Jump to content

Talk:Single-payer healthcare/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Wired Magazine on Brill's Time article

Wired Magazine recently published a response to Stephen Brill's Time Magazine article about the uncontrolled cost of health care in the US. The point of it is that single payer universal care would easily solve the problems Brill wrote about. It has specific facts and I think it should be added to the article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/actually-mr-brill-fixing-healthcare-is-kinda-simple/

EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Bringing it over here for more eyes, discussion, since the United States National Health Care Act article is a little bloated and is about a bill that has never even made it to the floor, with most of its sourcing coming from Congressional pages and advocacy groups, I think we should merge the relevant parts into this article under the United States header. Are there substantive thoughts about this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad suggestion. The Single payer article is about a concept, whereas the United States article is about a bill. Whether or not that bill passed is irrelevant.

Howardrandallsmith (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that they are better separate. Same reasoning as Howardrandallsmith. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Howard makes a good point, however, Thargor, if you feel it "deserves more eyes", in other words if you think that there should be a more prominent mention of, and/or more easily findable link to, the United States Natioanal Health Care Act, from the article on Single Payer, then by all means Thargor, go ahead and try to impore the latter of these two articles by updating it with better/link to Conyer's bill. Harel (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Medicare protester

Can someone who keeps wanting to add this in explain why it's relevant to any of the proceedings here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that someone in an age range already covered by a single payer system thinks it doesn't involve the government illustrates the low information voter problem. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but the section isn't about low-information voters, but about the public opinion. One man's sign is weird Tea Party trivia, not relevant at all to national single payer opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's based on the fanstasy that our Medicare payments pay for our individual healthcare. I can't imagine any other rationale for believing taxpayers are not paying for your health care in a government managed program. 12.153.234.194 (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Which biased advocacy sites have the best news blogs?

Which of the WP:BIASED advocacy sites (pro or con, if they exist) have the best news blogs? In particular, please rank:

  1. http://www.healthcare-now.org/category/news
  2. http://www.pdamerica.org/issues/healthcare-for-allsingle-payer
  3. http://www.pnhp.org/news/latest-news
  4. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/category/news/
  5. http://www.pnhp.org/news/state-single-payer-news

Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

None of these. They aren't press sources, so they are not news blogs. If they have specific information you would like to add to the article that isn't there from them, we should discuss those. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You wanted me to open a new section asking, and you're still trying to pretend you have only yes/no preferences and are unable or unwilling to rank them? How rude! Accuracy is as important as any guideline. They don't need to be "press sources," whatever that means, to have varying levels of accuracy in conveying news and events about the article's topic which can't be incorporated into the article because of ephemerality, rapid updates, or similar issues. If you ever wonder why I am more interested in others' opinions than yours, please remember this. EllenCT (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, they're not news blogs. I don't know why you're presenting them as such. Is there specific information from these sources you want to add? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
How can you say that? They are blogs of news items, every one of the five! EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That a website makes a section that says "news" does not mean they're a "newsblog" under our policies/guidelines, which talk about blogs as part of news reporting. If they're reporting "news" about single payer, we can find neutral, reliable sources reporting that information and add it to the article from there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't mean they aren't, either. How can we find neutral sources when there are no sources in opposition? Even VictorD7 thinks the New York Times is biased in favor. You can't just wish unbiased news sources into existence. EllenCT (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many inappropriate links that could be used in opposition. That's not the point. Not every article needs an external links section. If there are no neutral links about single payer we can use, we don't have a section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's one thing to use a biased outfit to support facts appropriate for the article (allowed). It's quite different for Wikipedia editors to engage in advocacy by transferring inappropriate opinion from those sources into the article as Wikipedia's voice, or to turn the article into a political advertisement by simply posting links to such sources for the sake of directing people to them. And there are plenty of anti-single payer sources and arguments, but this isn't about doubling down on inappropriate editing. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
An advocacy organization can have a good objective news blog. The American Medical Association is one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington, and yet for many years JAMA had one of the best news sections (until its editor George Lundberg was fired). Science magazine has one of the best news sections I know of, and yet the AAAS is an advocacy organization that also has a large lobbying component.
Conversely, the New York Times claims to be an objective news organization, but if you did a search of their news coverage during the Obama campaign and the time during which he developed his health plan, you'll see that they didn't mention "single payer" once. I don't think that's an objective news source.
Most of the medical web sites are completely funded by advertisers, and as such they have almost no mention of single payer. I don't think that's objective.
If you want to delete sources because, in your opinion, they are WP:POV, I'd like to know what you would be left with. I've been reading (and writing) the news coverage of health care for 30 years, and if you show me a news source, I'll show you how they're POV.
I think the requirement that external links are NPOV is impossible, widely ignored, and would result in no external links, even when they would be helpful to the reader. I think that requirement is wrong, and should be changed -- but the process of changing a WP guideline is so difficult that it's not something we can deal with for now.
I think that there is one time when external links are important: when you have a disorganized article on a major, complicated subject that omits essential details and leaves the reader lost. There are a lot of medical articles like that, and when I see it, I often add an external link to a major reliable plain-language source like the Merck Manual, so that at least the reader will get useful information from the link.
I think this is one such article. It's an important subject, out of date, badly organized, and doesn't tell the reader what they need to know. The least you can do is point the reader to a reliable source where they can get what they need, even if it is an advocacy organization.
It would be better to rewrite the article to eliminate those deficiencies. When we have done that, we can remove the external links. But that's a big job.
There's a reason for WP:IGNORE. This is one of those situations where WP:IGNORE is appropriate.
I think we should follow rules, but not blindly, and WP agrees. Deleting the external links would be blindly following arbitrary rules.--Nbauman (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, the rule exists to preserve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than an advocacy platform, and this situation is a perfect example of why it exists. Clearly your own comments indicate that you have a strong emotional, vested interest in this political dispute, which isn't ideal for an editor. You're even implying the NY Times has a right wing (or at least anti-single payer) bias, which frankly points to a detachment from reality. In your mind this is a settled issue and readers need only be properly "informed" of the facts, but that you're relying on advocacy groups to do so should give you cause for pause and self reflection. You're right about this being an extremely complex political issue, not a simple matter of fact, and therefore it's not settled (such disputes involve subjective valuation and are almost inherently unresolved). It's not Wikipedia's role to take sides in disputes like this and agitate for political change. VictorD7 (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you know of a pro-single payer NYT op-ed to support your absurd assertions? EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you joking? Actually I should be asking you to produce evidence of their supposed anti-single payer sentiment, but a search on their site for "single payer" shows every opinion piece that pops up on at least the first page as supporting single payer. At least three of the items are by PNHP cofounders Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, the same people who produced the shoddily constructed "45k deaths from uninsurance per year" propaganda talking point (except they failed to check whether those who died actually had insurance or not, or look at a single cause of death, and former Clinton official Richard Kronick published a study at around the same time finding no extra deaths from uninsurance). There's a guest piece by "feminist economist" Nancy Folbre, NY Times writer Paul Krugman talks about it all the time (e.g. [1],[2] ;multiple entries on the first page, more beyond), and near the top of the second page there's a pro single payer piece by NY Times writer Gail Collins. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I was asking for an unsigned NYT op-ed or something signed by NYT editorial staff, not a third party's. Are you suggesting adding the query URL as a news link? EllenCT (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Krugman and Collins aren't "third party", and the fact that their guest editorials seem to be almost entirely one-sided more than demonstrates my "assertions". I won't bother asking you to produce anti-single payer material from the NYT. As to your question, of course not. I've already said I see no need for an "external links" section. Most Wikipedia articles are uncontroversial and listing some external links for more info can be harmless. But in controversial, very complex political issues they tend to fall under advocacy. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Nbauman, whether you believe "the requirement that external links are NPOV is impossible," it's still the guideline. If you can get consensus to change the guideline, I'll happily back off on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
1. As to the NYT search, yes, that's the search I'm talking about. Read what I wrote again. You will notice that -- except for Paul Krugman -- there is a gap between 1991 and 2011. In other words, their coverage (meaning Robert Pear, who covered health care politics) ignored single payer all during the 2008 presidential campaign, all during Obama's "Health Policy Summit," and all during the debate over what the health care plan should look like. This is in contrast to for example the New England Journal of Medicine, which is often called the nation's leading medical journal. I noticed that the NYT had op-eds by Angell, Himmelstein and Woolhandler after all the policy decisions had been made. I personally don't believe single payer is a "settled issue" -- there are other countries like Switzerland and Germany that deliver health care through private insurance. But our insurance system is significantly more expensive than any other in the world, with mediocre results, according to articles in peer-reviewed journals. I go with the peer-reviewed evidence. And the Talk page is not the place to debate the merits of NYT op-eds.
2. As to external links, you're arguing that we should blindly follow the rules even if they're inappropriate. I think I made a good case above that WP:IGNORE should apply here. WP:IGNORE is also still the guideline. At any rate, you don't have consensus to delete the links to PNHP. Until we reach consensus, we should follow WP:PRESERVE.
If instead of an external link, you want to have a subsection on PNHP, listing their main arguments (perhaps from the NYT Room for Debate), I could accept that. But anyone who reads this article should come away with the understanding that PNHP is a major advocate for single payer, and that their web site has far more detailed information than we have included in this article.--Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Addressing these out of order: Physicians for a National Health Program exists. If you want to expand that article with their points of view, that's entirely appropriate. To turn this article into some sort of significant vehicle for an advocacy viewpoint is inappropriate, which brings me to the external links. You want to ignore the guidelines, but why? Because, to quote you from the other section, "he reader has no way of finding a good case for single payer -- which is what an entry on single payer should include." Because you want to violate our policies (and one of the five pillars of the project) of neutrality, you want to ignore the guideline on external links? That's not smart, and you're unlikely to get an significant support on that. There may be good reasons to keep advocacy sites in the external links area that have not yet been voiced. Advocacy simply isn't one of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
So when you claimed the NYT isn't "objective" on this issue, you meant they don't voice their support for single-payer with as much frequency as you'd like. Wow. You're making my case. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am completely committed to WP:NPOV:
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.
WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
In an article about single-payer health care, PNHP deserves significant weight, because they are one of the main proponents of single payer. I've been following single payer for 30 years, and I don't know of another organization that comes close. They also deserve significant weight because of so many WP:RS that refer to them, including the NYT (after the debate was all over), the NEJM, JAMA, many newspapers, and many WP:RS on the left.
Rewriting the PNHP article is a separate issue. This is an article about single payer. PNHP is a major part of single payer.
This article is disorganized, and if I were writing an organized article on single payer, I'd start with the PNHP web site and see how they make their case.
Also in keeping with WP:NPOV, I'd like to see any arguments against single payer. I believe that you should make the best arguments for a policy, make the best arguments against a policy, and let the reader decide. Although frankly, when I look for articles against single payer, I can't find much. The most common argument is that it's politically impossible. You can feel free to find better arguments (which this article is also lacking).
The NYT style book says that a newspaper should represent all viewpoints fairly, and that's what I'd like. I'm saying that they're not "objective" because during the time health care reform was under debate, they didn't mention single payer at all. I don't want any news source to support single payer. I want them to present it fairly along with all the other options. They didn't. And if you read the NYT coverage, you'll see that the readers overwhelmingly support single payer in the comments section. So their coverage is also discordant with what their readers want to see.
At any rate, we don't seem to have a consensus to remove the link, since I don't want to remove it and EllenCT doesn't want to remove it. I'm trying to find an acceptable compromise, which is to have a section on PNHP. I think that would be appropriate under all WP guidelines.--Nbauman (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
PNHP is an advocacy group. Maybe they're important, maybe they're the top of what amounts to a minority position in the United States. Whatever the case, their point of view is not entirely relevant to an article about what single payer is. If the article is disorganized (and I agree that it needs background expansion, at bare minimum), we can and should discuss that. The article, however, is not about the debate surrounding single payer. As a worldwide article, it's the US versus everyone else, and we discuss it pretty thoroughly based on what we need to do. Since the article is more of a portal to other articles, we need not duplicate every single word that exists elsewhere. This is not the place for a debate on single payer. As for link removal, we do have consensus based on the guideline, as your desire to keep the links, as it stands, is not based on policy. If you had a policy-based argument, that would be worth something. As it stands, a subsection directing people to the main article of PNHP is absolutely sensible, and should be done once that article is expanded. Unless you have a policy-based argument for the links as is, we have to remove them per policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not say "policy" when you mean "guideline." Policy supports presenting accurate, useful, and balanced information to the readers. The guideline does not support your all-or-nothing approach to external link ranking. EllenCT (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean policy. WP:NPOV is policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
TO, I'm trying to reach a solution that all of us can accept but you're rejecting it.
"Single payer" is an American term. No other country refers to their health care system as "single payer," although Americans often refer to the Canadian system as "single payer." There is no "worldwide" view of single payer. That's like having a worldwide view of Times Square.
Even if I accept your argument against a separate external link to PNHP, you are saying that you want to eliminate any significant reference to PNHP. That would violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The idea of putting all references to PNHP on the separate PNHP page violates WP:POVFORK.
In an article about single payer, PNHP has WP:WEIGHT, by any standard you apply. Writing an article about single payer without mentioning PNHP would be like writing an article about the New Deal without mentioning Roosevelt. --Nbauman (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how you're trying to reach a consensus conclusion when you want to actively abandon policy to get there. I don't care to eliminate any "significant reference," I want the reference to PNHP, a minority viewpoint organization in a nation that does not have single payer health care, to have the proper weight. This means maybe doing a link to the main article with its own section under advocacy groups, it might mean more references to their claims where appropriate, or it may mean nothing at all. I do not agree that PNHP is as significant as you do, in any regard, but if you think I'm trying to make it disappear, you're not understanding me at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You can't "rewrite" an advocacy link dump for neutrality. Shilling for such sites is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Everything in your posting here demonstrates that you aren't "committed to WP:NPOV". This article should be about briefly defining what "single payer" is, not arguing in favor of it or even extensively covering internal American political debates over it. It certainly shouldn't be about providing free advertising for your favorite advocacy group. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
VictorD7, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
TO, can you give me another source besides PNHP that is a source of information on single payer?--Nbauman (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That conform to our guideline on external links for the external links section? I haven't found one. If one exists that's appropriate, I am happy to see us include it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You've admitted that your intention is to use this article to seek greater exposure for an advocacy group you really have a high opinion of, and you've already tried to dismiss article policy yourself with an IAR reference, despite this being a textbook case of why neutrality rules exist here, and that move violating the spirit as well as the letter of NPOV policy. VictorD7 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
OT, I'm asking you to give me any WP:RS that is a source of information on single payer. --Nbauman (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A whole bunch exist in the article already. We could absolutely add more, but they would be inappropriate for an external link section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
OT, I'm asking you to name at least one WP:RS on single payer that you read and understand. Can you do that?--Nbauman (talk)
I can do that, yes. This talk page, however, is not for discussion of single payer, it's for discussion of the article. The article does not have room for advocacy, the external links section does not conform to guideline or policy currently, and no good argument is being given to ignore the basic pillars of the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is the place to discuss which sources are WP:RS. You claim that some of the sources we are using are not WP:RS. I'm asking you to tell me what sources you do think are WP:RS. That's certainly a reasonable question, and appropriate to Talk. If you can do that, please do. --Nbauman (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a reasonable question, but one without a full question asked. What sources do you want to include, and where? If your answer is "the sources listed above" or "what's currently in external links" and you want to put them in the external link section, the answer is that none qualify for that section. If you have other areas of expansion you're considering and want to discuss them before adding them, please do. Let's keep the focus, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

For contentious EL material, I'd recommend sticking to what is specifically encouraged in the policy. The addition I saw go in misses that by 2 or 3 levels. Not encouraged, not "no mentioned",(miss by 1) to "discouraged" (miss by 2) to a lot of contested unsourced commentary material added (misses by 3, specifically prohibited)). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

TO, I would like you to name at least one specific WP:RS from anywhere in the article, anywhere outside the article, or anywhere in the world, that discusses single payer and that you consider to be a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what that has to do with the external links section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It would help me understand what your objections are. I'm trying to figure out what your criteria are for WP:RS or WP:EL. In order for me to do that, I'd like to know at least one site that you do consider to be a WP:RS or WP:EL. Can you give me one? --Nbauman (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My criteria for external links is laid out at the guideline. Just because something is inappropriate for an external link does not mean it's inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Many of the true news sources in the set currently there might be of value in the article, but nothing that's been listed appears appropriate for an external links section, nor has any policy/guideline-based argument been provided to say otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So you are either unwilling or unable to name a single WP:RS or WP:EL for single payer.--Nbauman (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
" Many of the true news sources in the set currently there might be of value in the article, but nothing that's been listed appears appropriate for an external links section, nor has any policy/guideline-based argument been provided to say otherwise." I'm interested in the article, not a debate on single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Put aside WP:EL. Can you name a source that you consider WP:RS?
I am not debating single payer, I am discussing improvements to the Single-payer health care article. --Nbauman (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what this line of questioning has to do with the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You are claiming that certain sources that we want to use in the article are not WP:RS. I'm trying to figure out what sources you believe are reliable sources, so I can work with you on the article using mutually-acceptable WP:RS that you accept. Can you give me an example of a WP:RS that you accept? --Nbauman (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm claiming that certain sources you want to include in the external links section are not appropriate, and that NEWSBLOG is not what would qualify the links provided in this section for inclusion because they aren't news sources. They may very well be reliable sources for their opinion (or more) if there's specific uses in the article text that are being proposed. You seem to have misread my points, so hopefully that clears things up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Obamacare default to single payer if it fails?

So I'm reading through [3] and [4] looking for anti-single payer information, and I come across this.

Hello.

The health insurance plans got exactly what they wanted, including golden parachutes through a single payer conversion if anything goes wrong. Read at least through the whole thing, preferably to page 10. EllenCT (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance to this article in that piece. Maybe worth discussing at the PPACA article or the health care reform article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it feels a bit OR-y, also I don't see how providing insurers assistance resembles single-payer. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the rules they proposed, which were adopted, seem to point in a particular direction when anything goes wrong with the budget numbers, and it looks like the document I linked to may have been specifically designed to try to make that happen. I'm not suggesting that my hypothesis be included, but I am saying that there are a lot of very serious implications pertinent to editing this and related articles if it's true. EllenCT (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure that's a possibility but the information can't from us as Wiki editor doing primary source research, if you can find a reliable source showing that it would be good to have in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Scheiber, Noam (January 5, 2014). "How Obamacare Actually Paves the Way Toward Single Payer". The New Republic. Retrieved 6 January 2014. Discusses the most obvious of several paths. EllenCT (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against a small mention if you can explain how this is more of a mainstream viewpoint as opposed to the idle musings of a columnist. Still looks like a mention for the PPACA article more than here, regardless. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
After the ridiculous amount of pointless work you have put everyone through here, the lies about copyright, and the incessant wikilawyering, do you want to venture a guess as to whether I give one tenth of one percent of a damn about your opinion? EllenCT (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You can be angry and uncivil, or you can work with people to improve the article. It's completely up to you. If you're removing yourself from the article, however, let us know so those of us who want to collaborate can get the work done. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not angry, uncivil, or removing myself from the article. I have removed you from the list of people with whom I feel any respect for or confidence in because of your repeated attempts to mislead me, for example saying that you could not establish copyright when you most obviously did not try. I strongly object to your assertion that you want to collaborate. You have refused to compromise after abundant opportunity, refusing even to admit that the National Academy of Medicine's book on universal coverage which refers to single payer dozens of times in nine of its chapters is an appropriate external link. You have exhausted my patience. This will be my last reply to you on this thread, but do not interpret my silence as consent. My objections to your misguided proposals stand and will continue to stand whether I waste any further time replying to you or not. EllenCT (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Your objections are noted, and also not rooted in policy or guideline. If you remain silent on the matter, that is that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

International comparisons

There's a bit of a war brewing over yet another table in a prose article, this time a direct paste from the main article already linked. Can someone explain why we need to duplicate the section in full at Health care system#International comparisons here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a clear way to compare the outcomes of different single-payer systems, I figured it would be preferable to the prose of something like 50 sentences. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
My angle here is process and policy rather than outcome. Editors together raw primary source data for the purposes of / in a way to "show" something is against policy and how articles are built. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What policy would it be violating and what exactly would it be "showing" other than outcomes? CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:VER and WP:NOR. Especially WP:SYNTH and also the limitations on the uses of primary sources. Also keeping in mind that each entry in a table is an assertion that it is an instance of the column and row "headings" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:What SYNTH is not because it's not what you're describing. The tables are based on secondary sources for the list, they are not cherry picked and they are not from individual sources for each number. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an ESSAY. But either way, it's impossible to check because the "references" "given" aren't wp:reliable sources and aren't given. From what's given, it was never published, and only existed on the web site of an advocacy organization. What's given as a "reference" is an in-line external link to the advocacy organization's home page, and two dead links.North8000 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need to duplicate the section it links to wholesale? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Because they provide the outcomes of different single-payer systems in an immediate way, which is the more or less the point of the section. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
So since it does something, we need to duplicate it? The paragraph linked to the larger section already, you've provided no reason to duplicate the entire section as of yet. Also, what makes you think you had consensus to put the misleading table of polls back, while I have your attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Because they are single-payer countries and thus relevant enough to be on the page. It's the same reason why this page isn't just a series of links to the same content on other pages.
Last time I checked, there was no consensus either way and a refusal to settle it on other forums. What makes you so sure you have consensus to remove the material especially when other editors disagree? CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
So what if they're single payer countries? This isn't an article to duplicate information from other articles. As for your idea of the consensus, you never had that correct and still do not. Please show the consensus for either of these changes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Everything in this entire article is a "duplicate" of concepts in other articles (health care, government subsidies etc.) and yet the article exists. The fact is if the information is valuable, and relates to single-payer, it's going in the article. Two editors have told you not to remove content, I don't think I need a third opinion to show that you need consensus in this case. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is unfortunately untrue across the board. It's you that lacks consensus for your changes so far, and you have yet to show why we need to duplicate an entire section here when we do it nowhere else with main articles in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the table for OR, POV advocacy, POV causal assumptions, cherry-picking categories, cherry-picking nations, etc. The so called "preventable deaths" column actually linked to a leftist advocacy outfit called the Commonwealth Fund. It's absurd that a soapboxing political advertisement like that was even added here to begin with. It violates more rules than one can list in an edit summary. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We're still battling over this. For the record, UseR:EllenCT, this specific section was not "long standing," but was simply added without discussion by User:CartoonDiablo. There does not appear to be consensus for its inclusion at the time, so is there a good reason we should be ignoring that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Who is funding your side of the "battle" you perceive? If you want to delete the section, please copy it to the talk page first so it can be discussed. EllenCT (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry? There's no reason to attack me personally. The section will remain in the history if we need it. Do you have a defense of keeping it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You called it a battle, without being willing or able to find any organized opposition, so when I ask you who you think that opposition is, why do you think that is an attack against you? What does it tell you that you saw that as an attack against you? EllenCT (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "battle" being a word to replace "war" in the case of the edit warring. By assuming funding, I felt you were implying something about me, if I took it the wrong way you have my apologies. Sticking to the topic at hand, do you have a defense for keeping the section as it stands? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This conversation has gone stale. Is there a policy-based reason for a table that appears to violate our policies on synthesis, point of view, and original research, or can we remove it and move on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As nothing has been presented after a number of days, I have removed this table. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Polling table

User:CartoonDiablo is edit-warring over the polling table section, which was settled some time ago. Why are we fighting this again? What changed with the consensus? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

CD, you've now reverted us yet again without discussing this on talk. Please engage us or stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
TO, I don't see on that link of yours that this was settled in your favor. I also don't see any discussion on this page as to why it was deleted. I'm reverting it under WP:PRESERVE. Please explain why you don't think the table belongs. --Nbauman (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to read closer, as well as the relevant noticeboard links to go with it, as well as the fact that the article stood without the table for ten months without further protest. If you have a new argument to add polls that aren't single payer in a misleading table format, I'm open to hearing it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I did read it. It's a long discussion, and there is section on consensus which begins, "After looking at the discussion the only consensus I see is for poll table or no consensus." That seems to be the case. If you believe that there is a consensus in that Talk discussion, or anywhere else, could you please quote the text where it says that and give me a link? --Nbauman (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, from someone who had been shot down at every forum he went to because he lacked consensus. I have linked you to the relevant section, but you may also want to look at the previous archive #2 to see why the arguments fell flat. Do you have a new argument you'd like to put out there? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User:CartoonDiablo, your editing is disruptive because of your lack of engagement on the issue here at the talk page. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I was under the assumption I discussed it here (it was in another section). Regardless there was no consensus reached last time, only one now by me EllenCT and others for you to not to remove content. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Two different admins told you that you did not have consensus. The section was stable for months. What changed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The admins said there was no consensus either way, what changed was your removal of content, not limited to the polling section. If you want to discuss why or why not those are single-payer polls we should have it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Not true, actually. They said you had no consensus for your changes, but I tried to have the discussion about the polls before with you, you refused to engage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As you well know I have participated for years and you're mixing up a negative for a positive, if admins say there is not a consensus for a particular version it does not mean the opposite is true, all it means is something has to be reached.
VictorD7 recent edit aside, this needs to be solved once and for all and edit-warring is not going to be the solution. I'm proposing an ArbComm request since our differences as to what constitute "single-payer" seem to be intractable. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
CD, the archives tell a different story. I asked you to justify the links, you didn't. do we need to bring over the individual links again? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious I posted links in June 2012 and October 2012, along with the countless DRNs and NPOV noticeboards but those aside this edit war has gone on long enough. I will try to get an administrator to help solve the issue and if that fails, to go to ArbComm. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I love how you want to end the war you started, but can you explain how each of those are single payer polls? You haven't yet. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As I've said an infinite amount of times now, a poll comparing a proposed system to a single-payer system (such as Medicare or Canada's system) counts as a single-payer poll. Everything on the list was an example of that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As I demonstrated on the section you refused to reply to, this simply was not the case. If you want to include the polls, you can justify each one and explain how they're single payer polls. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the difference between me making a single statement and describing each one? It's effectively the same thing, since there are none which don't conform to that criteria, we know that they are all single-payer polls. It's more efficient then showing it one by one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
See what I mean? You don't care to discuss it because you don't think you have to justify the inclusion. When I say "you refused to engage," this is exactly it. That's not how this project works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there's been a miscommunication here because I mean (and have meant) this in earnest: why bother listing through a dozen+ polls when we can simply see whether the criteria applies? If it means that much I can make a list for each one, I just figured it would be a waste of time. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I did that before. You wanted nothing to do with it. Nothing has changed about the polls, you have no argument to, for example, call a poll about the public option a single payer poll. I don't see why it's fruitful to do this yet again unless you have new information to bring to the table. As it stands, it looks like you're just reverting back to the forum-shopping that you pulled last spring. What's the point? 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Thargor Orlando (talk)
That link seems more about whether we can show a decline but regardless I can make a list. As to whether it is for a public option it would have to be for a specifically alternative or competing government plan or use the words "public option."
I'm trying to end the dispute, there has not been a consensus on any of the discussions, the result was either moving it somewhere else or inactivity. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I've worked with polls, and I've gone to seminars by polling experts who explained them to me. It's a basic idea of polling that you can ask the same question using different phrases and get different answers. Therefore, pollsters vary the words of the polls to get the full range of reactions. In some polls, they might ask about "government-funded insurance," in other polls "Medicare for all," and in other polls "single payer." The polls are designed to ask the same question about the same concept in different words. Whenever anybody reviewed the polls about single payer in a peer-reviewed journal, they used all the polls that were designed to measure the concept "single payer," whether they used that exact phrase or not. Is that the issue here? --Nbauman (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That is more or less the issue, yes. And that is what I have been saying, the same concept can be described in numerous ways but it is still referring to approval of a "single-payer" system. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I was looking for a WP:RS that would explicitly say that they were comparing different polls that used different words to ask about the same concept of single payer, Medicare for all, etc., but I couldn't find one. There are plenty of WP:RS that discuss the different polls that use different words. "Universal health care" isn't exactly the same as "single payer", but pollsters always compare polls like that to see how peoples' opinions change as you change the words and the concepts. I'd want to know how the polls came out for "single payer," "Medicare for all," and other phrases. I don't understand TO's problem. --Nbauman (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Thargor Orlando would have to explain the issue himself but as far as it stands now it should be discussed in Mediation. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I declined mediation because it wasn't done in good faith. The issue was resolved. The article was stable for eight months, and even you're admitting nothing has changed. A polling section should deal with polls about the topic, not polls about a different topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
TO, you're misunderstanding how polls work. When WP:RS do polls about single payer, they use different wording, such as "Medicare for all," to find out how people answer the same or similar question when it's worded different ways. A poll about "Medicare for all" is about single payer. You're giving this your own WP:OR interpretation.
I don't like to get into revert wars, but I think that given your refusal to mediate, it's justified to revert your deletions, preferably after we reach a consensus in Talk.
You keep claiming that the issue was resolved. It wasn't resolved, at least not your way. The only thing I see when I review the discussions is people giving good reasons for edits, and you stubbornly ignoring them and doing it your way. Maybe that's your idea of "resolved", but it's not the normal meaning of the term. --Nbauman (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going only by vague memory / the general gist, but I think that it was resolved as "keep it out", and that has been the state of the article. If in doubt, looking up any substantive discussions would be the first thing to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
OT, let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that a poll that asks whether people favor "a universal government-paid health care system like they have in Canada?" is not about single payer? --Nbauman (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct, because it is an assumption that the respondent understands that the question is regarding single payer health care. We have a few polls in the opinion section currently that are listed with the "like Canada" caveat as a compromise. I broke the available polls down before. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone listed some previous discussion at various venues on this at the mediation post. I'm copying those here as info: (#[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A bare list of links to discussions isn't useful. That leads to page after page of (usually unresolved) discussions. TO and others claim that we reached consensus. I just want to know the links, with the specific text, where you reached consensus. I couldn't find any. --Nbauman (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
TO, where is your table with the acceptable polls? --Nbauman (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The acceptable polls are currently in the article in prose, per the consensus reached in the linked archive and the stability of the article over the last 8-9 months. The piece that CD keeps adding without consensus is what is listed line by line in my links. You can cross-reference CD's table in the history with the listed polls in the talk archive if need be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure PolitiFact is an objective, reliable source. They've been criticized for a lot of their statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Criticism_of_specific_fact_checks much of which comes down to subjective definitions. At one time they had a liberal bias, and now they have a conservative bias. They're just a newspaper editorial page with no particular expertise in health care. Why give them so much prominence? --Nbauman (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to raise it with the reliable sources noticeboard, go ahead. They meet every reasonable standard for a reliable source, your ideological complaints aside. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:CartoonDiablo, you are now continuing to edit war after two days of not engaging here at talk about this section, and still not answering the questions posed to you. This is disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing you asserting a consensus that never existed and edit-warring over myself and others. Please show us this apparent consensus from years ago because the issue was never settled. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is in the archives, as noted by multiple administrators. As the person who wants to add the content, please show the consensus for your changes. If you cannot, they will be reverted yet again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Where exactly did administrators say what counts as a single-payer poll and that you can remove content? If I recall you yourself refused to participate in the outside discussions when talking here failed. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, that there was consensus for the prose version. Read the archives. You were privy to all the conversations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what the legitimate purpose of the polling table is? A space consuming table stands out amidst the prose and expands the subtopic's weight beyond that of arguably more important material. It also adds enormous weight to an internal US political dispute on a page not about the US. Furthermore, it implies a comprehensiveness that's clearly lacking. The polls are cherry-picked (the biggest problem here). As even Politifact notes, other Kaiser polls have shown less than 50% support (even with their skewed question wording), so why aren't they included when the one poll that shows majority support is? More importantly, as Politifact goes on to note, Kaiser's questions weren't "either-or" and they found less support for single payer than for more private sector oriented alternatives. It's misleading for the table to omit these crucial structural facts. Shaky question wording also undermines notability for this article. Most of the polls don't even mention "single payer", and some are hilariously skewed to rig the results. One (from 1990!) actually says: "In the Canadian system of national health insurance, the government pays most of the cost of health care out of taxes and the government sets all fees charged by doctors and hospitals. Under the Canadian system – which costs the taxpayers less than the American system – people can choose their own doctors and hospitals. On balance, would you prefer the Canadian system or the system we have here in the United States?" In a basic statistics class that'd be a textbook example of agenda driven wording, resulting in a worthless poll.

I've scanned the linked archived discussions and I've seen no real argument for inclusion. What's the goal here? Is it to accurately and honestly describe American opinion, or soapbox via peer pressure/bandwagon? If the former, then most Americans obviously oppose/don't support single payer. That's not only confirmed by the most recent (and straightforward) polling, but reinforced by the stances of elected politicians and Americans' general aversion to heavy government control over major aspects of their lives (also confirmed by recent polling in Gallup and elsewhere). We can briefly describe the reality in prose, no table required. VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What's hilarious about this is that the section is already compromise language. I'm not convinced a 20+ year old poll says much about single payer in 2014, but in a show of good faith, it's included anyway. That's still not enough for some who somehow think polls about the public option debate from 2009 are about single payer. I'm doing my best to AGF, but the polling table plus the international comparison mess plus the external link mess smell much more of advocacy than encyclopedia-building. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
TO, you have repeatedly claimed that there is a consensus, and yet you have never linked to a statement of consensus or to the text of that consensus. There is no consensus. --Nbauman (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thargor, I'm asking for the diff(s) of where multiple admins apparently say those are single-payer polls, the question of prose is beside this point. As you can see, no one else seems to be seeing this.
User:VictorD7, First, that's a good point for the extra language, I'll add it in if it's a problem. Second, the table shows more data at once (and is collapseable) as opposed to over a dozen sentences for each individual poll (and since the Rasmussen polls are more negative, it's hard to say it was "cherry-picking" for positive results). And third, if you're going to engage in the debate can you a give your opinion on mediation here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The point was most of those polls aren't notable; certainly not ones with wording as ridiculous as that. It's cherry-picking because it's not a comprehensive list of polls (e.g. only the most favorable Kaiser one is included). The solution to that problem isn't to scour the earth in an attempt to find every poll on healthcare ever conducted, it's to realize that a table format isn't an appropriate presentation for this data. The mediation deadline is the 8th, and I'm planning on commenting there soon. You didn't answer--what's the goal of this subsection? VictorD7 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The notability of the polls isn't really the issue, it's more that half the polls he's including aren't about the topic. They're literally irrelevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"Irrelevant" to this article was what I meant by the lack of notability in this context. I was using the English word (meaning "worth noting") rather than citing a specific guideline (the latter focuses on the article level). VictorD7 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not hunting through a year's worth of edits for diffs. The consensus is in the archives of this talk page as well as CD's nonsensical attempts to have me blocked. Multiple administrators told him the consensus wasn't there for his changes, as well as uninvolved editors. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
TO, you're not willing to hunt through a year's worth of edits to find the consensus that you say is there. Are you telling me (or anybody else who wants to confirm your claim) that we should hunt through a year's worth of edits to confirm your claim? This is known as "conceding that you have no evidence," and as far as I'm concerned, there is no consensus.--Nbauman (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
A table is the best way to display polling data. It stands out because it's better organized than prose, and easier for the reader to understand. If you read the cited article in Health Affairs by Blendon, you'll see that Blendon has several tables. I've read Blendon's articles in NEJM, JAMA, and elsewhere, and he uses tables all the time. So do other articles in those major journals about polling in general and single payer in particular.--Nbauman (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That was a study about the polling data (a narrow study of three polls at that, each of a different nation). Studies usually present whatever data they're working with in table form. By contrast, we're discussing a haphazardly constructed table shoved into an encyclopedia article and filled with frivolous, cherry-picked polls selected by random editors and covering various topics that serve no purpose anyone is willing to articulate. This isn't a study about polls. The table gives undue emphasis to public opinion (US only at that) and a false sense of comprehensive coverage. Legitimate tables on various pages that might not be comprehensive, like a list of GDP or some other stat by nation (that may not include every nation on earth), at least provide useful discrete data, like info on different, individual nations. This polling table, however, is meant to be taken as an aggregate commentary on a single issue (US public opinion); the list items ostensibly cover the same thing. But they aren't comprehensive and there was certainly nothing scientific about their selection, so the table format is misleading. Furthermore, the selected polls themselves are beyond problematic for reasons laid out. VictorD7 (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Nbauman, you have been linked to the relevant talk archives as well as the relevant noticeboard discussions. I'm sorry that's not enough for you. Consensus for a table has not been established. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
VictorD7, have you ever read an article in a peer-reviewed medical journal about public opinion polls? On any subject?--Nbauman (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Nbauman, can you tell me why a poll about the Public health insurance option should be considered a poll about single payer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean apart from the one I just discussed? Did you not read my post, Nbauman? Because you didn't respond to anything I said. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

Hi there, This article reads like an advertisement for the single-payer system -- totally one-sided. 12.153.234.194 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I ran into resistance in fixing even errorsSpekServices (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Medicaid and single payer

Do we consider Medicaid a single payer program? My gut says yes, but I haven't really seen it pushed as such either. An addition was made tonight, but with a lot of bare/self-referencing involved, is there a way we can add this information neutrally? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


In Accurate information correction reversed

I saw two major inaccuracies in the United States Single Payer - 

the edits I offered were to correct misleading information, add missing information, and revise outdated information

1) the original Medicare posting is in direct conflict with a related Wiki Medicare posting[1] see Benefits, as well as CMS and Medicare.gov (I will spare us all the reposting of CMS /Medicare links from the offered edit) 

Further, my next clarification is prepared to add one other Medicare payer, Medicaid, as listed on wiki [2]
the original posts presents medicare as the only payment method required for Medicare eligible. that is not correct and is misleading, and can be misread as reflecting a political agenda.
links were included in the edit linking it to Medicare.gov, validating the information that was corrected demonstrating the government specifies out of pocket payment, private insurer payment, and state government payment

I would request a timely review of linked information, and a mutually agreed upon edit that meets CMS regulations

the other option would be to remove Medicare from single payer as accurate Medicare information would disqualify it factually under the single payer definition posted, I see value in correcting and keeping it, in that 

it is mentioned in a national political conversation as "single payer" by those not educated on or enrolled in Medicare
and it would clarify the posting of proposed legislation that is listed below

sidebar - by law CMS can force the page to be shut down for posting inaccurate and false information, a violation of multiple federal regulations.

2)the other edit was to add Medicaid, a single payer system that meets the definition posted the information was a direct copy of Medicaid as posted on the primary Medicaid wiki site if someone would rather have the complete Medicaid section linked, that would also be a solution

It may also make a better read if Medicaid is above the Medicare information

my understanding is wiki was for accuracy, apiology if I stepped on any toes on the process as CMS / AHIP certified representative, the correction of conflicting data was not political SpekServices (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you an insurer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No I am required to report or correct inaccurate information to CMS because of my legal relationship with, and legal obligation to CMS

the Medicare information here has many inaccuracies, and correction is much less hostile than the reporting process, which can require removal On this topic the QA/QE, compliance and technical writer hats are being worn, all I care about in this venue is that this page's wiki information is correct and complete, and not in conflict with other information on wiki, or Medicare.gov Have you verified the accuracy of the information that was posted and removed? how do we get correct information posted?

re Medicaid inclusion - state paid Medicaid is in compliance with the definition of single payer more than federal Medicare, which uses state Medicaid private pay & self pay

an option is a bare reference/link to both wiki Medicaid and Medicare, and make no claim on what it is I see both having value in the conversation (an inaccurate claim would be a political statement) and removal will create endless attempts to re-include them.

your question of self referencing - I regret I have to ask a question in reply

If the information does not link to established wiki primary topic information, how does the information on this page get updated to match the information on the primary topic page, when the primary topic gets updated?SpekServices (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Spek, specifically we need neutral information from third party sources. Wikipedia has no legal obligation to your own relationship with CMS, whatever that may be. You may also want to look at the conflict of interest situation here, as it may be applicable to what you're engaging in. We're all interested in making sure the article is as accurate as possible, we just need third party resources to get there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando, please review the following, and take what I would call a cool down period, before responding

I do not appreciate what I experience as multiple forms of "Behavior that is unacceptable", I am experiencing no interest in wiki talk page purpose, since the factual aspects are not being addressed in your responses

I respectfully request you stay on purpose and expand to the rest of those with page interest on the reason you insist a reported as false, documented as false, verifiably false, political post should be retained, or ... correct or remove the post, allow it to be corrected - or move this dispute to mediation
staying with facts, many of which are already stated
re content

Fact - the entry of Medicare on the single payer page is in conflict to the actual information on the primary topic entry of Medicare, as wiki Medicare page lists multiple payers, and the entry on this page states it is single payer so far nothing presented refutes that

re ""specifically we need neutral information from third party sources"

Fact - there is no third party data supporting the specific statement "is a single-payer healthcare system" Fact - the link for Medicare goes to the Medicare site on Wiki, not the governing 3rd party Federal Agency Fact - I never objected to that, as it is logical to keep data current Since it is not a stand alone entry, but a descriptive of the "linked to" entry, Opinion - linking only to the 3rd party would negate the value of the wiki Medicare page, as well as deviating from most common protocols for References when there is no provision to update this information when the primary information page is updated. As a result of a lack of connectivity, the information on this page, over time, could and...in Fact - has become outdated

Example - I will try to put it in simple terms, using a neutral topic so personal attachments are set aside
let's say
- there is a primary page called automobile, and it describes the current description of what we see on our roads today, along with evolution and cross reference - and a group of people are focused on that page
- there is also a primary page called transportation, with a sub-category called personal transportation, and in that sub category, automobile is listed and described, the description has no qualification on how current it is, but it describes a bicycle

would you expect it to be fixed? that is what this is - no more, and no less

re existing description

Fact - besides a being a false statement, the description is used for political purposes only, for advocacy of H.R. 676, a violation

"Wikipedia has no legal obligation to your own relationship with CMS, whatever that may be"

Fact - correct - never said it did

re "You may also want to look at the conflict of interest situation here, as it may be applicable to what you're engaging in."

Fact - I refuted this implied allegation once, and clarified my role. That initial allegation posed as a question was experienced as a violation, see Behavior that is unacceptable, but clarification was given. Fact - a second allegation has occurred after clarification - that would be a violation. see Behavior that is unacceptable

In detail = A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests (I promoted none) (the insistence on retaining a political statement at the expense of a factual statement constructs a COI), including your business or financial interests (no political, business or financial gain for me from having an honest post), or those of your external relationships(no political, business or financial gain for anyone from having an honest post), such as with family, friends or employers ( no one other than Medicare, medicare.gov would be affected by this CORRECTION

At this point - past experience, when in a an insistence on retaining a post that is incorrect to already provided 3rd party links, and that is incorrect to wiki verifiable topic post is suspect as COI "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." SpekServices (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpekServices (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Spek, if I misunderstood what you meant by "legal relationship with, and legal obligation to CMS," my apologies. Still, we need third party sources for your claims in order to add them to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some articles are about an topic that is relatively clearly delineated without any particular term (such as the title of the article) Less commonly, some articles are about a term itself. Some articles are about a certain scope as defined by a term, and "defined by" can be a technical meaning, a literal meaning or a common meaning of the term. I'm not sure which of those this article should be treated as, but that range of possibilities should be acknowledged, and acknowledged that it would be the framework for answering the question. If I had to pick a suggestion amongst them, I would tend to go with a term-defined-scope article, and by the common meaning of the term in common usage. If there were agreed on, then I would note that this would typically refer to overall healthcare systems for a country, and such would not include a system that for specific groups. But again, that is just a suggestion / opinion. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of the peer reviewed literature which weighs in on the topic says that Medicare is single payer. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_dual_eligible
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single-payer_healthcare/Archive_4&oldid=1073142642"