number HR 676 has been given to a completely unrelated bill. It would be very useful to compare Medicare for All bills. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/our-vision.shtml

"Medicare for all" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Medicare for all. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare for all until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medicare_for_All_Act&oldid=1206161263"