Talk:Public health insurance option

Definition of "public option"

Is it just me, or does this article have a little liberal bias??207.5.151.219 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This article never defines what "public option" is or means. The Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates survey http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM41_topline_report_-_aarp_health_care_poll_final_v2.pdf says: "III. In spite of months of coverage and the increasing volume of public discussion on health care reform, the American public has a limited understanding of what’s happening in Congress. Very few (only 37%) are able to correctly define the term “public option,” even when given only 3 options to choose from. (That’s nearly the equivalent probability that one would expect if everyone were just guessing.)" Can someone tell us what it is, or is someone trying to hide something? Thank you. 76.175.97.243 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a health insurance plan offered by the federal government. Explain what is so hard to understand. It is like National Flood Insurance. You pay premiums and the government covers certain expenses to varying degrees just like a private insurer would.--Jorfer (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am so pissed. I don't even understand what you just said. Regular people don't feel like looking up "premiums". Why does this page start out with a bunch of technical political jargon in its first sentence? Is the public option "health care available to citizens by default covered by taxes" or is it "the government basically runs a health insurance company."? Pick the right one, and stick it on the front page. It is kinda important, or I'll figure it out and do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first comment. This page does not answer the question: what does "public option" mean? MWYada (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Mike

What needs to be said... Taking business way from the private sector is not the only issue Republicans and Conservatives have with the health care bill. They are concerned about how much it is going to cost the American People in the long run. These days everything is at its wits end and a health care bill with or with out a public option is not what we need to be discussing at the moment. Yes, health can be reformed, but America needs to take care of their debt first. Even if the bill is passed, it would be years before any action would be taken. For example: Car for Clunkers cost the taxpayer over $20,000 per car sold. Providing health care is a state issue not a federal issue. 11/06/09 EmG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.118.233 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That "America needs to take care of their debt first" is your opinion. It does not need "to be said" in an encyclopedia. 90% of the national debt is owed to Americans so it is debatable whether it really that big of a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.42.233 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this conversation goes any further let me point out Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I would like to correct the previous statement, however. As of September 2008, 28% of the federal debt was owned by international investors. See File:Estimated ownership of treasury securities by year.gif. Most of the rest is owned by social security (an intragovernmental holding), which will soon have to payout more than it takes in, as the baby boom generation retires.--Jorfer (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the vast majority of the U.S. national debt is owned by Americans, either private citizens or intragovernmental holdings. It is a common myth that the national debt is how much USA owes other countries. End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.217.220 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for edits - expected premiums; plan for the poor

I read somewhere that the public option would offer premiums 10-20% below private insurance industry averages. If true, this is a far cry from what most people seem to think - that the public option would be dirt cheap. How is an unemployed individual, who is no longer receiving unemployment money, supposed to some up with such an amount? If you have any information (that can be cited) on either the expected premiums or plans for those who still wouldn't be able to afford them, please post it. 209.255.33.150 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People who are unemployed or below the poverty level are already covered on medicare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.37.177.47 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picked polls

Most polls have showed significantly higher approval of the public option than the polls chosen for inclusion in this article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The IBD/TIPP poll referenced in the article is loaded with anomolies that aren't referenced in this article. You can say what you want about the political leanings of Nate Silver, but he deconstructs that particular poll in an unbiased fashion here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy.html 192.88.212.43 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The solution to a bias in the article is to add reliable polls that support the public option. Removal of material just because "I don't like it" does not fly. If you see a poll that has high marks for the public option, be bold and add it! I would welcome that. The Squicks (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Plans section problem

" ... A single-payer system has been largely dismissed as politically infeasible ... "

Unless someone can find more data/references than a quote from one person, namely Laurence Baker, on this conjecture, I will remove this unsupported conjecture.

In that very same article referenced, it's says, " ... Some statistics show the single-payer concept has grown in popularity as problems in the nation's health care system have worsened. A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in January found 59 percent of the 1,112 people surveyed said they supported government-provided national health insurance. ... " & " ... While not supported by the American Medical Association, a nationalized health system got the backing of 59 percent of physicians in a poll published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine. ... "

If anything, the article shows that a SPS is very much politically feasible. If we are going to state as fact that something is "largely dismissed" at Wikipeida, then it better have solid references and not just the word of one person.

If you revert it back, you are going to need to provide solid references within the article to justify it. Cowicide (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

It does not seem at all encyclopedic to have most of an article on a topic be actually about objections and counter-opinions. The Opinions, Alternatives, and Objections sections should be shortened considerably. Something is really off about the way this article is constructed . --76.14.54.237 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph under section "Criticism" about what John Murphy thinks is irrelevant and should be deleted, along with the reference [30] JOHN A. MURPHY "Can Lieberman Save Single Payer? (Why Progressives Should Back a Filibuster of the Health Care Bill)" CounterPunch November 9, 2009. The source is a blog and the author has no notoriety nor standing in the debate. The wiki link to his name was inaccurate, since there is no WP page for this particular John A. Murphy. pradtke (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen edits

Not even mentioning the problem of the Wall Street article being an editorial and from June. How does the reference support the text?--Jorfer (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article says

Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily.

The source is a valid one af far WP:RS is concerned (both writer and publisher). As for the date, that is frankly irrelevant.

As far as the seed money is concerned, this has to be repaid to the Treasury and amortized against income. The seed money is therefore not a subsidy. I added this clarification to the main article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion for the reliability of opinion pieces. The date is relevant, because in June, H.R. 3200 was the only bill with text fully available to the public (I believe), and the bills are rapidly changing. Also, even if we take this as still valid, the quote states that the subsidies would not be EXCLUSIVELY for the public option. General subsidies are still subsidies, so I will clarify the text.--Jorfer (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You believe wrongly. All the bills are available on the internet as they emerged out of markup from the congressional web sites. In fact, this is where I got the section numbers which are in the reference. If you believe that the references I gave do not support what I am saying then it is up to YOU and not me to make that challenge. You read the references. Go check them and prove me wrong!

The subsidies are not there to maintain the economic the viability of any insurance plan. Whether it goes to a private plan or the public one. The subsidies are affordability subsidies for poorer and middle class families who have no employer cover. As I think you well know. It is totally disingenuous of you to imply that they subsidize the insurance. Its purpose is to extend coverage to more people by making insurance (private and public) more affordable, because as we know, insurance in the individual market is very expensive compared to that bought in the group market. As your reverts are putting me in danger of 3RR so I cannot revert your change for the time being. I will however call on other editors to look at these edits and help us to resolve this dispute. Comments welcome from other editors below.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen is right to get NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!

Naughtyness aside, I believe that the point is clear= subsidies would be given to all Americans without regard for anything else. They could use it to pay for the public plan. They could use it to pay for Blue Cross Blue Shield. They could use it for UnitedHealth Group. It's up to them. Until I see a reliable reference stating that the subsidies constitute some kind of favor for the public plan, I don't think this is an issue.

Hauskalainen's reverts about the HLP committee and H.R. 3200, however, do not make sense. He keeps removing the fact that the seed money has to be repaid is a restriction in those bills. I don't know why. The reader should know specifically that it is those bills specifically that have the restriction.. The Squicks (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed a reference to seed money needing to be repaid? When? What other bill(s) sets up a public insurance function to compete with private insurance? You imply (i.e. "those bills specifically") that there is an another bill with a public option without a repayment section. That is simply not the case. Jorfer is the one adding distortion with the implication "as of June" that there is a possibility that subsidies may have been snuck in later. That is wrong. The references I gave show the bill as it was reported.--Hauskalainen

Do you actually read what other people write? The Squicks never said that you removed a reference. He stated that you need to be specific as to what bills the phrase "Both plans in Congress that contain clauses establishing a public insurance option" refers to. His goal as well as mine is for precision. You will see that reflected in my next edit. Referring to the subsidies as non-exclusive just adds precision. It doesn't take away from the rest of the sentence. The Squicks doesn't think that the subsidies issues even need to be included, but I disagree with him and agree with Hausk on this. The confusion regarding the bills makes no detail too small. Squicks also doesn't understand why you would shorten the repayment sentence that used to say "...would require initial investment from the federal government in the form of 'seed money'". I think the new shortened sentence is fine, and will attribute it to copyediting rather than trying to emphasize a point (which The Squicks may have thought). "As of June" is not a distortion, but a clarification that reflects the sourcing. If the bills itself say that, you can source the bills itself and than we can remove "as of June". Questioning sourcing is not to "sow doubt". It is to make Wikipedia the most accurate, useful, and trusted encyclopedia it can be.--Jorfer (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Grassley

Republican Senator Charles Grassley has remarked, “The government is not a fair competitor... It's a predator”.[21] As stated before, Grassley's comment has been criticized by Dionne and ThinkProgress.[6][8] As stated before, the leftist blog has criticized Grassley for, when asked for his opinion of Medicare, a much more government controlled entity than the public insurance plan, saying that Medicare was "part of the social fabric of America" while also saying "I think there is a lot wrong with it". As stated before, the leftist blog has also said that what it sees as Grassley's hipocracy "flustered" him.[8]

I've bended as far as I can, and this is a red-line. I've compromised on whether or not to left Mb-Hausk (since you co-ordinate and organize your edits, you should be referred to as the same person) to give the leftist criticisms undue weight (I will let you) and to put the criticisms in the wrong section (I've let you mention it everywhere). I will not let you pretend that the criticism of the leftist blog is fact. That is a redline. Do not pretend that Grassley being a "flustered" "hypocrite" is an objective fact. It is not, it is merely the opinion of a leftist blogger. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever to that other editor. Your actions have forced me to write verbatim what Grassley said. Compare it to the video. You will find it accurate. I took out that Grassley got flustered but I am sure that our readers can make their minds up themselves without me even stating it. I said nothing about hypocrite but that is clearly why Schumer challenged Grassley. Grassley chose his own words and now they can speak to us without the interpretation of third parties. I think you should tone down your edit summaries. They are bordering on the paranoid. I have not used the words hypocracy, expressed disgust at anything Grassley has said or added "overly promotional" material. Nor have I been critical of Grassley. I merely report. The source I had was to a site with video. The video told the main story but that video has ´been removed. Hence I have added another recording of this exchange. Un-mediated by any other person. I suggest that you take a break and cool down. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have caved. I hope that you've learned a lesson that I will not be intimidated by your threats, and that I won't let you insert your personal opinion into articles. The Squicks (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The article as is seems reasonable enough. I would prefer if you please strike out your sarcastic pejorative take a break and cool down (like your comments calling other editors "Naughty, Naughty!" aren't hot). The Squicks (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You impudent oink! What personal opinion? In what edit?--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

If a complete stranger asked me who you were, I would say: Hauskalainen is an editor who makes edits such as this ideal example, as is here. As is the edit in which I had to clean up your mess here. I also recall clearly when you explicitly added words by you into an article that you claimed that Dr. Gratzer said. When pushed, you responded "Of course Gratzer did not say that. That was what the edit was saying!" When I said that, maybe, just maybe, it's not acceptable to claim that someone said something that they did not- it was like talking to a brick wall. Your How can they legitimately be called Christian? Personally I am offended by this. comment here is icing on the cake. You have no right to enforce your particular sectarian views on Wikipedia, but you view it as your God-given right. Personally, I think putting your words into other people's mouth does not sound very "Christian" (I suspect a Moby).

What you commonly do is you take what you believe personally, your own POV, and then you add them into articles either (a)without references or (b)by misusing a reference that does not say what you claim or (c)by using a highly biased, partisan, non-neutral source that is making a controversial claim, yet you pretend that its OPINIONS should be treated as fact.

You've made some good edits in the past, so I'm not interested in reporting your behavior. But please don't pretend as if you have some kind of innocence that you do not have. The Squicks (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at your accusations regarding adding personal opinion.

1. This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_insurance_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=317928466 which you object to is perfectly okay. The text says "A study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the typical large employer PPO plan in 2007 was more generous than either Medicare or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Standard Option" but it does not determine what "value" means. The problem here is what is meant by the word generous. If you take this as meaning what VALUE does it deliver? then the sentence is wrong. This is because in the United States you have this strange system of allowing health insurers are allowed to rate for actuarial factors such as age and pre-existing conditions into account in their pricing, and thus the "value" of a benefit is not what it DELIVERS but how much it would COST TO BUY an equivalent level of coverage. In the case of a senior, the cost to buy the same DELIVERY would be much higher for a senior than for a working employee because seniors will have a much higher claim ratio. All I am doing is clarifying that just because Medicare may deliver less, this does not mean it has lower VALUE because the value has to be compared against what it would cost to buy. All I am doing is pointing out that one would not expect a senior to be able to buy coverage at the same rate as a company buying health care for its employees because they will have very different utilization rates. Because the study did not control for utilization it is impossible to compare the generosity of the offerings from employer insurance against Medicare. That is not WP:OR but I am pointing out that in order to assess generosity you have to compare costs and benefits actuarially and this study did not do that. This is not adding personal opinion but rather factual information to enable the reader to determine whether the comparison is fair.
2. The addition of "if they can afford it" to the statement "Many Americans have access to quality health care" in the article Comparison of Canadian and American health care systems is totally a fair addition because affordability is the main criterion for access to health care in the United States. My addition was not referenced but neither was the edit after you deleted "if they can afford it". Now as to the factual truth in the statement "if they can afford it". In Canada, access does not depend on your wallet but on your health need and there are no deductibles and co-pays compared to the USA. And statistics show that more Americans than Canadians are likely to skip a prescription medicine because of cost. So this is not adding opinion. It's just stating a bald fact.
3. I changed reference to Genesis as being a Christian based belief to being a Biblical belief. Why? Because it is Biblical and it is not Christian! Genesis predates Christ so it cannot be Christian. There are many Christians that flatly reject the creation as described in Genesis. Maybe not in the USA but certainly in the rest of the world. The edit was perfectly neutral and not adding personal opinion.

I have no idea what you mean by "caved in" because I certainly have not caved in on the main issues we have been arguing about. Grassley DID stumble over his words - that much can be heard on the video and as can be seen in the transcript. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the first edit is justified, since the generosity of a plan is determined by what the average person receives in benefits versus what they pay in (not just those that make claims). I completely disagree in the second change, though. You never change a direct quote. You just don't do it. Doing so is lying. It doesn't matter if you are changing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying the Holocaust is a lie or Bill Clinton saying he did not have sex with that woman. You don't do it. A quote is an accurate representation of what someone said, not what the truth actually is. On the third point, I partially disagree. Just because an event predates Christ's incarnation (as opposed to His existence which the consensus of Christianity considers eternal, though not Jehovah's Witnesses and Arians) does not mean it is not a Christian belief. Gabriel's appearance to Mary and John the Baptist's birth are both part of Christianity. It is obvious not all Christians belief the Bible to be 100% accurate, so biblical is a better word to use for the Genesis account, as it is more neutral. This does not necessarily include everyone who does not believe in Genesis as a literal creation story, since many believe Genesis is 100% accurate as an allegorical account. Christians that belief Genesis accuracy connect it to the Christian faith, since Jesus connected His work with the Old Testament. Since that is not everyone, however, to maintain neutral point of view, biblical is a better word to use on Wikipedia.--Jorfer (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Double checking I now see that I did, in error, amend a direct quote. I had been checking these changes made by User:The Squicks because they are sometimes contentious. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems&diff=321295642&oldid=321290388 and as a result I saw the deletion of those words. Squick's edit summary merely said ".v. untrue and unsourced addition" (sic.) i.e. singular and not plural. and I took this to be the text "The downfall of this is majority of americans do not have access to funds to pay for medical services they need or have any funds for routine wellness visits.... In America the wait time is set according to the availability of funds that you have. " which Sqicks removed from the article. I scrolled further down and saw he made other changes and I reverted those changes because they did not seem to be connected to the Edit summary because this had a reference and the other removed text did not. I was wrong though in not checking more closely because the text was, as Jorfer says, part of a speech, though that was not immediately apparent as the quote marks spanned several sentences. So, yes guilty as charged on that one. But an oversight and not a capital offence.

The tea text which I added (another of Squicks' objections) is perfectly accurate though not referenced. Its a bit difficult to find citations for these cultural issues. If a Brit thinks I am wrong I am sure he or she will chip in with a modification. But tea is most definitely a meal in large parts of the UK and dinner is often eaten at lunchtime in colloquial English. It kind of reminds reminds me of the person who tried to explain the rules of cricket to a foreigner, who no doubt hearing this would be disbelieving...

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men are out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

All this is perfectly sensible to anyone who actually knows the game of cricket. There are no errors in the text as I far as I can see. Enjoy!--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive quotation and hesitations

• Note to Wikipedia Editors. Please do not delete the hesitations recorded in Grassley's responses. These hesitations are on the recording. The reader can make up their own mind by listening to the recording and/or reading the transcript provided.

I've removed the "er" hesitations from the long quotation. First, I don't understand why we're including this verbatim dialog to being with - we should just summarize it. Second, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the hesitations are being included simply to make the speaker appear tongue-tied. As anyone who listens to extemporaneous speakers knows, folks commonly say "uh", "um", or "er" while speaking. They do not constitute part of the communication, and in this case they are not relevent to the topic of the article - the "Public health insurance option". I suggest that we find a secondary source which characterizes this debate and use it instead, but in the meantim let's not use the hesitations of a speaker as a backdoor criticism of his position.   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the hesitations have been removeds again. Again, I sugges tthat we should find a secondary source that summarizes this rather than using a verbatim quotation. But if we're going to use the quote the hesitations do not belong. They do nothing to further the readers understanding of health insurance issues. I'm going to delete them again.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, it appears that this material is taken off of a CSPAN video, which is a primary source. All the more reason to use a secondary source. Also, it doesn't make any diufference to the substance of this article whther a senator was flusterd or not. This is a silly matter and if I see more reverting to poorer quality text I'll suggest that the page be protected so that editors can find consensus on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when have secondary sourced been preferable to primary sources? What planet are you living on? I agree that this has become a silly argument but it revolves around a dispute with The Squicks over whether a particular reference was acceptable. As Squicks thought this was opinion and I (and others) disagreed, the verbatim quote was entered. Hence the reader can see for themselves whether there were hesitations. I have some very good sources for this exchange which declared that Grassley became increasingly incoherent on the matter, presumably because of the incongruity of arguing for Medicare and arguing against the public option (which are virtually indistinguishable). Now is Squicks will allow the reference which cites "flustered" we can forget about the Ers and Ums and move on from this to-ing and fro-ing. Until then we are stuck. And I may have to bring in the "incoherent" adjective and reference if we do not reach agreement.

I doubt that you can get a block for such a trivial dispute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is "Planet Wikipedia". See WP:PSTS. Secondary sources are always preferable to primary sources, which should be used sparingly if at all. In other words, the entire quote should go, hestitations and all. I don't see how Grassley being flustered really has any bearing on the topic of this article. Regardless, edit-warring is not the right approach. More than one editor may have violated WP:3RR on this article today.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresnting things. Primary sources in WP parlance refers to self published stuff, hence WP prefers secondary source to establish verifiablity. For accuracy, as any historian will tell you, a primary source is preferred to a secondary source. The point I am making applies to the right wing blog or whatever it was that Squicks added which minced Krugman's words in its text. Hence I referred the reader to the video as the primary source rather than its rehashing by a web site with a POV which clearly distorted the truth. That is quite the proper thing to have done under the circumstances.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We're not historians, we're encyclopedia writers. Reread the policy language. A recording of a Senate debate is a primary source, regardless of who publishes it. Probably both the blog and the Youtube/Cspan video should be left out. Let's stick with the best available sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Hausk here. WP:PSTS states "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia." The vast majority of people would consider C-SPAN reliable. It can be used then.--Jorfer (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the first line of that section: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. It's not clear what this has to do with the topic of the article, which has nothing to do with Grassley stammering.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected I'll remove the entire quotation. Let's find a summary in a secondary source instead.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You do and I will challenge it. The issue of secondary sources is one of verifiabilty and notability for potentially dubious items. The C-Span video carried on youtube.com is a reliable source. What is said in the course of debate about inclusion or not of a public insurance option makes it notable. It is crazy if you try to deny any of this. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see no real reason why Igor Volsky's opinion should not be considered a notable secondary source anyway. He is a named contributor to the book written by Howard Dean on the reform of the U.S. health care system http://www.amazon.com/Howard-Deans-Prescription-Healthcare-Reform/dp/product-description/1603582282. That surely makes him a notable person in this area!--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The hearing or debate probably went on for hours, and yet we've picked just one excerpt to quote. By your argument we could quote the entire debate. That's why we need a secondary sources - to decide which parts are important.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is notable because Schumer picked up on the fact that the Republican side recently been flip-flopping over Medicare. This is not just Schumer. The Washington post has noticed how the Republicans, whose general philosophy is that government should be out of people's lives and calls for small government and low government spending has switched its position and is now criticizing the Democrats for making "cuts" to Medicare

"After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092703277.html Washington Post September 27,2009

Then, an article by CBS News 2 days later comments on more flip-flopping during its reporting of that debate, firstly with the Republicans criticisizing Medicare

"To highlight the flaws of government-administered health insurance, Republicans also criticized Medicare -- straying from their recent praise for the government program that insures senior citizens. Medicare is "on a path to a fiscal meltdown" and underpays doctors and health care providers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. It is "forcing increasing numbers of providers to simply stop seeing our nation's seniors," he said, and shifts costs to taxpayers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5351095.shtml CBS News September 29, 2009

and finally with Grassley praising Medicare as "part of the social fabric of America".(Ibid.)

And it is notable that many other journalistic outlets apart from CBS picked up that the exchange was important, E.g. this article http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/09/29/grassley/print.html which headlined the arguments as "logic in short supply", calling the arguments "circular" and a "simultaneous defense and criticism of Medicare"; and this one, http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20091003/OPINION05/910030326/1023/Grassley+incoherent+on+health+care which described Grassley as "completely incoherent and self-contradictory".

We shouldn't be surprised that he should hesitate because he doesn't seem to know where his party stands.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

I propose that when the block has been lifted we reinstate the text but add the word "arguably" before the word "flustered", because that is what we have been arguing about. The video and the verbatim transcript and the video will enable readers to determine this for themselves. It is importan that we resolve this issue before the block is lifted otherwise I can see this dispute continuing. If we fail to get a suitable agreement we may have to go to third party mediation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important to say that the senator was flustered? How is that informative to readers interested in the topic of the public health insurance option?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons above. He was making an argument against his own party's general philosophy and other articles have described the exchange as having "needled" Grassley and that he was "incoherent". Flustered seems positively mild by some of the characterizations. (see the references in the previous section).--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there are several reliable secondary sources for this matter, there's no need for quoting Grassley. Let's just summarize those sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please post the draft of what you'd add in place of the C-SPAN quotation?   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally see nothing wrong with this edit from six days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_health_insurance_option&diff=prev&oldid=323214537 which sparked the argument in the first place. It does not have the direct speech but it does contain the word "flustered" which is in the source. It is a reliable source and authored by someone knowledgeable about politics and health care. I only added the text from the video to show the "er, and, er, and" elements because Squicks said he had not become flustered, that this was just opinion and because he kept removing the "flustered" citation. To me, those hesitations indicate that he did become flustered which, in the absence of the citation, adding the text of what he said seemed the only way to prove the point.

Other commentators described the senator's response even less generously as "incoherent" or that he was "needled". I think flustered is perfectly OK, but we could add incoherent or needled if others prefer them. "Flustered" merely describes fairly neutrally how he delivered the response. Squicks's argument that it was a "leftish" comment and his subequent labelling of other sources as "right wing" was a silly over reaction. Unfortunately for him there were editors ubnwilling to allow this POV to overrule sensibilty. I am not proposeinf that we say any more about why he became flustered/needled/incoherent, though we have very good sources that say that is because he praised Medicare (a publicly run insurance system for seniors) whilst deriding a new publicly run insurance for people under retirement age not govered by employer based group plan). Again I am not recommending that we spell this out in the article any stronger than we had already. But that IS the issue and why it became such a big new item. It should be in the Wikipedia article on the public plan. It was in there quite subtly until Squicks started to remove it altogether. To me, that is not an acceptable action w´hich is why we hit this impasse.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We should always use the best sources available. Let's use one of those rather than the blog.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree should always use the best sources available and this is an excellent one. The publishing web site is a project of the Center for American Progress which is left leaning think tank. All the health care articles about health care in the U.S. carry articles from think tanks such as Cato. The author of that post Igor Volsky is the co-author of a health care book with a Democratic party politician. The credentials of the reference are excellent. However, if you delete references from published authors posted on web sites which are run by think tanks then you will have to delete all references to articles published on think-tank web sites by for example Michael Cannon at the Cato web site, by David Gratzer at The Manhattan Institute, by John Goodmam at National Center for Policy Analysis and a whole lot more besides. Blogs these days are written by many people. Blogs written by journalists and legitimate researchers and experts ARE frequently found in Wilkipedia, and rightly so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hard-line left-wing blog criticism of public plan opponents are find so long as we include hard-line right-wing blog criticism of public plan supporters. Sauce for the goose... The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard-line left-wing blogs are OPPOSED to the public plan; they want single payer. Squicks, your edit summaries betray your POV bias ("far-left" vs. "right-wing"). Public option is centrist; it is supported by the majority of the public. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You also have a clear POV-bias in favor of the public option. Personally, I do not care who or what you support. I only care about edits.

What you have just posted is factually incorrect. The public option is supported by 50-55% of the population while it is opposed by 45-50% of the population. That hardly means that it is as universally accepted as you claim.

Secondly, noone in their right mind can claim that ThinkProgress is "centrist". Read their Wikipedia article.The Squicks (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact: 50-55% is a majority. The issue is not my POV (I have made only one edit, a reversion of yours), the issue is your POV edits (of which you have made many). If you want to include hard-line right-wing blog criticism, then we need to include critisism of the public option from the left, as well. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact: ThinkProgress is not "centrist".

We already have advocacy for a single-payer system in this article. And we already have hard-line left-wing criticism of public option opponents. Until I came along, this was all that this article had.

Then, I moved the article to a more neutral stance. Apparently, you're definition of "POV edits" is "edits that refer to sources that I, Dr.enh, happen to not like". Of course, you're objections are spurious and not relevant. The Squicks (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that the article has been locked due to your edit warring, perhaps you will have time to actually read the talk page. I did not say ThinkProgress was centrist. I said that the far-left position was against the public option, and in favor of single payer. Your POV edits will all be removed in due course, because your blogs (as well as centrist and left-leaning blogs) are not reliable sources. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi, as the protecting admin, I was notified that consensus was reached on the talk page, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case (though I may be wrong). If I could get statements of the edit warring users on the issue, it would help me determine the outcome. Thanks.—ξ^xplicit 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see what the consensus is. One of the elements of the edit warring was over a long quote from Grassley transcribed by an editor off of a C-SPAN video.   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Hauskalainen and I favor its inclusion, as well documented and descriptive of Grassley's position and, more importantly, his motivation in saying what he says. Squicks has retired, and scholarly sources like E.J. Dionne must always be trusted in controversial matters like these. Barring modification to semi-, I wish to {{editprotected}} add the following.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents the 18th congressional district in Houston, said, "Surveys show that nearly three out of four voters want a public health insurance plan." She also said that 73 percent of doctors and 1,000 state legislators favor health reform legislation with a public option. The American people want a strong public option heard in Congress, Lee said, because their voices "have been drowned out by insurance company propaganda and disruptive tea-baggers at health reform town hall meetings." -Mary Susan Littlepage, "House Leaders Refuse To Reconsider Kucinich's Single-Payer Amendment", Truthout.org, 11/04/09. -MBHiii (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is simply turning into a cherry picking of quotes to support a position. The transcripted comments were not adding to the article but were being used for POV purposes. 68.25.103.189 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can a more neutral source (preferably not a political blog) be found to support this? I am not comfortable with using truthout.org as a reliable source, particularly in a controversial topic such as this. Shereth 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have replied to this issue in the previous section. The first edit that was objected to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_health_insurance_option&diff=prev&oldid=323214537 should be reinstated. It avoids the need to quote precisely what Grassley said and how he said it. The source for this is as good as any other found in this and other WP articles on U.S. health care, coming from a respected think tank. [[User:The Squicks] whose objections to this particular edit and whose obstructionism has led us to this point has now posted on his home page that he/she is retiring from Wikipedia. The freeze on edits to the article should be lifted as soon as possible.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Grassley consensus

Consensus is clearly for not including remarks as to Grassleys physical state, so I will remove it as well even though I do not have strong opinions either way on it. If the edit warring continues, Here is the breakdown:

For Keeping "Flustered":

• User:Mbhiii
• User:Hauskalainen

Against Keeping "Flustered":

• User:Tapalmer99
• User:Jmcnamera
• User:EastTN

There you have it.--Jorfer (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public health insurance option. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091031181727/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/health/july-dec09/health_10-27.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec09/health_10-27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 July. Obama calls for 'public option' for Obamacare

Obama calls for 'public option' for Obamacare. By Tami Luhby. July 11, 2016. CNN.

"In an article published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the president called for Congress to revisit the 'public option' for Obamacare in areas where few insurers offer coverage." --74.83.99.20 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)