Talk:UnitedHealth Group/Archives/2015/June

Biased

I think starting the article by saying "UHC is a death panel" is clearly biased. This needs to be addressed. Uralva (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to suffer from undue POV. I recommend removing the biased tag.--Nowa (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it, but given the lack of specifics - if someone wants to label an article as having a POV problem, they really should explain why - I'm probably going to take the tag off. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's quite deserving of a POV tag, but it does read rather like an advertisement. Erik Carson (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some of this in the opening paragraphs. Gingermint (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the history portion of this article does not trace United Health Group (and its United Healthcare) to its actual origins: Two federal grant programs funded by the 1973 Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act (PL 93-222), which merged to from United Healthcare. SHARE, a Minneapolis-based "staff model" HMO in which many but not all physicians were salaried employees of HMO corporation, and Charter Medical which was an "independent practice association" model in which no physicians were HMO employees and centralized facility was used for patient care--as was the case in staff model programs. Federal records of the grantees receiving funds in the late 1970's will confirm this fact.66.229.59.110 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what content is like an advertisement (see also comment 2 above this). I've removed the tag, and suggest that anyone who still feels it is necessary explain why it's needed and preferably edit it themselves. Large numbers of company-related articles carry this tag and in my experience it's rarely justified Chrismorey (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)