Talk:Affordable Care Act

Individual mandate
So, why are people fined if they're not insured? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * *cough* 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To ensure compliance. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that much was obvious, but is it really necessary to basically criminalize being uninsured? What's so bad if some libertarians choose not to be insured? 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They might end up in ("free") hospital emergency rooms if they do get sick?
 * To forestall concerted boycotts mainly designed to wreck the entire system by Teabaggers and similar types who probably don't (and won't) understand it, but whipped up by the likes of Koch and cynically exploited for partisan purposes by the GOP? ScepticWombat (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To the former; why's that so bad? To the latter; yeah, that's a fair reason. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The former is bad because it stresses the system (and patients shouldn't end up in emergency rooms simply because they're "free").
 * Also, I'm actually siding with the "nanny state" here: Even libertarians have families and loved ones who care about them and if libertarians are too stupid and/or irresponsible to take care of themselves to the extent of getting health care, thus potentially exposing their loved ones to the emotional anguish it is to lose them, then I have little problem with the state forcing such libertarians to take care of themselves (especially if said libertarian has dependants such as children). It's no different from mandatory crash helmet or seat belt laws. Why exactly are libertarians' rights to kill or cripple themselves any sort of valid objection to ACA? (And yes, I do know of such examples as UK laws exempting Sikhs from crash helmet laws, but bear with me here) ScepticWombat (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what you meant. I dunno if making being uninsured illegal is necessarily the best or most preferable solution to handle people going to ER for minor things because it's 'free', though. And while I don't necessarily object to your latter reasoning, I have to point out that the same reasoning can be used to criminalize suicide and euthanasia (when the family wants them to go on living). 142․124․55․236 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On a purely cost-benefit basis, keeping young, uninsured people alive and taxable is worth it to the government; stopping (predominantly) old and/or sick people from killing 'emselves isn't. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While you could "criminalize suicide", it would simply be ineffective and uninforcable in the sense of acting as a deterrent (at most you'd encourage people to choose more effective methods of suicide, since that way they'd be sure to avoid punishment). Euthanasia is an entirely different case, as it deals with terminally and/or incurably ill people, not healthy persons who are simply careless/stupid/irresponsible. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, euthanasia is a significantly different issue, but you could similarly make it illegal when it's not in agreement with the wishes of relatives. If you use concerns about the feelings of relatives and loved ones to justify taking legal measures against carelessness towards oneself, that opens up the avenue of using such concerns as justification for a legal stance in other issues. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Romneycare
Since Romney's healthcare reform was the basis of the affordable care act and many articles link romneycare to this page I think making a section about it is important to improving this page. Messaging here to give the heads up on it before I start working Vorarchivist (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision since Trumpcare failed
Obamacare will now continue. Americans who understand what's happening please check the article and revise if necessary. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

ObamaCare Repeal Fails!
YAAAAAAAASSS!!! —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 11:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple rather long-winded recent additions need to be picked apart
@User:RoninMacbeth: I know I know, you see a huge red number (and for bonus points, it's by a BoN) and your first instinct is to revert. But, in this case, I think their cleanup was the right thing to do. The text removed has a lot of sources cited, but also has a lot of probable lies, mistakes, and spelling mistakes, and generally reeks of a conspiratorialist wingnut paranoia bent.

Even if it weren't so suffocatingly hot right now, I've got other things to do and I'm not entirely sure this kind of thing is my cuppa anyway, so could someone with a lot of time on their hands please pick through the added textwalls and rewrite them from scratch with just what you can confirm is credible and relevant? I mean, from a cursory (and weather-addled) glance I think that what was added definitely qualifies for the definition of "vandalism" Rationalwiki tends to use, but the sources cited are, in and of themselves, probably not all bad.

...Oh, and, Macbeth: could you help us with a thing in Tech Support by telling me whether manually wiki-linking to your username like that successfully pinged you? (Separately from the notification the revert probably gave you, that is.) 00:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have to use the template. I agree, we should review what the BoN removed.  00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The docs for Template:Ping say "Note that it isn't necessary to use this template to ping the user if you are already linking to the username from your post". If there is anything special inside the template, might be it, but in any case it's not working, for one reason or another. I'll try  here: User:Koidevelopment ...and if that doesn't work, you can in turn try both  and  to see if Template:Ping technically being a redirect is the problem. Sidenote: I found it cute that


 * popped up on the edit you replied to me with. I first thought that it was something like a bunch  (which apparently doesn't work as it should, but in theory would specifically address (and link to the profile of) anyone reading it, and default to saying "a bunch!" if not logged in) ...which come to think of it you could try using something similar to in a new addition to your signature rotation, if you want. Nesting Template:USERNAME inside your signature template probably wouldn't work, but you can hit up the source of a template and grab the relevant stuff as a workaround in these cases.  02:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah haha. 'Thanks, Love' is on that signature because you came up with it. KoiDevelopment™ didn't exist until you made a post on Biglbigj or whatever that guy's name is when we were trying to get him to use the preview button. Credit given where credit is due. Maybe I have ping settings off or weird or something? It didn't ping me when you pinged me.


 * Yeah, I should try that rotating username thing. I digress. 02:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * pingpingping! I think we both have everything still default in the new Preferences --> Notifications pane. Still no increase from 0 in either the "Your alerts" or "Your message" counters at the top of every page? 02:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nop, stull doon't werk. Must be my settings. Thanks for trying, though. :) 11:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Protecting the page lead to the stuff being posted on other articles instead
They say it's an updated version, too. Reverted. 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And again.

Do you think we should just unprotect ACA, draw their attention back to it, and keep reverting their edits all in one neat&tidy place? 12:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)