Talk:Healthcare reform in the United States/Archive 3
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Children with pre-existing conditions
RE: this edit: Seems reasonable to leave it out for now, and in due course replace it with whatever the RSs say about this provision. It appears there's some devils-in-the-details of the letter of the law that the administration now proposes to be further worked out in the Code of Federal Regulations.
"Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.
"To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said"
... Kenosis (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
this page is not a forum for debate
however - over at 'wikiversity' (a wikimedia foundation project for online learning) there is indeed such a page!
If you're interested in discussing / teaching / learning / reading about healthcare issues internationally, you might be interested in Wikiversity:Talking_point - a new initiative designed to allow people to debate and discuss rather than solely work on the encyclopedic content. Give it a look, and be bold! Dive in with any comments, thoughts, opinions, questions etc. etc. - all are welcome :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Heading "debate over health care reform...centers on questions about..." seems to have omitted the main objection
As now written, the article begins, "The debate over health care reform in the United States centers on questions about
* whether there is a fundamental right to health care, * who should have access to health care and under what circumstances, * who should be required to contribute toward the costs of providing health care in a society,
I think this introduction either omits or significantly mangles the main complaint by the bill's opponents, and that this omission completely misleads the reader.
My understanding is that a huge factor in the debate was that opponents believed that the government had no right to force taxpayers to pay for health care *for other people*.
The author may have felt this point was implied in the 3rd point above ("who should be required to contribute toward the costs of providing health care in a society?"), but the existing wording doesn't state the true objection.
I would suggest changing the 3rd point in the intro to read, "whether taxpaying citizens should be taxed to provide "free," non-emergency health care to people below some income level"
68.12.237.55 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Elements of the 2010 Bill
The title of this Wikipedia page is biased because it contains the word “reform”. Reform implies improvement and a significant number of people do not believe that “healthcare reform” is improvement. A more ingenuous phrase should be used such as healthcare policy change in the United States. Or the Obama healthcare doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.158.67 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where you guys want to put this, but a great source of info on the bill. You can cut and paste the text below into the main article or a new supporting article, perhaps "Healthcare Bill Implementation Timeline" or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcaster (talk • contribs)
- This article will need a substantial rewrite. May as well start by pasting it in. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Innab (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) /* Subsidies under Senate bill */ - Check the numbers from last page of the CBO document referenced, original header was not exactly corrrect, that was premium subsidy, not a total cost, so I added 2 separate columns for Premium subsidy and Average Cost-Sharing Subsidy. Also added Kaiser calculator for future premium and goverment subsidy under the Reform.
"Reform implies improvement" - er.. no it does not... "reform" means "reform" - i.e. "re-shape", or "make anew". Russia "reformed" its health care system after the collapse of the soviet union by privatizing all the hospitals and clinics and the country as a whole got a whole lot sicker. Reform can have good or bad consequences. Now Putin is planning reforming it all over again. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your stat is not is not valid
Comparing Luxembourg with the U.S. is invalid. Luxembourg is more than one thousand times smaller. If you really have to compare anything to Luxembourg, compare it to the northern half of Hollywood.
"For 2006-2010, the U.S. life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most developed nations, lagging last of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.)" - well, it does not say anything. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K. my have no wars, no terror, no car accidents and so on.
The report you are citing does not use the estimation indexes you made up. You took only the numbers from there and put it in a very original context.
Eddau (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Re-shaping of his article
Now that the insurance reform law has been passed (no doubt there will be other reforms to come) I think that this article needs to be radically re-shaped. It is still a mish-mash of arguments. In part this should be to give a better perspective on history. As a non-American I regard the formation of Medicare and Medicaid, and the passing of EMTALA were every bit as important to the reform of health care as the passing of the recent legislation, which basically only changed insurance coverage rules and insurance subsidies and taxation. The recent legislation is important and perhaps should occupy perhaps a third of the article space. I have made a start by summarizing the arguments over health care reform in the US as I, an outside observer, heard them. The bill that was passed had many objectives, and in future the article should track how well or how badly those objectives were met. But I would argue that for the moment it needs to focus now on "big picture" arguments and not the minutiae of details. For example comparisons of the Senate and House bills is now really dead and uninformative to the article reader. As well as the reforms already carried out, the article also needs to have a better focus on other reforms which have been proposed but which have hardly been given a mention in the present article such as Medical Homes, "Pay for Performance" versus "Pay for Volume", and issues such as Comparative Effectiveness Research. These perhaps could form the remaining third of the article.
What do other editors think?--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- "summarizing the arguments" without citations is not the best way to go it seems, as this could be seen as original research or synthesis. Maybe try a rewrite here with included citations? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Radical reshaping of the article is indeed probably warranted, as editor Hauskalainen suggests, and along the lines s/he suggests. The most recent federal reform has, as noted, a place in the course of health reform in the US - but health reform did not start with PPACA, and PPACA may not prove in the fullness of time to be its most significant consequence. Editor H notes the creation of Medicare/caid and EMTALA as events possibly of like impact (the force of evidence is probably with the former), and the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 (Hill/Burton) certainly also deserves mention. Probably the best resource to use as a guide to any re-working of this article is a source already cited prominently in it: Paul Starr's The Social Transformation of American Medicine. Gjudd (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added the generalize template due to undue focus on one particular instance of healthcare reform. Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Reform Drivers section - why national costs and refs to infant mortality etc. have been removed.
The main thrust of the reforms that were passed were concerned with insurance and therefore the insurance issues must have been the key drivers.
The previous section summarises those as
- elimination of pre-condition exclusions
- premium loadings
- policy recinds
- lifetime caps
- annual coverage caps
- medical expenses ratio
- easier to compare (like-for-like) policies
- health insurance exchanges in each state
I guess it also should have included extending insurance policy definition of children for policy purposes to age 27, extending Medicaid to more people, first dollar coverage for prevention services. In addition there were some changes to government insurance systems, and especially Medicare with the encouragement of "accountable care organizations" and to encourage primary care and new government subsidies for health insurance.
So given that extending coverage of insurance by rule changes for insurance companies and new government subsidies, and the presidents own citation of insurance company horror stories (see the reference in the article) one has to ask....
WHY DOES THE DRIVERS SECTION FOCUS SO HEAVILY ON NATIONAL HEATH CARE SPENDING, LIFE EXPECTANCY, DALY & INFANT MORTALITY?
The reforms that were passed are expected to have very little impact on costs in the immediate term and the only hope I guess of there being a reduction in national spend is of the insurance companies compete more effectively on price. But there is no guarantee of this and CBO did not, as far as I am aware, even try to assess it. The reforms to Medicare are forecast to make reductions to the deficit, but that is due to new taxes and the reduction of subsidies in Medicare Advantage plans. Cost was a part of the issue but it was the cost to the deficit that was addressed, not the overall spend on health care. Mow it may be that the issues of costs and quality may be covered by some later reform packages not yet defined, but they were not addressed by the legislation passed this year. Therefore I will delete the text that refers to these factors as drivers. As far as I can see, they may be true staements but they cannot have been the key drivers. Obama himself said it was insurance company abuses that led to the reforms and the overpowering effect on the defecit that needed to be addressed. Therefore these should be the main drivers.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
deleted text based on Chinese whispers
I deleted some text which is based on text written by Sarah Palin, citing Michele Bachman, citing (or rather mis-citing) Ezekiel Emmanuel. Heresay via a chain of biased politicans does not make these reliable sources. They "bend" what he says and take it out of context. What Emmanual actually said is here and here.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The link points to another article that mentions not just hyperbolic statements made by Palin, McCaughey and others but what other reliable sources have to say as well. The Perfect Storm article is described in some detail. I don't think the Schiavo article was mentioned at the time, although it does state a related issue. Ezekiel apparently thinks that politicians shouldn't make such decisions, and knowledgeable people said that advance directives let the patient decide. The Ezekiel article also makes it clear enough that Ezekiel opposed legalization of doctor assisted suicide (saying this would lead to an ethical "slippery slope"), but that it should be reserved for extreme circumstances. Not consistent, perhaps, but that's what he said.
- The article clearly points out what fact-checkers had to say about the Palin / McCaughey story.
- The article on page 425 legislation also mentions much more than questionable statements made by Palin and McCaughey.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I approve your changes, although I wasn't bold enough to go that far.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was worried because the text led to articles that were not accurate and accusation made about Zeke Emmanuel that were highly inaccurate. This way we get the accusations and the rebuttal as well as some independent fact checkers opinions. I was puzzled by the reference to "page 425 legislation" but I assume that this was just the clause in the House Bill which never came into law. New research from Australia http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1345.full.pdf clearly demonstrates that it improves end of life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety, and depression in surviving relatives compared to a control group who do not get this advice. The accusation that it is intended to pressurize people is, to be honest, a disgrace. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I approve your changes, although I wasn't bold enough to go that far.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Trying to re-title the page.
I might need some assistance in how to accomplish this.
I tried to re-title the page to the inelegant but hopefully more accurate "Government intervention in health care and insurance coverage in the United States", and I don't think I quite got the editing right.
Maybe someone with more experience can advise? Thank you in advance. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor Arzel's deletion of "death panel" topic from section on political parties
[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States&diff=405908667&oldid=405885390 This edit] seems to me to be highly irresponsible and way off mark in its accusation of synthesis and OR. I have reverted the edit and invited Arzel to explain it further here. There certainly was this controversy and some prominent Republicans supported Palin. Palin was a Republican governor and is prominent in the Tea Party. We have to have this in the article so it is a matter of how it is stated not whether it is stated. Personally I see no evidence of synthesis or Original Research and I invite Arzel to take his argument to the respective noticeboards if he does not get agreement to his ideas here. But I am willing to hear his arguments first and see if there can be some accommodation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This section contains grammatical conjuntions like "but" to link two or more sources together. This is the very definition of synthesis of material. We do NOT link sources to present a novel interpretation. Simply correcting the synthesis is not possible because of the way the section was put together. The whole section needs to be re-written in a manner that does not present original research. Arzel (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not OR to include more than one point of view, which is strongly encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. It's not OR if some people really are wrong, according to many reliable sources, and Wikipedia requires that info reflect what reliable sources indicate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely put, Jim.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You both are categorically wrong. Jim, in particular, your twisting of sources to try and present your point of view has been problematic for some time. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, all commentary regarding positions must be sourced. WP is not a research paper. Jim, if you want your position to be noted I suggest you write your own research paper and attempt to get it published somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's more well sourced than many parts of Wikipedia now. Thanks for your concern over that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- If data isn't unsourced because a few disagree with you, it's OR because many disagree with you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's more well sourced than many parts of Wikipedia now. Thanks for your concern over that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand OR and I don't particually feel like explaining it to you anymore. Your slow edit war of adding in your personal research is simply not acceptable. Arzel (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You have made the accusation of OR against Jimmuldrow's edits so I think you need to explain it. The views of prominent Republicans ought not to be ignored. I would be inclined to put something in about the mantra "government take over of health care" and the like. We need to have some analysis (from reliable sources of course) of what exactly they mean by this. I have added the text back with a rider that these are the views of prominent republicans. Political parties in America do not seem to issue manifestos before elections so they do seem to me like shifting sands. The republicans introduced a bill (via an amendment to the ACA) in 2009 which would have led to people unable to get insurance being pushed into high risk pools (high priced insurance for people with high care risks) but the new bill said nothing about this. Why did this happen? They got CBO to assess another GOP replacement bill last November and CBO said it would reduce the deficit but that it would leave about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. Where is that bill going? In the absense of firm policies I think we have to read the tea leaves . . .i.e. listen to what prominent republicans say to decipher where the party stands politically. As an outsider, I would say that people do not read the bills but instead just listen to the soundbites. In which case we have to report on the soundbites.
Requested move
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move per WP:COMMONNAME. --rgpk (comment) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Health care reform in the United States → Health Care Access in the United States — Trying to find a more accurate title than 'Health care reform in the United States'. 'Health care' and 'health care insurance' are not the same thing, but are being often referred to in the media as if they are. Health care provided by the state, as in places like Brunei, is not insurance, but actually care. To me, part of the conflict in discussing such issues is due to the confusion between providing insurance for people to recieve some measure of care, and the care itself. The business model for insurers is to collect more in premium and investment income than is paid out in losses, but the goal of a government program is simply to provide a service to the limit of funds available. --68.97.117.233 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (Made a new title suggestion, shorter and better than my first suggestion hopefully) -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose what a crappy title to suggest. (1) "Government intervention in health care and insurance coverage in the United States" is hyper long (2) everyone calls it health care reform (3) health insurance is not some foreign issue unrelated to health care practice, it is part of health care practice, as a method of payment (4) it is indeed reform, since any change is a type of reform, if government mandates a change to some practice of health care, including payment systems, that is some type of reformation. Even the capping of funds available is a type of reform. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that has to be the title. What I am saying is that the idea that 'health care' is the same as 'insurance for health care' is incorrect. Obviously, you can rationalize how modifying payment plans for health care makes insurance into health care, but by that same logic inflation and monetary policy are part of health care as well. I'm looking to help clarify this subject, rather than obfuscate it. Wouldn't a reform of health care mean that we are solely focused on how care is provided? Better bandages, better doctors, better training, etc? I agree that cost and payment have a relationship, but they don't create the definition of care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Brewercare cut costs by not paying for transplants. So... this is a restriction on health insurance (medicaid) that is not related to health care? That's not logical. The payment method in Arizona dumped some previously covered procedures, so as a result health care for the conditions previously treated by those procedures had to change, so in AZ, the government health insurance reform is indeed health care reform. The same applies to the US and the US law. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that has to be the title. What I am saying is that the idea that 'health care' is the same as 'insurance for health care' is incorrect. Obviously, you can rationalize how modifying payment plans for health care makes insurance into health care, but by that same logic inflation and monetary policy are part of health care as well. I'm looking to help clarify this subject, rather than obfuscate it. Wouldn't a reform of health care mean that we are solely focused on how care is provided? Better bandages, better doctors, better training, etc? I agree that cost and payment have a relationship, but they don't create the definition of care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - it's as simple as that. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Other than just your assertion, what defense do you have for this being the common name? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Probably I should add, just because people use a shorthand to describe something complicated, doesn't mean that is an encyclopedic approach.
- Further, when I look over the article, as written now, the article is very focused on the financing and insurance. How much of the article actually talks about improvements in care? It really only talks about the scope of people who might recieve some insurance coverage or subsidies to pay for health care. Compare this to the article Health care system, which discusses Goals, Providers, Financing, Payment models, Management, and Cross-country comparisons. If this article is actually about a reform of all those subjects that comprise a discussion of a health care system, then why are they not also included here? As I have been trying to say, this article is simply much more limited than that, and as such, should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - it doesn't need a "defense" nor it it just my assertion. The common name for what is described in the article is Health care reform in the United States. It may not be strictly accurate, but that isn't the point - there are many articles whose titles are not 100% accurate, but that's what the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME are all about. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the rest of the Talk page, I noticed that a different but similar sentiment is being expressed above in the section called 'Re-shaping of this article'.
“ | As a non-American I regard the formation of Medicare and Medicaid, and the passing of EMTALA were every bit as important to the reform of health care as the passing of the recent legislation, which basically only changed insurance coverage rules and insurance subsidies and taxation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | ” |
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that editor agrees with my rename suggestion, but does make a point about the content in this article and how it is more skewed to a discussion of health care insurance (not health care generally). -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, that guy seems to disagree with your position since that guy points out medicare and medicaid, both of which are public health insurance! 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually read the discussion above: "Re-shaping of his article"? Of course Medicare and Medicaid are health care. That is part of my point exactly. Health care insurance is not the same as actual health care. The discussion above is illustrating that the article is more focused on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act than on a change/reform in health care. The PPACA does relate to health care reform in some sections, but to quote Wikipedia's article on the PPACA:
“ | It includes numerous health-related provisions to take effect over a four-year period beginning in 2010, including prohibiting the denial of coverage by health insurers based on pre-existing conditions, expanding Medicaid eligibility, subsidizing some insurance premiums, and providing incentives for businesses to provide health care benefits. | ” |
Only one of these 'expanding Medicaid eligibility' is actually about providing health care. The rest are related to insurance.
“ | It requires each state to create a federally approved health insurance exchange, where uninsured adults or small businesses can purchase coverage from a range of health insurance providers. Individuals are required to prove they have an approved insurance policy through their IRS tax returns. | ” |
Again, it is about insurance. And since this article we are currently discussing focuses so heavily on the PPACA, it, by definition, is more about insurance than about health care. Maybe this is a distinction that doesn't matter to the overall community, but as a person striving for accuracy in this, I would suggest that either the article be renamed, or be reshaped as is suggested above. Either way, the current condition of the article does not match its title.
- How about a title of "Health Care Access in the United States"? -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The word 'access' is also less subjective than 'reform'. -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy close the nominator messed around with the proposal while it is being discussed so the request is invalid, since the discussion as started and the discussion as indicated currently do not match. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I proposed the original move with a long and crappy title, as Editor-184.144.162.245 said, after seeing how the discussion went on that original suggestion, a better alternative occured, which I felt might better reflect a consensus view, so I went ahead and updated it to reflect that. I don't see how that makes a (re-)re-title request invalid, especially since none of the other editors proposed an alternative. I also re-copied the title I had suggested into the comments in place of someone's pronoun, in order to make it clear that they were referring to that title, and not something else. If you prefer, I could have just closed this and opened a second one, but that seems a little bit overly tied to process, and the goal is to get a better title (still waiting for anyone else to give a suggestion), not to fill up talk with a bunch of "requested move" sections.
- My original suggestion "Government intervention in health care and insurance coverage in the United States"
- My new suggestion "Health care access in the United States"
68.97.117.233 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Error Messages
note to a wiki expert: the citations are all a mess, there are loads of bright red error messages...--Anonymous IP
- Fixed it just now.--Jorfer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill of attainder not OR
discussion closed with no objection - proposal considered at length and did not gain consensus |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
it is referenced here and likely many other places as well http://theliberatortoday.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-on-judge-hudsons-rulling-on.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Another reference to Obamacare as a forbidden "bill of attainder" http://www.johndennis2010.com/node/342271.174.128.244 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
An additional Constitutional violations of Obamacare by which it can be challenged n- pert below the fine cannot be appealed as implied above. http://sv-se.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2256460769&topic=32998 5th Amendment ObamaCare uses the IRS to enforce a $5000 fine if you do not comply. There is no trial and you can not appeal. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: shall any person[sic] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.71.174.128.244 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The important matter though is that you need to find WP:RS that make a claim that the health care bill violates the "bill of attainder", which would probably be one that explains how it does which none of your sources do.--Jorfer (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No due process and no trial - penalties to be collected as if they were taxesNew section so that this comment is not lost in the muddle TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 6671 § 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Taxes as a punishment was an objection to the move by Congress to tax obscene Wall Street Bonuses a few years ago after the Wall Street bailout. Congress decided not to pass those targeted taxation laws because it was determined that any such law could be challenged as a bill of attainder and would fail as they were designed to punish without any chance of a trial. BTW: You are seriously lacking in basic knowledge of legal principles - punishment is supposed to happen AFTER a trial and any compelled evidence (such as information required on a tax return under threat of fines - or threat of confiscation of a tax refund) is inadmissible and unusable in a court of law. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Repeating quote "These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 16671.174.128.244 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/436/case.html "illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure."Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635 (1886). The privilege was elevated to constitutional status, and has always been "as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard." Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 142 U. S. 562 (1892). We cannot depart from this noble heritage. Last I checked We cannot depart from this noble heritage. is an affirmation of a prior ruling and a strong affirmation at that.71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ≥== RE: Claims of OR == For a concept to be barred from wikipedia on grounds of OR it has to be shown to be ORIGINAL with the poster. I have posted links to 3 cites on the illegality of Obamacare as a "bill of attainder" and links to Supreme Court cases showing that "compelled" production of private papers which would provide information subjecting one to a fine/penalty is also forbidden by the 4th and 5th amendment. Unless someone wants to make the ridiculous claim that I am the author of all 3 links posted and ALSO the author of US Supreme Court language cited, please stop making these bogus OR objections.71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
RE: second sentence complaint above - What a Bill of attainder is is not MY definition but the US Supreme Courts. As stated above by a US Supreme Court Justice a bill of attainder is a punishment imposed without a trial. Last I checked a trial is part of due process and ALSO last I checked due process can only be delivered by the court system. Something belonging to the Judicial branch and not the IRS which is part of the Executive Branch.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Attentive readers would have notice that the term "bill of attainder" links to the wiki article on that subject, which will provide more information on this aspect of Constitutional law. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC) and in case that does not provide enough info here is a quote from the US Supreme Court - http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/437/index.html US v Brown - The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. @ 71 U. S. 447-449.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the addition with my comments in bold so we can identify the problem.
--Jorfer (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Also, the bill requires insurers to report who has coverage, not patients: "Every person who provides minimum essential coverage to an individual during a calendar year shall, at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection..." (Wikisource:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Title I/Subtitle F/Part I). The government finds out who doesn't have insurance by method of elimination. That way, the person doesn't have to testify against himself or herself for the federal government to know.--Jorfer (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jorfer I have provided 3 cites showing others believe that Obamacare is a bill of attainder. Why are you continuing to argue that this point originated with me? Also why are you objecting to citing US Supreme Court rulings? On a question of law, the US Supreme Court is considered not just a reliable source but the ULTIMATE authority.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Compellings from Bram v US - to clarify whether - we will fine you or confiscate your refund if you don't give us this information is a "compelling" The following actions have been ruled to be "compellings" by the US Supreme Court and IMO are less of a compelling then "we will fine you if you don't give us this information" or "we will keep your tax refund if you don't give us this information". http://supreme.justia.com/us/168/532/case.html from Bram v US In the cases following, statements made by a prisoner were held inadmissible because induced by the language set out in each case: in Rex v. Griffin, (1809) Russ. & Ry. 151, telling the prisoner that it would be better for him to confess. In Rex v. Jones, (1809) Russ. & Ry. 152, the prosecutor saying to the accused that he only wanted his money, and, if the prisoner gave him that, he might go to the devil, if he pleased. In Rex v. Kingston, (1830) 4 Car. & P. 387, saying to the accused: "You are under suspicion of this, and you had better tell all you know." In Rex. v. Enoch, (1833) 5 Car. & P. 539, saying: "You had better tell the truth, or it will lie upon you, and the man go free." In Rex v. Mills, (1833) 6 Car. & P. 146, saying: "It is no use for you to deny it, for there is the man and boy who will swear they saw you do it." In Sherrington's Case, (1838) 2 Lewin C.C. 123, saying: "There is no doubt, thou wilt be found guilty: it will be better for you if you will confess." In Rex v. Thomas, (1833) 6 Car. & P. 353, saying: "You had better split, and not suffer for all of them." In Rex v. Simpson, (1834) 1 Moody 410, and Ry. & Mood. 410, repeated importunities by neighbors and relatives of the prosecutor, coupled with assurances to the Page 168 U. S. 553 suspected person that it would be a good deal worse for her if she did not, and that it would be better for her if she did confess. In Rex v. Upchurch, (1836) 1 Moody, 465, saying: "If you are guilty, do confess. It will perhaps save your neck. You will have to go to prison. If William H. [another person suspected, and whom the prisoner had charged] is found clear, the guilt will fall on you. Pray, tell me if you did it." In Reg. v. Croydon, (1846) 2 Cox C.C. 67, saying: "I dare say you had a hand in it. You may as well tell me all about it." In Reg. v. Garner, (1848) 1 Den.C.C. 329, saying: "It will be better for you to speak out." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a really really simple concept which you can't seem to grasp. Let me simplify it for you. Does a person have to "in some manner" (say by a checkmark in a box beside a "YES" or a "NO") have to say on his tax returnthat he does or does not have insurance?71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
5th amendment rulingshttp://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/grand_jury_rights.htm "Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information ..., a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect -- the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production or authentication of incriminating evidence." Please pay close attention to the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production or authentication of incriminating evidence. also Chief Justice Marshall, quoted in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 565, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892), maintained that a witness could plead the Fifth Amendment not only in situations where his answer to a question would directly implicate him in a crime, but also in response to questions the answer to which would provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the witness of a crime. Also please pay close attention to also in response to questions the answer to which would provide a link in the chain of evidence71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
SourcingHeading 1Above I posted 3 links showing Obamacare may be a bill of attainder - here is another from a more reputable source - http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/1A096E99F74042BC8525766D005D5147?OpenDocument Those who frame the healthcare reform debate in constitutional terms have invoked a hodgepodge of sometimes-unrelated arguments, the most common being:
This is a good source. As such, though, it does point out an argument against such a claim:
Both points would have to be represented per WP:NPOV if it is incorporated. Also, the claim that the bill is an illegal bill of attainer may fail WP:UNDUE as the author of the article is clearly indicating that it is among the weaker three argument presented. It seems significant enough to include though in a balanced way. Per WP:Consensus, though, we need to wait to see what the other editors have to say.--Jorfer (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood."
The material that the ip keeps adding is almost entirely original research and synthesis. As are the points being made here on the talk page referring to 'English Common law' etc....If anything is to be added here, it would have to be something akin to what Jorfer points out above. Stating for the most part these claims are refuted and do not hold water. Dave Dial (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Heading 2This is one of the cites I used, which I seriously doubt anyone read and deals with punitive taxation of Wall Street bonuses. Per this document taxes "designed to punish" are a bill of attainder because they punishment bypasses the court system. http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/crs-report-327.pdf "the strongest arguments against their constitutionality seems to arise from the bill of attainder analysis."71.174.128.244 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW: The tax.com article was written before Obamacare was finalized. The article includes the quote "The legislative language -- far from finalized". Of the potential challenges it cites, "the interstate commerce" one has already been brought to bear with come success. The author seems to know what he is talking about. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Suggestions
After reading this article, I have a few suggestions for improving its content. I think there needs to be more discussion about the drafting of the reform bills, focuing more on their intended goals as well as funding and management of the bills. Also, a section on the public reaction to the legislation would make this topic more complete. Nkobet1 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Short introduction
Per WP:LEAD#Length, the introduction to this article should be at least to paragraphs. I added a second paragraph. Dualus (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's undue. I reverted. What's a lead legislative proposal anyways? And what is your source for that statement? Quote? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
File:PNHP poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:PNHP poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PNHP poster.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
move big chunks to PPACA article
It seems to me that most (not all) of this article should more properly be under the PPACA article. Most of this is really about PPACA and not about health care reform generally. This article should have a history of health care reform, going back to the early 1990s and before, and have relatively brief summaries of (and links to) PPACA and other passed or proposed legislation.
There is some great stuff here about the legislative history of PPACA that really should go to the article about... PPACA. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW... that legislative history stuff once existed in the PPACA article (go waaaay back in its edit history). Unfortunately, folks who wanted to keep it included there fell into the minority (see PPACA's talk archives) and it was trimmed out. I don't think much has changed since then but agree w/you that it would be appropriate to have it hosted there again in such depth. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. That is really a shame. Maybe we can revive some of it. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to discuss this further over there, as there are probably more eyes over there as is. A merge back seems more appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
correcting errors, noting controversy, and balancing POV
A recent reversion undid several edits in one click, and in the process re-introduced errors that I had corrected. For example, Richard Nixon did not support the individual mandate, but Charles Grassley did. I had corrected that, but the reversion restored the error. Likewise the Acts are definitely controversial: most states are suing to have them overturned and most voters disapprove of them, so that is notable. The article was very POV and some of my edits were to add balance. The article needs much careful and diligent work, but merely clicking "undo" does not measure up to the level of care and diligence required. I would appreciate other editors' input, and will take a break to see if any respond before resuming editing the article.TVC 15 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Seeing no reply to my requests both here and on the reverter's Talk page, I have undone the reversion, thereby correcting errors (e.g. Grassley/Nixon) and restoring sourced material and balance. The article still needs work, some paragraphs read like a shouting match in which one side tried to drown out the other, for example the "death panel" meme seems to have WP:Undue weight considering WP:RS polls show most people's opposition to the 2010 legislation had nothing to with that,[[1][2] and besides the article is about actual health care reform not false memes. Since the article is about healthcare reform, I think it is appropriate to include medical and public policy journal citations, which I've now restored.TVC 15 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I was reading the article and noticed a cite error in the references. it looks rather unprofessional and should be corrected by ethier whoever put it there or one of the main editors of this articleDmanrulz180 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- That seems to have been since corrected. -- Beland (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
For-profit vs. non-profit
In debates I've heard claims that non-profit insurance companies are less likely to deny claims and otherwise abuse their customers. A quick search also shows concern about for-profit hospitals [3][4]. Apparently there is a national non-profit insurance option coming [5], though the for/non-profit debate for both providers and insurers seems somewhat unsettled by recent laws. It might be interesting to gather more information on this topic and add coverage to the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)