Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 20, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
February 5, 2014 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Removed post[edit]

I support any edit that is sourced reliably.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed post #2[edit]

I support an edit LIKE that but must be shortened AND be sure to archive the Yahoonews link because it is notoriously short- lived. I suggest: In February 2008, Obama said, he was going to work to lower premiums by $2,500 by the end of his first term as president. By 2012, family premiums had increased by $3,065 per family per a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion[edit]

Accurate, reliably sourced historical information was recently deleted in this edit, apparently based on two false beliefs stated in the edit summary. This information should be restored (possibly with a clarification of the difference between HR 3962 and the similarly named HR 3590). 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ok JKruger13 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Updating Stats[edit]

I updated the intro with the correct rate. I don't think I cited everything correctly. I'm terrible, I know. >.< Myownworst (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


I don't understand. You said 'opposition' is "WP:BATTLEGROUND", but WP:BATTLEGROUND is about edit warring and trying to "win" a dispute. I wasn't edit warring, was I? --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, I moved this to the Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page where content discussions belong. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You are rightly confused because I shouldnt have used WP:Battleground as an argument. I apologize. The rest of my edit summary (that "challenge" is more neutral than "opposition" is correct. That said, ironically you are going towards edit warring by not awaiting my reply ( definition of a discussion) per WP:BRD, and you are re-revertin( =edit warring). so if I was to re delete without awaiting your answer where would this lead us?. I think it's a disagreement of POV here. I am awaiting your reply, marking your edit in the text.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay then. Reverted my edit. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Need new source[edit]

Source 10 points to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Feuilles mortes (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

tense issue[edit]

we describe the 1st open enrollment as "will last from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014" since this is 2015, a little updating is in order. (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Silver plan[edit]

A new disambig page, Silver plan, has just replaced my old deleted redirect with the same name. The problem is that the first four entries are actually all the same. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I've grouped them to make their relationship to one another clearer. If you have any further edits you can go ahead and make them. And you might want to make any comments related to the disambiguation pages on that page rather than here. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: You said make any comments related to the disambiguation pages on that page, but the topic of Bronze plan / silver plan / gold plan / Platinum plan is very relevant here. You have recently created all these new disambig pages but those pages do nothing to help the readers of pages in Category:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act understand what these plans are. If you think it is good to involve editors who are disambig experts to this discussion, why not post a notice of this discussion there instead of moving this over? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: I'm not seeking to work on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page or related pages. The only thing I was attempting to accomplish was to find a satisfactory solution to the deletion of the several metal plan redirects, based on the discussion at the Village Pump. If you want to improve the page, I suggest you improve it or take the steps that you are suggesting I take. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: Ah, I see. In that case do you believe you solved the problem? All the old links(redirects) which have not been removed after the redirects were deleted now point to a disambig page, how does this help the reader? See for example Silver plan in Premium_tax_credit#Calculaltion_of_the_PTC. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: What are you proposing? The redirect was ruled deleted. The disambiguation page gets people to the health care plan with one additional click. It also gets people to other uses of the metal plan, which I'm hearing was the objection to the redirect. Would you prefer that the metal plan links go to pages saying the page has been deleted? Anyway, I've updated the links from articles to the metal plans to link to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is where the redirects would have sent them.
I've made my contribution and am moving on to other things. If you think my changes hurt more than help, be bold and improve them; I don't own them. This is my last post on this matter. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The redirect was ruled deleted I did not think wikipedia was ruled by anyone -- am I wrong? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me