Talk:America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009/Archive 1

Archive 1

No drama this week!

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My talk page comments this week have no drama! Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed categories and redirects

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[[Category:United States proposed federal legislation]] [[Category:2009 in law]] [[Category:Healthcare in the United States]] [[Category:Healthcare reform in the United States]] Grundle2600 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Redirects: Affordable Health Choices Act Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 Grundle2600 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)  Done Is there a link for the actual bill if someone wants to read it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. If there is a link, I don't know what it is. It's still being written and amended, however. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Link to H.R. Bill at 14 July 2009 is http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf Oldsoulreborn (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)oldsoulreborn

News coverage

Is this story [1] referring to this bill? What is the name of the other bill? The CBO comment is also interesting... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the same bill, but I'm not sure. I wish the writer had been more clear about it. I think whatever ultimately gets voted on will be under the same name as this wikipedia article, but I'm not sure. I don't know if the "alternative proposal" cited in the article necessarily even has a name. I am surprised that more people haven't edited this, as health care reform seems to be one of the more popular topics in the news. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Helpful info

[2] is a very helpful website run by a reputable institution (the University of Pennsylvania). Qutorial (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an extremely helpful website for improving the article.

Also, the official name of the bill is America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 so the article should be moved to that, and the redirects should be adjusted accordingly. (Actually, there is now a bot that fixes doubled redirects.) Also H.R.3200 H.R. 3200 HR3200 and HR 3200 should all be made as redirects too. I don't mean to be bossy - I would do all that myself if I wasn't topic banned. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done The House will do its own version of the legistlation and assuming that passes also there will be conference to work out the differences. So the name may change and the media may give it another name all together if and when it moves forward. We'll see. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

H.R. 3200 was first introduced by Kennedy?

• I believe this article is confusing seperate but closely named pieces of proposed legilation. H.R.3200 is America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Also known as the Tri-Committee health-care reform bill.

I believe the Affordable Health Choices Act (NOTE: no.. America, no.. of 2009 ..in short title) is the Kennedy~HELP introduced Senate version of health-care reform(s) cited and referenced in parts this page's content. Didn't it strike anybody odd that it's an H.R. (House of Representatives) designation and Kennedy is a Senator??? 68.237.227.230 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Malpractice

I didn't want to remove it outright, but the bit from Slate about malpractice needs to be replaced with an unbiased source and preferably one tht is talking about malpractice vis a vis the current health care proposal, not something three years old. Also, something that should be clarified somehow - malpractice litigation fees may only be .5% of total health care costs, but that's a red herring. The cost of malpractice insurance is extremely expensive, as is the cost of extra tests done to avoid potential malpractice. (You visit Dr #1 who runs a test. He refers you to Dr #2 who runs the same test, rather than trusting Dr #1 because if the first doctor made a mistake and he depends on it, it's his rear end in a lawsuit.) The other thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of medical costs in the universe aside from payments to doctors. So .5% of the total health care costs might be 20% of the doctor's costs. I think this can be explained correctly in the article, but a source other than Slate needs to be found and it needs to be kept pretty brief - malpractice reform isn't even included in the bill so making a coatrack about it isn't a useful endeavor. --B (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix this. Let me know what you think.Farcaster (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Townhall "disruption" section

This section seems pretty one-sided, as it characterizes the townhall meetings as disruptions without considering the fact that some of the so-called disruptions could be legitimate protests. It also only includes Democratic response to the protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.33.199 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree, it is a very bias section, someone should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.2.61 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

that wont happen, wikipedia is run by big libs. 66.188.125.89 (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is biased. The article need not claim that real concerned citizens are not voicing their opinion on these critical matters74.182.228.148 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the townhalls might have been only disruptions, and no more. That being said, it is biased toward the left. Does anyone have anything to add to it besides "Concerned citizens unite against healthcare plan"?72.91.125.237 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, the big libs comment sure does add to the discussion, what thoughtful and hypocritical criticism. I also agree it is somewhat one sided, perhaps someone should just mention that there have been a large number of townhall outbursts and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.14.58 (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia to all you anons. The statements that you dislike are all cited to reputable sources. If you think there's important information that's missing, feel free to write it up in a neutral manner and cite the sources so that your assertions can be verified. JamesMLane t c 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Senate removes provision in response to criticism from Sarah Palin

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
U.S. News & World Report and the Los Angeles Times both report that the bill has been altered by the Democratically controlled Senate in response to former Alaska Republican governor Sarah Palin. This should be included in the article, because it is notable that someone who has never even held federal office could have such influence - especially when this person's political party is not the same one that has control of the Senate. This kind of action is highly unusual - it may even be entirely unprecedented. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Sarah Palin did not invent or significantly propagate the death panels idea. It was first floated by ex-lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey in the civilian press, and then by Representative Michele Bachmann in the house, among other political figures. She just made it more scandalous by connecting it to her Down Syndrome baby. Saying that the end-of-life provision has been removed by the "Democratically controlled Senate" is deceitful. Ranking Republican Senator Chuck Grassley removed it in his right-wing Senate Finance Committee composed equally of rank-and-file Republicans and blue dog Democrats, and not for the reasons the deathers don't like the provision. It would be original analysis even if it were true. The Homosexualist (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It's not original analysis, because I cited two sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Since this is not a Senate bill would be appropriate to discuss what the Senate bill inlcudes before there is any reconciliation between the two? 69.76.154.226 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no mandate

Footnote five refers to a tax. A tax is not a mandate. This is now relevant to the public debate because the Washington Post just claimed that the "mandate" is unconstitutional, though of course a tax would not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent Cooper (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editorial (which should be acceptable for a criticism section) by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in the Orange County Register states, "The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The assertion that the Lewin Group is "independent" is a falsehood. The company is owned by UnitedHealth Group, which also operates a major health insurer. This fact should be included in any reference to the Lewin Group in this context. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with you. Thank you for pointing that information out. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) In a September 2, 2009 editorial in the Wall St. Journal, Karl Rove wrote, "Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) So?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) The writer is saying that if the real goal is to allow those 5 million people to have access to affordable health care, it does not require changing the entire country's health care system. Why do we need a 1,000 page bill that would affect everyone's current coverage? Why not just let those 5 million people be eligible for Medicaid instead? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Remember, WP:NOTAFORUM. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) This is a discussion of how to improve the article. I was explaining why the Wall St. Journal quote should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The I.R.S. will be the primary federal agency for enforcing health care.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Washington Examiner reported: "... the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service...if you don't have 'acceptable' coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS." This is notable - it should be mentioned in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You know full well that editorials cannot be used as a WP:RS --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC) That is not an editorial. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Read it a little more carefully. It's an opinion piece. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Illegal Immigrants

There is apparently enough of a debate that people are coming to the Joe Wilson page and bloating the article with links to both sides on whether the bill covers illegal immigrants. I'm going to add a section to the controversies where people can put links (i.e. Factcheck) on the matter. --kizzle (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Is it possible to access the archives for this page without using the search function? I just want to look through them. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has never been archived.--Jorfer (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is "death panels" supposed to redirect here?

Because, you know, it does. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Death panels links to the "Reimbursement for counseling about living wills" section of this article. If "death panels" should redirect elsewhere, where? —ADavidB 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of panels making life or death decisions is the best choice, given that the phrase and its origins are specifically discussed there. The redirect to this article seems to have been purely for POV reasons. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of panels making life or death decisions has now been deleted. It's not POV for Death panel to redirect here. A reader who searches for "Death panels" is likely to be curious about the truth of Palin's charge that this bill includes death panels. The article about the bill is the best place to report (and debunk) that charge. If by POV you mean that the purpose of the redirect was to validate Palin's charge, I (as the creator of that redirect) can assure you that such was not my purpose.

The redirect is currently to one of the articles about Palin, but it ought to be switched back. JamesMLane t c 02:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absence of mention of abortion - No change to the law in spite of contrary claims

Why doesn't someone add something about how pro-life groups have criticized the bill and Obama with the bill having the biggest expansion of Abortion rights since Roe V. Wade. (Jzxpertguitarist) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

If I found RS' about it, than I would mention that here. The Squicks (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what we have worked out on the Universal Health Care page under In the United States

Respected fact check organizations, based on the content of the bills currently passing through Congress, have disputed many of the allegations made about America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200). Opponents have claimed that the bill would lead to a socialized health care system and government death panels that would decide whether a person's life was worth living when no such panels exist in the bill. Neither does it contain provisions for the government nationalization of the health care system, though there are are higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans as penalties for certain larger employers not providing health care benefits and for individuals who do not have a minimum standard of health care coverage. Private insurance companies will be able to continue to sell new policies but not ones that no longer meet minimum government standards. Neither does the bill permit the extension of service to illegal immigrants.

The proposed government insurance plan would be allowed to pay for abortions just as many private insurance policies do, because the Hyde amendment likely does not apply; the public health care plan will be funded by private dollars (insurance premiums) and not from Federally funded taxation. Democrats claim this definition of "public funds" is too narrow, while pro-life groups claim it is too broad as the amendment only applies to Medicaid. Affordability credits within HR3200 would allow poor people to buy health insurance, but due the Capps amendment, the plan chosen (public or private) would not be allowed to apply them to abortion, but it is unclear whether other funds in the public plan (i.e. premiums) are "public funds" in the same way as tax dollars are. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal polled Americans on what they felt was "likely to happen" as a result of health care reform:

• Health care to illegal immigrants - 55%
• Pay for abortions - 50%
• Government takeover - 54%
• Government decides on health care for the elderly - 45%

Proponents state this is a result of advertising and political activism trying to create a culture of fear surrounding health care reform by using straw man arguments. The media has focused on several Town Hall meetings in August that have broken out into noisy and emotional protests on both sides of the argument for reform.

This was a silly section, especially in talk as the neither the article or the bill has anything to do with abortions, hence I have changed the secion title. The allegation, repeated by (Jzxpertguitarist) at the head of this section, is that the bill is claimed to be "the biggest expansion of Abortion rights since Roe v. Wade". Quite a claim! It seems to have been made just to spread a falsehood. In fact

1. The bill actually does not mention abortion ONCE and cannot fund abortions because Federal law which remains fully in force, does not permit Federal funding for abortions.
2. The public health insurance option is, like private insurance, funded by premiums and not by the taxpayer. Therefore taxpayers money is not involved
3. The issue regarding subsidies to buy health insurance does involve the use of taxpayer dollars and the insurers (private and public) simply have to have a way to ensure that these subsidies do not fund abortion. The bill is simply silent as to how they should do that. The issue is well recognized.
4. As a matter of factual accuracy, Roe v Wade did not expand abortion rights, but merely asserted that the States (Texas in this case) have no rights to impinge on a woman's personal freedom to determine what happens to her own body. So it actually was enforcing a right which had been unlawfully restricted. That right remains valid in the U.S. as it is in most other civilized countries.

For this reason it would be completely wrong to mention anything in the article about abortion because it does nothing to change the law on abortion IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER! --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First, elimination of abortion restrictions = expansion of the allowance of abortion or abortion related procedures (which is what is meant by abortion rights). Second, whether any money that the federal government even touches is public money is not cut-and-dry; it is a matter of opinion. Third, it does not have to be part of a bill to affect government behavior. For example, Congress never determined that trailer homes were to sit in an abandoned lot outside of the hurricane zone after Katrina, but FEMA did.--Jorfer (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jorfer. I am trying to understand this. Lets take them one at a time

1. "elimination of abortion restrictions". Which section of the bill eliminates which restrictions? Are you saying that it modifies existing law? Where is your proof? Laws need to be abolished to officially fall from statute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This was simply on your "factual accuracy comment"--Jorfer (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2. "whether any money that the federal government even touches is public money is not cut-and-dry" What is that supposed to mean? Which part of the bill are you referring to?--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not this bill, the Hyde Amendment--Jorfer (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

3. "it does not have to be part of a bill to affect government behavior". What is this supposed to mean? You are taling in riddles man! Spit it out. What do you mean?--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Though abortion is not explicitly stated in this bill, that just means that whether it is funded by the current bill will be determined by the White House, or a Federal Court if someone sues because abortion is covered.--Jorfer (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the Universal Health Care paragraph above. There is debate as to how the Hyde Amendment will be interpreted, which the results of this bill will be subject to. The argument is not whether the bill and the Capps amendment would fund abortion, but whether they could be used to fund abortion.--Jorfer (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why you are confused. You think I am arguing for the second part of Jzxpertguitarist comment which is his/her person without any backing. I am not arguing in favor of his opinion, but against the assertion that it is "completely wrong to mention anything in the article about abortion", and the arguments you use to assert it.--Jorfer (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that an amendment to the bill does mention abortion (which means that, most likely, the statement that Obama will sign will mention abortion), I added the controversy to the article. The Squicks (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Article bias

Not that im suprised by now, but this article is extremely biased, like most other Obama related ones. Any recogntion of the opposition is basically written off as either started by the insurance companies or "right wing media". In the opening paragraph it should be noted a majority of americans oppose this bill. The section about the "death panels" is ridiculous, and doesnt even mention the possibility that if too many people sign on, there WILL be rationing and therefore certain patients will be refused certain care. Which means if ur old and contribute minimal tax money, the govt will probably not cover a surgeory that may or may not improve ur life. Obama himself said, "maybe instead of that pace maker grandma will be better off taking a pain pill." As i said though, wikipedia has no aspiration to be a serious information database and instead takes any possible article on a detour to the left.--136.160.191.18

Hello, anon. You make some interesting points but have not posted any links or sources justifying your statement. For example, what poll shows "a majority of americans oppose the bill"? What source shows "if too many people sign on, there WILL b rationing and therefore certain patients will be refused certain care"? You seem like you want to contribute some positive changes but then resort to maligning Wikipedia as a whole. If you're serious about contributing, the first step is to suggest changes using sources that meet WP:RS. --kizzle (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph should not have been removed.

This paragraph should not have been removed:

"In September 2009, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), introudced an amendment into the Senate Finance Committee which stated that the implementation of the health care bill would not take place until after the Secretary of Health and Human Services had verified in front of Congress that the reform would not cause more than 1,000,000 people to lose their current insurance. The amendment was rejected 10-13, with all Republicans voting in favor of it, and all Democrats voting against."

The reason this is relevant is because Obama has told us again and again and again that people who liked their current coverage could keep it. But when given a chance to put that promise into the law, every single Democrat on the committee voted against it. This is relevant, and it should be put back in the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The committee has before it literally hundreds of amendments to be voted on. We won't single out one failed amendment for coverage just because of your personal belief that it shows hypocrisy on the part of some politicians you dislike. JamesMLane t c 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Democrats' unanimous vote against it suggests that they know that there's no guarantee that people will be able to keep their current coverage. NPOV requires that all points of view be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV reliable source that says that "[t]he Democrats' unanimous vote against it suggests that they know that there's no guarantee that people will be able to keep their current coverage"? Or is that just your interpretation of the situation? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kucinich Amendment

Can we get a better ref than a facebook page to source this? And more context about the issue is needed- is this really just a Trojan horse amendment to destroy the healthcare program and to get single-payer, or was it sincere? The way that the article currently presents it- as a Trojan horse- seems non-neutral. The Squicks (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections and Related articles on Current Debate in desperate need of overhaul

I have added this note to all major articles related to the current healthcare reform debate.

As the information in the articles such as this dealing with specific proposals are more up to date, the information should be added to the comprehensive articles, and in general all articles related to the current healthcare debate need to complement each other.

The comprehensive articles on the current healthcare debate desperately need to be overhauled and expanded. There is practically nothing in those articles about the ongoing major events around the current debate, a subject area that is absolutely required.

I recently created a WikiProject page to gather and discuss the overhaul effort: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Current Health Care Reform in the United States

Please discuss anything not pertaining specifically to this article on the WikiProject talk page.

NittyG (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

racial bias

why is there no mention of this? John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times article just sounds like politics to me. Is this a real issue?Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

yes this is certainly a real issue. John Asfukzenski (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It would need a lot more coverage in other sources to be considered a "real issue." --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Superseded by Affordable Health Care for America Act

After discharging the House Committees from any further consideration of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (on or about 14 October 2009) a new proposal was introduced and is now being considered by the full house that supersedes the July introduced version of H.R. 3200. A large part of the original language also seems to have carried over to H.R. 3962. Maybe a merge is in order but that may raise more problems than starting clean under the Affordable Health Care for America Act is worth. 68.237.235.127 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama template

The article mentions Obama only twice, yet it has the {Obama} template at the bottom. While Obama has made health care legislation a top priority, there's no direct connection between this bill and most of the stuff on that template. I'll delete it unless there's a good objection.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809142858/http://crosscut.com/2009/08/14/health-medicine/19167/Portland-Cong.-Earl-Blumenauer--stunned--by-reaction-to-his-end-of-life-counseling-provision/ to http://crosscut.com/2009/08/14/health-medicine/19167/Portland-Cong.-Earl-Blumenauer--stunned--by-reaction-to-his-end-of-life-counseling-provision/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813161237/http://www.investors.com:80/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503058 to http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503058
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813064428/http://blogs.ajc.com:80/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905165849/http://www.cirseiu.org:80/What_Is_the_Public_Health_Insurance_Option__.aspx to http://www.cirseiu.org/What_Is_the_Public_Health_Insurance_Option__.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806113404/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)