Talk:Affordable Care Act

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Question[edit]

Is there some ban on conservative/libertarian viewpoints on this site that I should know about?

Why don't you just be more honest and replace that brain you have as this site's logo with a big D and a jackass?--7u7 (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This site likes facts. In dealing with the AHA, republicans have been absent those. They love to say things like "It has death panels", and "you will not be able to choose your own doctor". It may or may not create jobs - it will not kill them. and? Green mowse.pngGodotStop the damn screeds! 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't come here to trade talking points with you. No reasons were given for my content being removed, and I want explanation. I didn't remove any left wing arguments, but merely rephrased the conservative arguments in a way that reflects conservatives' actual positions as opposed to fantastical caricatures.--7u7 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No, there's no ban. However, there are style and standards for content. And whatever the nature of your assertations (I really don't care if you're from the Ice Cream and Ponies Party), they don't follow them, or the policies of the site. Removing researched content without a valid reason in order to promote a viewpoint is frowned upon. The idea here is to go do research and find out what the actual content of the topic contains, rather than hear it secondhand and then turn articles into opinion pieces. I don't know if you've realized or not, but reality doesn't really care who you like in terms of politics. If the ACA states something in clear terms (and it does, it's a legal document,) then we will represent it as such. Not through the lens of interpretation, not through the mouthpieces of the democrats or republicans or the green party or whatever party you please. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The article actually, as it is now, reads like an opinion piece. One of the false claims made by Republicans against the bill is pointed out, but there simply wouldn't be enough room for me to list all of the false claims by Democrats in favor of the bill. We could compile every claim by every politician on this health care debate rated as false on here, but it would probably be an eyesore and a distraction from the basic fundamental arguments over this bill.--7u7 (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful comment. If you took the time to read any documents about the ACA, it can't constitute socialism universal health care for two simple reasons:

a) There is zero public option (excluding limited Medicare coverage); and
b) As a result, the private option remains dominant. All that's new is regulations that an insurance company can't fuck you over for having pre-existing conditions, and, of course, the individual mandate, that you have to purchase something or face tax rises.

This is coming as someone who doesn't live in the States and can't vote for the jackasses Democrats. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, what the hell is a "free market reform?" If the government reforms the market, it isn't completely free. By that phrasing, the ACA did enact free market reforms. Blue Talk 02:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We're not arguing whether it created a public option. What I want to know is why my content was removed. I simply provided the conservative arguments against this bill in a clear, sensible manner, along with removing some blatantly tendentious wording.
As for free market reforms, right now insurers cannot sell across state lines, and allowing them to do so would immediately make for far more competition, and lowered costs.--7u7 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so by free market reforms, you mean deregulation in a particular way. See, most of the country missed the point of the ACA. It was never really meant to lower premiums. It was meant to make the system fairer, and expand coverage for millions of people without insurance. Lowering costs is not a priority of the law, so to argue that a better alternative would be an action that would supposedly lower costs is fallacious. Lowering costs doesn't accomplish what the ACA has and will have accomplished. Blue Talk 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it was sold as lowering costs. Obama actually promised to work to lower health care premiums repeatedly. One of the main arguments the left used against our system was that it was too expensive compared with the rest of the world. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder, and by "expand coverage", what they mean is force healthy, young people who otherwise did not want nor need full health care coverage to pay into the system.--7u7 (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Er, no, they mean to cover millions of poor people by expanding Medicare. The mandate is for the benefit of insurance companies, because they need more revenue in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions. You're just recycling GOP talking points. Blue Talk 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No, his quote was that premiums would go down $2,500 for the average American family under his health care proposal. I don't know where you got the idea he was talking about Medicaid.--7u7 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Blue, while there was no intention to lower costs, that's most likely what will happen. International health care systems have historically done the same (ie. my Canuckistan) once they move under more "collectivized" systems.
7u7, you'll have to provide citations otherwise (and please don't get them out of think tanks). Osaka Sun (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I'm not saying it won't lower costs, just that the law accomplished a great deal of unrelated things in terms of regulation of the industry. Blue Talk 03:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is a huge cost cutting measure, now, cause insurances must spend 80% of your premium and co pays on ACTUAL MEDICINE. not red tape or profit. that will lower cost substantially. Cuase dare 7up or whatever your name is, the biggest cost to health care is the fact that in the US, it is a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS. and unregulated for profit business. sick. and. wrong. — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
Sure, when you give the government the power to pull the plug on old people, tell you what drugs you can and can't get, or force you to wait in line six months to get your hip replacement, you can certainly lower costs. But that's a sacrifice not all of us are willing to make.--7u7 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't post news from 2004. an FYI --Revolverman (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, the Daily Fail and Townhall? Is that all? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that your edits were reverted not because you inserted libertarian POV, but rather because you removed the liberal arguments in there. You're free to add in a libertarian argument in the article, but you can't remove good information. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that this is an opinion site. However, if you find factual errors in the post, please report them. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We're an opinion site? I was under the impression it didn't matter who agreed with the facts we had put down, but that those facts were correct. Man, I wish that things that are true (considering the points came directly from the ACA itself, as written) weren't considered 'liberal arguments' but merely 'stuff that happens to be true.' ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We are all about facts, yes, but we do talk a lot about more wishy-washy things, and occasionally the facts are not so clear-cut as to be unquestionable. In this case, however, it's pretty clear that the facts are on the side of the ACA. Blue Talk 15:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Opinion site in that articles have a certain point of view, and that sometimes original research appears and arguments are made that string facts together. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia is "fact", but it doesn't get down in the mud and look at things like the quality of fact, who is saying them, if all opinions are equal, etc. We actually like to get muddy. course, that's a different thing all together.Green mowse.pngGodotStop the damn screeds! 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"More Hysterical Reaction"[edit]

This section has received an addendum regarding Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. linking it to the initial reaction but also clarifying its (rather specific) objection to being required to pay for abortifacients rather than simply contraceptives. This is murkier and merits mention. Frostbyte (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really in this context. First of all, if it were more justified, it wouldn't deserve mention under a section named "hysterical reactions. And second, in that specific lawsuit, while 4 out of 19 named drugs might happen to also be classified as abortifacients, the inclusion of four times more other drugs that are purely for birth control shows that the lawsuit is in fact about birth control, and that those 4 drugs are also abortifacients is just happenstance. Hence, still in majority an attempt to have religious morality juridically enforced in defiance of the Establishment Clause. Octo8 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Does it include the other 15 drugs in the complaint or incidentally in describing the law? I saw no reference to anything but abortifacients. Frostbyte (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual mandate[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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

A couple rather long-winded recent additions need to be picked apart[edit]

@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)

@Love No, I think you have to use the {{ping|Username}} template. I agree, we should review what the BoN removed. 锦鲤 () 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, <span class="template-ping"> might be it, but in any case it's not working, for one reason or another. I'll try <span class="template-ping"> here: User:Koidevelopment ...and if that doesn't work, you can in turn try both {{Reply to|Love}} and {{Reply_to|Love}} to see if Template:Ping technically being a redirect is the problem. Sidenote: I found it cute that

|20=[[User:Koidevelopment|KoiDevelopment]][[User talk:Koidevelopment|™]] (thanks, [[User:Love|Love]]!)

popped up on the edit you replied to me with. I first thought that it was something like [[User:<span class="myName">Koidevelopment</span>|<span class="myName">a bunch</span>]] (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. 锦鲤 () 02:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koidevelopment @Koidevelopment 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)
@Love Nop, stull doon't werk. Must be my settings. Thanks for trying, though. :) Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 11:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Protecting the page lead to the stuff being posted on other articles instead[edit]

They say it's an updated version, too. Reverted. ~ 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And again.

@Christopher 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)