Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Affordable Care Act. 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 5

←

Archive 10

Myths section

Name and content criteria

A source of never-ending controversy in this article is the "Myths" section. I would like to attempt to achieve consensus on what should be done about this section. There appear to be two main contentious issues:

What the name of the section should be;
What content should be in this section. Content currently includes, or has recently included:

The "death panels" claim;
The "microchip" claim;
Claim that Congress is "exempt" from the law (recently removed by DrFleischman with the rationale "false but not [a] myth[]") (diff)
Claim that undocumented immigrants may receive healthcare claim (recently removed by DrFleischman with the rationale "false but not [a] myth[]") (diff)
The "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" claim (moved to "Changes in existing individual insurance plans" section after disagreement whether the claim rose to the level of "myth" in this discussion)

Concerning the name "Myths", I'm hesitant to continue using that name because reliable sources use the term "myth" liberally to cover pretty much every misconception about the law, no matter how big or small; see, for example, CNN ABC News Yahoo! News FactCheck.org Washington Post. To avoid subjectively picking-and-choosing which so-called myths should "count" for this article, I suggest renaming it something like "Major myths" or "Major misconceptions".

On another note concerning the name, I personally don't think that using something like "Myths" or "Misconceptions" is a NPOV violation because this section (at least thus far) contains demonstrably untrue statements. However, if others strongly believe that such titles constitute an NPOV violation, I don't think changing it to something like "Controversies" is the worst thing in the world, though using a more general term would potentially open up this section to even more content disputes as to what should be included in the section.

Either way, that still leaves the question: what should be included in this section? Is there any objective criteria we can come up with that can decide which false or misleading claims are sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this section? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this discussion, it's long overdue. I agree that there is no NPOV issue here because the reliable sources indicate that at least the "death panels" thing is a myth, i.e. "a commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception" (#3).

As for changing the section to be about something other than myths, I suppose I'm open to a change but "misconceptions" or "controversies" would be unworkable as it would lead to an explosion of this section that would dwarf the rest of the article. The number of misstatements, misconceptions, and controversies about the ACA is mind-boggling. It would be totally inappropriate to include them all here. I've said before, if someone wants to start an article about misstatements or misconceptions about the ACA, I'm all for that (but good luck to you, as it would be a minefield). Adding the qualifier "major" would be disastrous as it would lead to endless partisan bickering over whether a controversy is major or minor. The benefit of limiting the scope of the section to "myths" is that it allows us to narrow the scope based on objective criteria, i.e. the belief must be (a) commonly held and (b) false (not just misleading). "Commonly held" can be determined using polling data. And only a handful of misstatements have been labeled by fact checkers or other reliable sources as being outright "false."

As for the concern about too many things being labeled by sources as "myths," this doesn't bother me as the term is bandied around unreliably as a synonym for "misconception" or "misstatement." Sometimes it seems to be used simply to save space in headlines. Basically I don't consider any of the sources linked by Prototime as reliable for the proposition that anything is a myth as, while they establish that certain beliefs are false, they don't establish that the beliefs are commonly held. In other words these sources are misusing the word "myth." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm largely in agreement with Dr. Fleischman though I concur with the premise that this section may warrant some sort of alteration to cut down on the amount of constant revisionism taking place there. What those changes might be, I have no alternatives at the moment either.

I do want echo the notion that part of the "problem" here is not so much the use of the term "myth" but the way 3rd parties are applying it as well as how some editors are interpreting it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I like Dr. Fleischman's proposed criteria that the content included in this section must be "(a) commonly held and (b) false (not just misleading)". In particular, the idea of using poll data as an objective measure as to whether a false claim has arisen to the level of a "myth" makes sense. Of course, the questions then become how a claim is determined to be demonstrably false, what type of polls are acceptable, and what that poll data would need to reflect. I suggest we keep things simple:

The claim must be demonstrably false (and not just misleading). A claim will be considered false if nothing more than a WP:FRINGE view exists that the claim is true.
The poll data must be a scientific poll
A simple majority (more than 50%) of poll respondents must state they believe to be true the demonstrably false claim.
Both the claim's falsity and the poll results must be supported by reliable secondary sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go to that extreme. To me, if all non-fringe reliable sources indicate that the belief is commonly held and false, then that should be sufficient. "False" means false, not misleading. For fact checkers, this means looking at the text of the fact check, not at the number of Pinocchios. "Commonly held" means commonly held, not necessarily greater than 50% and not necessarily supported by poll data. If reliable sources say "commonly held," "widely held," "widespread" etc. then that's sufficient. However the source must suggest that the belief is widely held by ordinary citizens, not just by politicians or political groups. Many of these "5 myths about..." articles seem to label statements as "myths" simply because they've been parroted by many politicians or other talking heads. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've since done some thinking about the poll data support idea, and I've come to a similar conclusion. 50% may be too high (or too low); we, as Wikipedia editors, shouldn't be deciding which benchmark is "correct" for the world (which may even be considered original research). The idea that a reliable secondary source describes the false belief as "widely held", etc., as you suggest, should be sufficient for verifiability purposes. (Though as a practical matter, I suggest that non-neutral sources, even if reliable, should be held to even greater scrutiny in this section, for we also want to avoid including any WP:FRINGE views that a false claim actually is "widely held".) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Myths" is arguably accurate but a little on the flowery side. I like your suggestion of "Major misconceptions" -- "major" picks up the criterion (which should be obvious anyway) that the article won't seek to debunk every lunatic assertion made by some blogger, but will be selective; and "misconception" can include points that have a grain of truth (e.g., the fact that members of Congress are treated differently from other federal employees) that's been widely misinterpreted (e.g., the repeated false assertion that members of Congress are exempt from the ACA). JamesMLane t c 05:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Death panels claims

We should not put false information into the article regardless of what the so-called reliable sources say. Calling the fact that ACA will create death panels a myth is a falsehood. Regardless of what the act may say about not denying care, it must inevitably result in that since otherwise costs will rapidly increase to an intolerable level. Even if the law is not amended to include death panels explicitly, they will come into being in a covert fashion. The people who implement the act will simply ignore any prohibitions because they cannot do otherwise. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of original research and crystal balling, and you know better than to push such things on Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"it must inevitably result in that" - Please find reliable sources for this. If you cannot then this is simply JRSpriggs's view. (And of course, we are not here to express any particular editor's views.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The "death panel" claim is a fringe theory given no credence outside a small subset of far-right-wing media. Wikipedia is not required to give equal time to claims which have been widely discredited and rejected by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

JRSpriggs and Avaya1, before continuing to add information about death panels to the article and having them reverted on no-consensus grounds by multiple editors, please explain why the view that the ACA will lead to "death panels" is 1) not a WP:FRINGE view and 2) supported by reliable sources. If you continue to ignore WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS by making these contested edits without discussion, this page will likely be fully protected while we hash this out anyway. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the claim about "Death panels" is false, which is what the section of the article describes. However, firstly, we need to use NPOV language in the title (using the title of 'myths' is completely unacceptable for a Wikipedia article). Secondly, the language of "Death Panels" is a mainstream controversy - the language itself, not the claim that they exist in the way Sarah Palin invoked them. And finally, it refers to real, existent aspects of the law, relating to IPAB. In one citation, it is used by a professor of constitutional law, whose last three books were published in Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, and Yale University Press.

The rest of Prototime's allegations about WP:OR and so on, are completely unfounded. There's no way we can't take a neutral point of view on the discussion of the alleged 'death panels', since the discussion itself was/is a mainstream one (which is being discussed by lawyers publishing in mainstream academic presses) - even if the language that was originally used derives from a fringe claim. My edits to the section take all of this into account. Avaya1 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there's an entire discussion on the name "Myths" going on right now right above us at #Name and content criteria, and your insistence on removing that name instead of participating in that discussion is completely unproductive. Furthermore, just because a single professor is supportive of the death panels claim does not elevate that view beyond WP:FRINGE when the vast majority of sources have rejected it. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to give undue weight to the fringe views of this professor or the few who may agree with him. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The cited professor is not supportive of the "Death Panel" claim. The fact that you seem to think that the source has to be supportive of the claim, for Wikipedia to take a NPOV in the title, shows that you have completely missed the point (and that you are also editing without bothering to check the sources). She is however a leading expert on the discussion that this touches on (her book on the discussion was published by Harvard University Press)

Firstly, before removing the content my edits, you could have simply changed the title back to "Myths" if that is what you object to - removing the rest of the content is completely unproductive. Secondly, the claim that death panels exist in the way that Sarah Palin invoked them is a fringe theory. But the discussion about death panels is not a fringe theory, but a mainstream controversy, which requires a NPOV title, and which is raised in many mainstream sources. In addition, the discussion about healthcare rationing and its relation to Obamacare is not a fringe-theory, and placing it under the title "myths" is extremely POV.

Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" claim was referring to real, existent aspect of the law, in the form the IPAB. Clearly, Palin's original claim is a fringe theory (which is covered in the section, where we have many sources claiming that it a false, fringe theory). But the controversy is not a fringe one, but a mainstream one. The language itself is part of the mainstream discussion, as plenty of citations show (the fact that they talk about it everyday on Fox News is sufficient to prove that - since Fox News is afterall a mainstream news channel, according to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS). And a discussion relating to the functioning of the IPAB and healthcare rationing (which Obamacare will attempt to forbid) is also a mainstream legal discussion. Therefore, we should use NPOV to cover this, especially in the title. Avaya1 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. First on the point that the term "Myth(s)" reflects a POV and second, that the controversy is a mainstream one. Please discuss before making changes to these portions - it took a long time to reach the previous state of those points. If you want to add information dealing with the IPAB, then add it - but adding it to the Death panels section of Myths is absolutely not the way to go about it in my view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(diff of disputed edits) I assume the source you're referring to is this one [1], which you're completely right I haven't checked because I am not privileged with a WSJ subscription. If relying on that source isn't an attempt to include a WP:FRINGE view, that's great to hear, though I'll have to take your word on it. Either way, I still completely fail to understand what you're driving at about this being a "controversy". Of course it's a controversy; but it's a controversy over a myth, that is, a widely held false belief. We don't need to present a balanced view of the controversy, which is what you say you are attempting to do; that violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to proponents of the WP:FRINGE view that death panels exist. Nor do we need to go into unnecessary detail by quoting every other person who has a view on the matter—and I'm uncertain why the views of the four people chosen (Mark Halperin, Rick Ungar, David B. Rivkin, and Elizabeth Price Foley) are sufficiently notable and deserving of the attention given to them by the proposed edits. I also don't see what those quotes add to the article in terms of new or useful information—for example, just because Rivkin and Foley use the word "death panel" hardly justifies the inclusion of that quote from them, which vaguely refers to constitutional issues and Medicare issues without elaboration. Again, including these four persons' views simply to give a balanced presentation of the controversy is giving undue weight to fringe views; there needs to be independent justifications for including them, and thus far I fail to see any. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Prototime. While you acknowledge that the "death panels" meme is fringe, you seem to misunderstand WP:FRINGE. In controversies over fringe theories we're not required to give WP:PARITY to opposing views or sources. The relevant lanugage in the policy is that coverage "should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review." Here we have unreviewed opinion articles versus heavily reviewed news articles by reputable outlets. Per WP:PARITY, the opinion sources should not be cited even with attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Above, I did not ask that my opinion be included in the article. So all the arguments about OR, Crystal and the absence of sources supporting my view are irrelevant. I was merely asking that false POV pushed by the left be kept out of the article. The position of the left amounts to saying "we did not call [explicitly] for death panels in the law, so they cannot be there" which is a non sequitur. All I am asking is that you do as Avaya1 has asked and avoid implying that the notion of death panels is false. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has (nor even could with any degree of authority) say that there is absolutely no statistical chance that in an effort to control health care costs that there is no possibility the "rationing of care" might become so institutionalized & to such a degree, that it may wind up denying any given number of people life extending treatments or medicines.... but that's kind of unrealistic isn't it? To think either side of the aisle (never mind the population at large) would sit by and a.) morally let that develop without acting to insure it never happens; or b.) survive politically by not putting an end to asap if it ever did start to develop, seriously does not seem all that realistic to me. I'm afraid I would need to see substantial evidence to the contrary to change my POV about that being more of an inevitability than the panel thing.

But even now that I've acknowledged the premise you've laid out before us, it still does not mean that the premise rises beyond the WP:FRINGE view that I believe it always has been & will be. And until some panel somewhere gets caught, claiming they were acting under the ACA, maliciously causing the expiration of one or more individuals before their time (or their means) ran out, the notion is simply not true. To add the assertion would give it undue weight in my opinion as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

JRSpriggs, it's not just the position of the left; there is a consensus among neutral reliable sources that the notion of death panels is false. It may be a non-sequitur, it may even be wrong, but Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. Your characterization of this being a non-sequitur is original research because you have not offered any sources describing it as such. Even if you did provide such sources, the view that death panels are possible is a fringe view held by a very tiny minority, and per WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE), it should be excluded: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Even Ayaya1 agrees that the death panels claim a fringe theory, and you've offered no neutral reliable sources to suggest otherwise. We give this view as much weight is as due in this article: we state the view at the outset, and then state that the view is false and cite to a subset of the vast majority of sources that reject it. A more appropriate article to more fully discuss the merits of this fringe view is the "ancillary article" of Death panel (and even there, the view should not be given undue weight by attempting to present it in a balanced way with the majority view). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I cannot grasp is that if death panels are just a belief on the part of a tiny fringe, how does it qualify as a widely held myth or misconception? Perhaps the measure should be whether more believe death panels exist than those who believe that if they like their plan, they can keep it. I suppose that would thus make death panels a myth and the loss of your own health care plan or doctor merely a misconception on your part, right? I know I am having fun with this, but that is why I think the "myths" section has been an unwise addition from the beginning... we should be dealing with facts that can be agreed upon and not those that are misunderstood, in dispute or non-existent. It is the inclusion of a section on "myths" slamming only those of the ACA's opponents and none of the myths promulgated by the proponents, as well as the "shut down" section that appears to attempt the same type of objective, that leads to the charge that the overall article is heavily biased... a "myth" I assume we wish to avoid. InterpreDemon (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the shut-down bits are anywhere near as problematic as the "myth"-type of stuff is but there is not much that can be done about either at this point without kicking up a sh*t storm from one faction or another (I'm sorry to say). Still, your point is well-taken here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

While the definition of "myth" and what the inclusion criteria for this section should be are separate issues from the merits of whether the death panels claim is a fringe view, I understand your point; there does seem to be some tension between something being a "fringe view" and being "widely held" simultaneously. However, fringe views are defined by the very tiny proportion of reliable sources supporting them (according to WP:UNDUE), and the way we're discussing how to define "widely held" above in #Name and content criteria is to define it as meaning that the view is widely believed by lay people (not reliable sources). Of course, the proposition that something is "widely held" by lay people must itself be supported by sufficient reliable sources and not be a fringe view either. So, in summary, a "myth" would be a false/fringe view (per the proportion of reliable sources supporting the view) that is widely held by lay persons (according to reliable sources). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I just think the whole exercise is more trouble than it is worth, and I fail to see the logic of an alleged encyclopaedic effort that devotes so much energy into dealing with things that are supposedly not true. The purpose of this lead, premier article about the ACA is to talk about the ACA and what is true about it, NOT to defend the ACA against all the possible misconceptions or misrepresentations about it, or vanquish opponents of the policy by repeatedly teeing up their arguments and slicing them into the woods. Those are topics best left to other articles, just as an article the government of Ancient Greece should not be debating whether and how it would have been possible for Adonis to have bedded Aphrodite. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I press the "go-away" and "ignore" buttons on my keyboard all the time but it doesn't seem to stop them from contributing ugly ornaments to an already overloaded Christmas tree made up mostly of good information. That will always be an issue with any annonymous, community-based collaboration trying to refine a myriad of 'efforts' into a single encyclopedic entry - especially while its still in the "news" (and I use that term lightly) almost everyday for one thing or another. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a reader from Britain, and noting the discussion above. may I say that, given the information available at Death panel, little need be said about this issue in the already lengthy PPACA article, but something should be said. Qexigator (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well, which is why I have resisted the addition of new material that attempts to explore the fringe side of the controversy in this article and suggested placing such material in Death panel instead. But are either of you suggesting we should also cut down on the material that is currently in the "Myths" section about the death panels claim? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I could live with losing the whole first paragraph. Palin's role, term-of-the-year, worst term ever, yada, yada, yada are interesting factoids but not really relevent to the break down that follows. I'd be surprised if all that jazz wasn't already included in the main Death panel article; by all means, move it there if its not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a reader (not proposing to edit here) would see cutting back to a sentence or two would improve the article. As a side issue, would prefer "Myths" not to be used as part of a value judgement about the merit of something in the course of public debate and political polemic: it is injurious to the proper use of the term. This comment is non-partisan, but concerned with encyclopedic writing and editing standards. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What would you suggest for its replacement given the content currently found under it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qex. Most of the "myths" regarding things that were and were not in the Act were used in the political context, "Death panels" on the right and "You can keep your plan, your doctor, and all at lower cost to everybody" on the left, and the existance of those claims by both parties as to the content and/or consequences of the Act can be simply put forth as fact without getting into any value judgements... In the debate leading and subsequent to passage of the Act Sarah Palin and opponents said what they said, The President and proponents said what they said, end of story. But for this article to go further and try to get into the heads of Ms. Palin or Mr. Obama, and try to divine whether what they were saying was a lie, "misstatement" or the truth by means of duelling "qualified" sources is, in my opinion, way, way outside the mission and scope of the article. As to where you would put these sentences, George, I would say sprinkled into the political debate. InterpreDemon (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GO.III: Not proposing to edit- this is a hot issue for US citizens, their political organisations and public commentators, government and opposition, while also of concern to health service policy-makers and citizens of other countries. But since you ask, it should suffice to report that public controversy in USA had resulted from a claim made in August 2009, by a former Governor of Alaska (Mrs Palin), that the then proposed legislation would create "death panels" to decide if sick and elderly Americans were "worthy" of medical care, + sufficient citations and the ref. over to Death panel, where the whole debate can be as fully and exhaustively reported as necessary for the information primarily of US citizens, and secondly for the information of anyone else who is as alert to the basic problems as need be. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me - I am use to Wikisource & it's talk pages where indents rule the day - I think I said as much by the both of you just above in my repsonse to Prototime. Sorry if that post got lost and confused everyone somehow.

What I was really hoping for was something better than "myths" for a section header. & I'm done paneling (... death panels were created by idiots, for idiots; the possible issue of rationing and the oversight board are the only things that I would want to know about as a vistor to this page. The rest are useless facts [like how butter takes tar off of ~~sneakers~~ tennis shoes]).-- George Orwell III (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of "Myths", if the instances under that heading, as a fact, have in common that they were false contentions about wording in bills, then let that be the heading. Qexigator (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be totally fine with cutting back the current death panels material to just stating what the claim is, who made it/when it was made, that it is widely held, and why it is false. Looking at how much space the discussion takes up on the page comparative to other issues, I agree that it's disproportionately large. We don't need to list every poll or quote every organization related to the claim. I'm also fine with changing the name "Myths" to something like "Popular false contentions" or "Popular misconceptions" (just "false contentions" is too broad of a term). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Refuted assertions" ? George Orwell III (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that still suffers from problems of overbreadth; there are very many refuted assertions concerning the law, but not many of the assertions are widely believed. Assuming we want to include in the section only "widely held beliefs that are actually false/fringe", we'll probably need a qualifier like "Common" or "Popular" to whatever words we include after that. Personally I like "common misconceptions", it seems like a lot of articles on Wikipedia use "misconception" in the way we're trying to use it here: [2] But I'm open as to what the term should be. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Common Misconceptions" is nice, but again I believe we run the risk of some of these misconceptions ending up having some basis in truth over time. The problem with "death panels" for example is defining just exactly what it means, especially since any board or authority that determines available levels of care to certain groups of people (and as others point out, many such already exist in both the private and public sectors) could be so labelled by its critics. "You can keep your plan/doctor" is also a "myth" unless you apply a liberal coating of provisos and narrowly defined context to an oft repeated statement that contained neither. Both are argumentative for the purposes of this article where there need be no argument. Once you start down the road of adjudicating such statements, ruling them false and proffering "proof" as to why, you end up right back where we are now, fighting over which statements are notable (for a long time, until millions actually lost them, "You can keep your plan" was deemed unimportant here) and why those who uttered them are mendacious liars for all time. The article should rise above such partisan, tit-for-tat competitive nonsense, just state the undisputed facts about the law, the debate, the passage, the implementation and the resultant actual impact upon people and society (verses the predictions of egg-heads) as well as, where relevant, the public statements of those influential in the debate opining upon such facts, and allow the truth or falsity of those utterances to become self evident over time. Those who want to keep fighting always can go over to the "Death Panel" page where some of the keepers of the flame here are doing extra duty over there to make sure that Palin and Republican bashing piece remains intact. InterpreDemon (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you're saying, but I don't think we should avoid addressing the notable "tough questions" simply because they're controversial. For example, we have an entire subsection that refutes the claim that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" (Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Changes_in_existing_individual_insurance_plans - which I wrote most of, lest anyone reading this wants to insinuate that I'm a liberal POV-pusher). Would you remove that section as well, even though it's well established in reliable sources that the claim is untrue? Both that claim and the death panels claim are false/fringe, but based on their coverage in reliable sources, they're both certainly notable enough to include on Wikipedia... and I don't like the idea of avoiding those topics simply because readers may have strong feelings about them. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Prototime: I can live with "Common misconceptions" too & support the motion to make it the replacement for 'Myths' but I fear that will wind up being out-lobbied again for something more polarizing sooner or later. At that point, the section might as well be labeled "Miscellaneous". Anyway, let see if others can live with "Common misconceptions". -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@InterpreDemon: 'Given the time ... some basis in truth' is hardly justification to synthesize then include possible outcomes in terms of the here & now of today - we'll just have to reassess the notion or premise incrementally over time (daily if need be). Beyond that, its just speculation (albeit percieved to be an informed speculation by some) and doesn't belong in the mix in my opinion BUT this is a ongoing collaboration by many, many individuals over time so we have to keep doing this "cat-turd wrangling" if for nothing else than the sake of some shred of credibility for the unfamilar or the newcomer.

Once again, your points are in line with mine & welcomed here however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with "common misconceptions," as it seems to convey the same meaning while hopefully being less inflammatory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever else all of us may disagree on, we all appear to agree that "Common misconceptions" is a better heading than "Myths", so I've edited the article accordingly. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Proto, I would say if you remove one, you should remove both, however since that is not likely to occur I would propose moving "Like your plan" to the freshly renamed "Common Misconceptions" section since they (death panels and retained plans) share the following properties; They are (or were) commonly held misconceptions, they were brought about by assertions made by significant political leaders and they were important issues in the public debate. Where they depart in similarity is in that in the former it depends upon how one defines "death panel" as to whether there may or may not be any in the legislation or implementation thereof, whereas the latter can only be true if it can be proved that none of the five million or so who have thus far lost their plans liked them. Some others need to be reviewed, in my opinion, for example the embedded chip thing, because that was truly fringe and I see no evidence it ever had any significant role in public debate or that it was a widely held belief... Elvis being alive and surrounded by nubile, willing young females in Bora Bora probably polls two orders of magnitude higher among the public. I think the key test for inclusion of items in the section should be as I listed above... Commonly/widely believed but in actuality found to be untrue, brought about by statements of significant political figures and weighing heavily in public debate. InterpreDemon (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I have with including "Like your plan" here is that, as far as I know, there isn't reliable sourcing that this "misconception" is commonly believed. I've seen a lot of sources talk about how the meme has been pushed by numerous politicians but I haven't seen anything sources say it's been accepted by a large percentage of the population. I could be wrong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to say (from faraway Britain), maybe "Common misconceptions" is not yet quite what is needed? Let it be something that reads well to US citiizens immersed in the debate, while being sufficiently meaningful to others who have read the story so far: "misconception" begs the question (what question anyway?); "popular fallacies" (how popular, how fallacious?). If they are arguably what the words of the Act say, then they are not necessarily misconceptions (or myths), and can only be "refuted" by due process (Supreme Court?); if the words were in a bill, that is not the law, and only background ephemara. Could try Miscellaneous contentions? The underlying issues may be real enough, despite the political rowdiness of the presentation. Qexigator (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. F, are you suggesting that a majority of the people knew The President was not telling them the truth all along? That it was not widely believed that if one liked their plan or their doctor they would be able to keep them? That the majority of the voters who re-elected The President did not believe his assurances made about same during the campaign? Even now there are tens of millions with employer plans who mistakenly believe they will be able to, in Bill Clinton's words, "Keep what they've got" and for many millions that will prove to have been a misconception. Where is the source that says "death panels" have been (in your words) "accepted by a large percentage of the population" and how could one possibly believe that percentage, whatever it is, is larger than those who believe they can keep their plan or doctor? Are you saying a greater percentage of the population believes Ms. Palin than those who believe Mr. Obama? InterpreDemon (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oooo.... I like Miscellaneous contentions if the current title has to go some day with the caveat that the additions found there must meet notability and sourcing criteria already well laid out in this section.

Demon, believe it or not, I knew that one was a big fat "over simplification of reality" for the benefit of the sound-bite-lemmings out there of all political stripes long before it broke -- but I'm far from the average [political] news consumer. I gave up on commercialized info-tainment (what most folks call news) about 10 years ago and only listen/watch it to get possible keywords to research in rhe various government publications instead.

But as far your points go, I'm of like mind but expierence tells me we'll never get "solid" numbers on them without most respondent's political affiliations getting in the way and skewing the numbers (well maybe Pew Research can pull that poll off and remain credible). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Interpredemon: No, I'm suggesting that we need reliable sourcing to label a misconception as "common." This is just a standard application of WP:V.

@GO3: I do not not not like "miscellaneous contentions"! The removal of "common" would open a Pandora's box to the literally hundreds and hundreds of misconceptions and misstatements that have been written about in reliable sources. And the addition of "miscellaneous" would add absolutely no value. It would also imply we already have categorized misconceptions, which isn't true. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@DrF - Noted. Though I think you're giving this article too much credit (not 3 million visitors a day remember?). Besides, I said if the current title also goes by the wayside for the same reasons as Myths did. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous polls that show that a consistent 35-40% of the people do not believe The President lied or deceived when he said you could keep your plan, which logically would suggest they also believed they could keep their plans if they liked them... and these are polls after it was known that millions were going to or had already lost their plans. One can only assume the percentage would have been even higher earlier during the debate. The question is whether 35-40% of the people believed that "death panels" existed at the time of the debate. InterpreDemon (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you find sources for these polls then I'd be open to supporting the inclusion of this meme in this section (depending on the details). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, back up a second. One or both of you are missing the 'ever-moving, goal-post' nuance when it comes to the term "death panel(s)". Originally (2009? [absolutely before PPACA was signed into law in March of 2010]) the term conflated two proposed healthcare reform provisions establishing:

a comparative effectiveness research review board; and
Medicare reimbursements for end-of-life counseling sessions.

Neither of these proposed provisions made it into the final enacted language of the law. And the board in number 1 should not be confused with the Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB] — which was indeed established by some completely different provision of the bill than the proposed two above when it was signed into law.

The IPAB, however, has since been deemed by some as the panel of 'un-elected, non-Congressionally approved, ObamaBots-in-their-field, appointed/delegated by the Executive' given the hard fact Board No. 1 can't exist by provision of the PPACA (it never made it to the final draft). In reality, the IPAB is only tasked to automatically cut Medicare provider payments when program spending growth exceeds a set amount. But since one "board" is as good as any other "board" for purposes of spin fed to the collective RWA mindset prevalent on the right, the term "Death panel" was easily shifted to mean the IPAB instead and now THAT was "really" the original "death panel" board described by & 'pointed to' in No. 1 above (though the IPAB is specifically forbidden from nixing medical procedures, necessary or otherwise, by the same Title in the law that established it in the first place).

Fast forward in time a bit and the "goal-post" is moved once again after some of the remaining intellectuals with a fair degree of followers on the right conceded the 2 boards are indeed not one in the same. The next revised line needing to be fed to the base shortly after these "intellectually honest appeasements" took place incorporated the need 'to minimize and recover from the "betrayal of those RINOs"' and help push their base away from "board" focus to "board-member" focus (e.g. the people slated to sit on the Board in No. 1. are now going to be appointed (un-constitutionally mind you) to sit on every (or all?) remotely-related PPACA boards to carry out the task of secretly rationing care/kill people - all without the consent of Congress (undermining the Constitution w/ Executive Orders theme).

Its this rogue, un-named band of Obama's flunkies -- denied the positions on the board they originally wanted (by Republicans striping the provisions from the bill), caught trying to reorganize in the IPAB (only to be exposed by House Republican oversight) and now trying to get secretly appointed to any board they can -- all to complete the original "death" part of "Death panels" (and there is little the Republicans can do about it because Obama is circumventing the Constitution) where we stand today regarding the term (3 revisions in) "Death panels".

So you see - a poll on the multi-shifting meanings of "Death panel" at any given point time is not likely to whither away over time like most proven fallacies should but perform the opposite & inflate its numbers because the latest definition carries over the responding remnants not willing to let go of the now-disproven definition(s) with each re-tasking of the term. Even the increasing complexity involved to properly reveal the fallacy or fallacies works in their favor since most folks are 'against things they don't understand (or can't follow)'. Please, let's stay away from using any kind of poll-test when shifting premises or definitions are in play shall we? -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If the IPAB allows only a pittance to doctors as compensation for performing some procedure on persons over 70, would this not amount to denying (in most cases) that form of care to people over 70? And thus perhaps condemning them to death? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The ol' "enslaved doctors will cause a doctor shortage" bit? I'll play along.

Assuming your "mystery procedure" involves (in some fashion) inpatient & outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities, long-term care hospitals, or hospices as the ACA outlines, these are all exempt from IPAB-proposed reductions in payment rates until 2020. Nobody can truthfully know about or answer to what may or may not happen starting in 2020 here in the world of 2013-2014 either way on this front - if anything had to be done at all at that point in time that is. In other words, if the current trend(s) remain the baseline on through 2019, the IPAB will not be required to advise anything in these areas whatsoever.

If your "mystery procedure" invloves something not falling under anything listed above and assuming we are talking about FY2014, then I'd need more information filled in into your hypothetical first. For starters, did Congress sign off on the recomendations the IPAB has to submit to them by law in the scheduled "fast-track" time period? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You may prefer not to believe that your actions (or those of the government you support) can have harmful consequences, but that does not change the facts. My doctor's partner is retiring at the end of 2013 because he does not want to deal with the consequences of Obamacare. My doctor himself (who initially supported Obamacare) is no longer going to accept payments from Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance (i.e. the patient must pay everything himself) in order to avoid being subject to the oppressive new regulations and price controls. These two are hardly the only ones to drop out. See DrHurd's articles on healthcare reform. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had time for this yesterday but now it seems everybody @ work is finally out of their turkey induced comas. See this KFF brief for the rest of the IPAB game. Personally, I'm glad doctors in it for the money are thinking about getting out & I was one person who never liked the doctor(s) I kept winding up with anyway. Sorry if your expierence is the opposite. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been in health care since school, and I would much rather put my life in the hands of a doctor who "is in it for the money" than one who has no financial incentive to provide the best care to the greatest number of people at an affordable cost. If you prefer to wait around in public hospitals or clinics and be treated by doctors who are highly insulated from the consequences of low productivity, poor outcomes and high costs of overhead, that will be fine because the private practices are evaporating right before your eyes and most of those that remain WILL be those where the patient is offered a value proposition worth paying for out of their own pockets. More room for people like me willing to pay for good service, less room for folks like you who think all doctors should spend a fortune getting the education and experience, then just take a poverty vow and blow it away for the greater good. Problem is, it costs far more to create a doctor than it does a Nun. I know... have the government choose who deserves to be a doctor and pay for their education in exchange for a lifetime of servitude to the state. The next step after single payer, I suppose. After that, choose who deserves treatment and who does not... oh, wait, would that be a death panel? InterpreDemon (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

more TEMPORARILY SUSPEND DISBELIEF material. One accrues 80% of their lifetime medical costs in the last 9 months of life, which surely the obviously paid shill knows. How can this possibly work WITHOUT a death panel? I know how! Just temporarily suspend disbelief yet again as usual while visiting this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Common misconceptions"

OK, per google, misconception = incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding. synonyms: misapprehension, misunderstanding,...; the wrong idea- "a popular misconception about science" '. And per List of common misconceptions "current, widely held, erroneous ideas and beliefs about notable topics which have been reported by reliable sources." But, per the present structure of the article (TOC), would it not be better to let "Common misconceptions" come after "Public opinion", and move "Term "Obamacare"" above or below both those? Do either the "two other claims" have parity of extent with "death panels" to be graded "common" = less than near universal and more than "fringe"? But if "common" = "widely held" is that compatible with the content of "Public opinion"? It could be difficult for a reader to figure out why these particular "misconceptions" are being mentioned. Because they were being promoted to have negative impact? Then why not move to "Opposition and resistance"? Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

These are listed as "common misconceptions" because they are beliefs ("conceptions"), they are false ("mis"), and they are common ("common"). Are you suggesting that the header be changed, or that the section be moved? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Either the header doesn't fit and should change, or the text should be re-arranged, or maybe both. Are they "common"? Is that more than a good faith, but false or fallacious, assumption (my question above)? If the information given by George Orwell III at 06:39, 3 December 2013 above is correct, the section is not reporting merely "Common misconceptions", and the title would be misleading to the plain (non-partisan) reader expecting to be presented with an unbiased outline of the turmoil this legislation and legal process has been causing among US citizens. Were the "death panel" and other "claims" being promoted merely to have negative impact in the perennial Rep v. Dem party contest? Or to alert the public to major policy and constitutional issues? Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order regarding the info given above in the Death panels claims - its not a matter of the info given (w/ my authorship) being "correct or not" and to what degree in either case (though I'm personally confident its just about dead on overall), its finding the sources matching the needed WP characteristics for proper citation that is part of the problem here. At the same time (and in a perfect world) those refs would tie those points in together on a single timeline of events as they happen, reflect the population's perception soon after those events become "reported" and then follow-up on the legacy of the event as it was first perceived while moving forward to the "next point or event" which is near impossible to locate in these cases (imho).

Personally, I just located the provisions in the draft bill and looked for the same in the Senate passed versions - as well as the codified statute to be sure when the 2nd re-tasking (shift to IPAB) took place - and it was easy to surmise what had happened. Palin read No. 1 and No. 2 above (these were in the news at the time of the legislative debate taking place) and her brain processed it as [the establishment of] the comparative effectiveness review board researching end-of-life counseling (Medicare included) or something akin to that. From there, each re-tasking/re-definition always kept that 'Palin premise' at heart and just tweaked the wording or the delivery in order to have it adapt to (or in order to have it adopted by?) "the news cycle of the moment".

There is absolutely nothing of the sort in the law like any of that - its all just smoke & mirrors performed by the media and/or its pundits. Good luck finding a reporter/source that admits today what he claimed yesterday was nothing more than begging the question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking what G.O.III has reported above as fact (why not?), to my mind that is good reason for not putting "death panels" under a heading "Common misconceptions" (or "Myths") which gives false emphasis or nuance or spin to what was happening; maybe "Misinformation about legislation" instead?. Qexigator (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How about calling the section "Partisan claims" to avoid implications as to truth or falsehood? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be informative. We would be ignoring reliable sources. Why would we want to avoid implications of truth or falsehood? Not to mention that the number of "partisan claims" about the law is truly dizzying. Every day talking heads are raising 10, 20 new "partisan claims." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all need be considered admissible to this section: what are the criteria now being applied to allow including "death panels" and the other two "claims", but not those numerous others which are being fended off from inclusion? It's not simply "Common misconceptions" is it? I proposed above "False contentions" about the content of the Act (or bill as the case may be). If a claim which has been made is not demonstrably false by that standard, why is Wikipedia entitled to assert it to be a common misconception? If that makes sense to the great majority US citizens, it may need some explaining to others who are part of the world-wide readership looking for accurate information, properly reported and presented. Qexigator (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Death Panels" could be reduced to a one or two line blurb while keeping the pointer to the full main article covering it without objection at some point soon after but at this point, I say we try anyway. What say you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(If that indent is for me-) Yes, could try. Will you draft as having a good background knowledge: that's usually best for knowing what to leave out, for inclusion elsewhere, if not there already. Qexigator (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the difference in relevance between that which is "misconceived" and that which was "misrepresented". In light of Qex going to the dictionary for us, to "misconceive" puts the onus on the one with the misconception... they misunderstood or did not think correctly about an issue. The issues we are dealing with here are ones where there was no misunderstanding on the part of the "widely held believers", but rather an incorrect belief based upon a clear understanding of what Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama said. There is a difference between the "common misconceptions" that the Wright Bothers, Henry Ford and Steve Jobs "invented" the airplane, automobile and graphical user interface and the "misrepresentations" that would have occurred if the three had claimed to have done so. In a world devoid of the political debate, few would have known what was or was not in the ACA and without the misrepresentations of Ms. Palin or The President they would not have known there were death panels or that they could keep their plan if they liked it. It is that characteristic that makes these "misconceptions" different... the false information leading to the formation of them was asserted by prominent sources, where in my prior example they were brought on by the fog of time and folklore. Thus Spriggs is perhaps the closest so far with his "Partisan Claims" suggestion, but some others come to mind such as "Prominent Misrepresentations", "Misleading Assertions/Claims" and such. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed criteria

The above discussion leads to proposing that the first criterion for notability could be: A prominent person, in these instances, former Governor Palin and President Obama, + quote what that person undeniably said, when; + why that was demonstrably false at the time (per quote of Act/bill) or as later admitted. Next: The "widespread" repetition of that falsehood by prominent commentators until falsehood "widely" known to be such, or shown to be such by reliable source, whether or not repetition persists among mainstream commentators. Qexigator (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk about a can of worms. It would be difficult to find reliable sources for all of those aspects, and there would be ugly fights over who counts as a "prominent person." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This mostly mirrors the criteria previously discussed above at #Name and content criteria--a 1) widely believed 2) falsehood--except you've added a criterion that the falsehood must have been uttered by a "prominent person". What's your reasoning for that criterion? I think we're opening pandora's box if we start litigating who is and who isn't sufficiently "prominent" to include here. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not let the relevant section (suitably named) start by stating that the public debate had proceeded with some false expectations arising from statements which had been made by persons holding, or who had held, public office in the federal or state governments? I presume (as a simple Briton) that a person who holds or has held a major public office in federal or state government would qualify for attention ex officio if they caused a major stir; including US Secretary of State and similar, and official spokespersons for them; and maybe some leading congressman (inclusive gender) at least in connection with legislative content. That would limit the class of admissible falsehoods, not leave it open to all and sundry. Qexigator (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems rather artificial to me. The memes pushed by other people who have never held office (e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, Hartmann, etc.) may be just as notable and widely held. Let's come back to: What do you feel is wrong with "Common misconceptions"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you (Dr. F) one reason... The messages from Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama are far more widely known and received than those of the Heritage Foundation and other advocacy groups or individual politicians not on the national stage. Certainly if you had groups of politicians or their party repeating the mantra, as was the case in both death panels and keeping liked plans, that would rise to the equivalent of a "prominent person". Additionally an advocacy group with a high visibility campaign such as the former HIAA did with their year-long "Harry and Louise" TV ad, largely credited with a significant role in defeating HillaryCare, would rise to that level. As to media commentators, one would have to show they significantly enlightened or changed views, or that their material was original (Limbaugh first claimed death panels instead of Palin) and was subsequently re-broadcast in the aforementioned groups of politicians, parties or high visibility advocacy campaigns to the point where they changed public perception. All pretty much in agreement with Qex's thinking above. What does not qualify is "rumors" (as currently written and existence thereof without citation) of chip implants, which is actually the only true "misconception", IF it had been widely believed, that would belong in the present section, a section which if filled (and it could be) with dozens of similar such things would best be called "Urban Legends". I don't think it will be difficult to adjudicate whether a falsehood was 1) widely received and 2) whether it was promulgated by, shall we say, "prominent public sources" or some pajama clad blogger in the wee hours of the night. I mean, do we really need to find out what the Aryan Nation believed about the ACA and add it to the list? InterpreDemon (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why artificial, DrF.? If editors agree, let a subsection be added for others such as named, but on basis of what qualifying criteria? Would any commentator be admitted who happens to have a Wikipedia article? Is that the way to establish notability in USA? If not, what? In any case, if their comments do not derive from members of the federal or state legislatures or governments, why treat them as notable on this major, major part of policy and law affecting the entire populace of the world's currently dominant country? Some perspective is needed to shake out UNDUE. On the other point: "Common misconceptions" in this article is more like spin (public relations) than soberly informative. Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're both focused to much on the identity of the speaker rather than on the characteristics of the belief itself. Qex, you ask how else we might assess the notability of the speaker, I suggest we don't determine the notability of the speaker at all, so that would solve that problem. InterpreDemon, Palin wasn't even in public office when she coined the term "Death Panels," so you can't call her a "prominent public source" for that. Not to mention that "death panels" isn't known as much these days for being associated with Palin, as much as with a large number of other politicians and media figures and with the Tea Party in general. All of which demonstrates how difficult it would be to identify what's in and what's out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That sidesteps and obscures the point DrF., namely, the notability of the source of a falsehood, determined by whether the person is or has assumed the public responsibility (sworn in) of an elected or appointed officer in the affairs of legislature or government under the constitution. Why belittle the constitution? Mrs Palin has been a lawfully elected state governor, whether or not she (in common with Mr Obama and many other politicians everywhere) is ridiculed or mocked by opponents. That much is well-known outside the USA, but the ranting broadcasters have little weight abroad. Qexigator (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that Palin isn't known across the pond for being the former governor of Alaska. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because Palin was no longer in office does not negate the fact that she was and is a significant political figure whose message, particularly when perceived as flawed or ridiculous, is widely broadcast by an eager press and has had demonstrable effect upon the debate and public perception. Same goes for other former elected figures or candidates (Ross Perot, Ron Paul) with national exposure and recognition, perhaps a perfect example being the recent statement by Bill Clinton that The President should "find a way for folks to keep what they've got", a political shot literally heard around the world that dramatically changed, almost overnight, the viewpoints of many elected officials and voters. InterpreDemon (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're missing my point. You suggested that one of the criteria be that the source of the meme be a "prominent public source." Well the source of the "death panels" meme wasn't a prominent public source. So what is your new criterion? "Current or former prominent public source"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point at all... you're picking nits. At the time Palin's name was probably more widely used in the public debate than names like Boenher and McConnell and she had, after all, been the highly visible and controversial running mate in a Presidential election and accused by many of being the unofficial leader of the Tea Party movement. I mean, you're trying to have it both ways. In the current section as written you lavish quite a bit of prose over somebody you now claim to not be a prominent public source, which begs the question as to just how "death panels" would otherwise have come to be widely known and debated had the claim instead been made by, say, Lyndon LaRouche from his prison cell? InterpreDemon (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You know, one way to calm all this agita would be to eliminate attribution for the source of the misinformation and simply state the "Common misconceptions" and why they are incorrect. If it is indeed a common misconception in the truest sense of the definition, like the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane, one would simply be setting the record straight without attempting to pin any individual or group with the charge of promulgating falsehoods. It would be just like the "rumors" of chip implants. For example, "There are Death Panels", followed by why there are not, "Anybody who likes their current plan can keep it" and why many cannot, etc. That would take much of the appearance of bias out of the section, which right now looks like it was written primarily to tar opponents by lumping together somewhat arguable claims (What is a death panel, anyway? Though Congress may not be "exempt" they do indeed have a privileged deal in that their subsidy threshold is almost double that of ordinary citizens) with absurdly false ones like identity chips or tattooed barcodes on the back of the neck... the last being a rumor not yet in circulation but if mentioned by Rush Limbaugh should appear in this section within a week. InterpreDemon (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My better half wisely noted about an hour ago "... its the supporting refs to the actual content that really matters. The 'title'? not so much..." I just added two that I had handy and, after re-reading / editing-in both, turns out she was right (damn it)

@InterpreDemon - check them out. The Salon one first and then the KFF brief on the IPAB. Hopefully your ponderings will fall into a better understanding afterwards. Heck, I even realized the thing about the chip implants comes from the defunct premise behind establishing the comparative effectiveness research review board (one of the conflated original proposed provisions that never even made it into the final law). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted KFF citation. Kaiser Family Foundation, much of its research especially concerns persons with low income or those who are otherwise especially vulnerable to health-care cost, such as the uninsured and [3], [4], and we always need to know when did s/he say whatever it was, and when did s/he say it. Qexigator (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what the point you are trying to make there. I had hoped the take-away from the brief was to back up the fact the original Death Panel (conflated from 2 provisions that never made it into the law) and this IPAB should never had been "confused" for one another. The other thing was to show the IPAB is only called upon if the already appropriated funding is "missed" & then triggers its neccessity to find cost-reductions, its members need to be OK'd by the Senate, its recommedations need to be signed off by Congress & the whole thing is set in 3 year scheeduled cycles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OH I think if you're questioning how can the Gov. of Alaska have an autistic child, decry how some made-up board might have terminated the pregnancy in her case and today that board only deals only with Medicare (which I doubt any Governor is a member off)? A. Facts seem like they are merely suggestions to RWAs and shifting definition / re-tasking for "Death Panel" proves it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

<< Notice that Sarah Palin's son Trig has Down syndrome which is different from and usually more severe than Autism. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC) >>

And that last is my point... is the purpose of the section to dispel misconceptions about the legislation or to point out mendaciousness or hypocrisy on the part of those opposed to it? If some belief is widely held or common, I wouldn't think it would be necessary, in some cases even possible to explain why it became that way (was it because Palin said it, or because the media hates her and widely reported it in order to ridicule her), rather I think we'd only explain why the belief is incorrect. It doesn't much matter to me, except if you are going to leave it in it's present tone regarding Ms. Palin, it would be inexcusable to omit the mendaciousness of The President telling everybody they could keep their plans when he knew all along that many could not. InterpreDemon (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If "you" above = "me": I was not implying a problem, and see no problem with your recent revisions (George Orwell III) under "Common misconceptions", which helpfully clarify the confusion (so far as I understand it). If the former Governor or other politically prominent person in public office has expressed concerns which any worried parent or person may have for family dependants, their own or others', well and good; and better still if they have been truthfully answered by a body such as KFF (if they practise non-partisan information gathering and publishing). And then there are concerns for the US constitution, public and private debt management, and healthcare for the unwealthy, which are not dismissible as "Misconceptions", whether voiced by that person, by KFF or by anyone else, and are mentionable in the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Cost

The cost of The Affordable Care Act is expected to increase the federal deficit by 6.2 billion after the program gets up and running (Broun, par. 2). With this cost increase, American's are going to find it harder and harder to afford health insurance for their families so a mandate has been set by the president to force a penalty tax among the citizens that opt out of healthcare due to its increase in cost. The American's that struggle on a daily basis and can't afford to carry health insurance will further struggle as the mandate forces them to give up money they can't afford to let go of and doctor's visits will become much more costly if they ever need that service. Premiums are also expected to increase as the citizens will be forced to make up for the increases in care from policy changes and it will send the economy on a downward spiral until a more effective way to solve healthcare problems is found.

Broun, Paul C. “Obamacare’s Regulatory Nightmare.” Consumer Health Complete. (2013) 3-3. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

199.47.67.56 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece in the Washington Times, written by a Republican politician. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Right! Somehow although the insureds have always paid for the uninsured, adding 200+ federal boards and agencies in the middle will result in LOWER costs. Wikipedia should have a warning on every page-TEMPORARILY SUSPEND DISBELIEF if you plan on reading anything here. BTW excellent work here Doc, you're not a paid shill, not at all after all you posted you otherwise so it must be true. Why is this unsigned? It is not from... Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yea the impact on jobs is very debatable. Have the people in the real world repeatedly saying it is so and the people in the temporarily suspend disbelief world claiming it isn't. John Mackey CEO of Whole Foods is now at least the 7th CEO of a US corporation employing over 50,000 Americans to publicly state that the Affordable Care Act is having a negative impact on his business particularly turning full timers into part timers and raising the prices to consumers in the end-the tax that will never count as a cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But John Mackey is merely an executive with boots on the ground making decisions about how to deal with Obamacare every day, hiring and firing, trying to keep the bottom line from being up-ended, thus not a "qualified source" for information on that subject matter. The only information allowed in this article is from somebody with a bow-tie viewing it from the safety of his ivory tower, opining upon obsolete data derived from highly selective criteria that best support his predetermined conclusions. What is important is what others think people like Mr. Mackey will do rather than what people like him say they are actually doing. That's why so much of the "information" here is in the form of predictions rather than outcomes. InterpreDemon (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Only 338 private and public sector employers that have cut jobs and/or hours because of this piece of legislation on this one list alone. http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/121913-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm But it's debatable because there is an academic know nothing with a blog somewhere called temporarily suspend disbelief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

55 or over

Is this report in The Seattle Times, December 15, 2013,[[5] ] relevant to the article, or is there an editing criterion which excludes it? "If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses." Qexigator (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My bet is yes - though estate recovery was always a possibility when it came to medicAid -- even worse for any surviving children in some states -- long before the passage of the PPACA. This is a prety good re-cap of the nuances at work even though it takes place at Daily Kos (read the comments section too).

The only difference now after PPACA passage is there might actually be some folks with assets worth recovering when they pass-on as opposed to being kind of a "rare thing" before it's passage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So, from here in Britain (where there may be similar problems), it looks more a popular concern than a misconception. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "popular concern" because I doubt that it has taken place in any meaningful numbers specific to changes brought about ACA provisions (to the best of my knowledge) yet. And just because some outlets are promoting this as "another under-handed burden...", or whatever the fear-mongering phrase might be, doesn't make it a "misconception" either for the same reason. This nuance probably does belong aside somewhere "medicaid" related but I'm not quite sure where would be best. Let it simmer a bit and see if others have a better idea in the interim. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Article organization

The article is seriously undercovering the Implementation of the massive and complex law by the Administration and the various other political and corporate entities that are involved in that implementation.

It makes sense for an encyclopedic article on a major new domestic law to have sections on:

Legislative history and background which led to the new law in 2010
the Legislation itself, as passed by Congress and signed by the Executive. This would be an encyclopedic treatment of the provisions of the law, as they existed in 2010 when passed, or as modified by any subsequent legislative changes to the Act.
the Implementation of the complex law by the Executive, and States, and commercial companies that are involved in the rollout. This would ostensibly cover the period of time after March 2010 where the US Executive branch is writing the detailed regulations, holding public hearings, building infrastructure in the both the States and in the Federal government, etc. to roll the law into practice on the various statutory deadlines. It would also, conceivably, clarify in an encyclopedic way the set of recent Executive branch changes and interpretation (with dates and time context included) to the law as written.
the Impact of the law on the various denizens of the United States.

The current article organization does not explain the three-year history of the implementation of the Act by agencies and regulation by the Federal government, and the efforts by the various States and territories. Moreover, it obfuscates the large and (now) ongoing problems with the Implementation of the law: putting into practice a complex piece of legislation. Both critics of the Administration, and the Administration itself, have indicated that there are major issues to be worked, and the Administration has been rolling out changes and new interpretations on various important provisions over the past few months now. This is not covered well in the article as it is currently written.

As the article exists today, the "Implementation" is a (very minor) subsection of the Insurance exchanges. This is only a very small part of the overall implementation of the law by the Executive branch. This vastly undercovers the fairly complex 3-year history of the implementation of the Act by the Executive branch, agencies, roll out, etc.

It is a disservice to our readers to not simplify the article such that a reader coming here can see the four or so major phases of the Affordable Care Act.

Therefore, I propose that the initial sections of the article be organized under the following major section headings (following of course a well-written summary lede that summarizes the article in the usual several paragraphs allocated to a lede per WP:MOS).

Legislative history
Summary of the Act
Implementation (which would ostensibly include coverage both of Executive-branch implementation as well as implementation by the various US States and territories)
Impact
(the existing Opposition and resistance section is not a part of my proposal, so I would imagine it would just hang in there as the fifth major section of the article)

I'm not proposing any particular changes to the text of the existing article; just proposing a section-level framework under which the broad-strokes of the Act and its Implementation might be covered in the Wikipedia article. What do others think? N2e (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

SUPPORT, as nom. N2e (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. I've expressed the same sentiment for months. The article was written from a prospective viewpoint and needs to be refactored now that the exchanges have been (mostly) implemented. However we should be careful, per WP:BALASPS, to cover implementation of all of the major provisions and not to focus excessively on the exchanges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I really think this proposal merits further discussion before we start having a survey or straw poll and people start announcing that they "support" or "oppose" it. I am open to some of these changes, but I am not, at this time, convinced that "Implementation" can be divorced from "Impact". I agree with Dr. Fleischman that the Impact section has largely been written from a prospective viewpoint and that it should be updated to reflect the reality of the law as it is implemented, but therein lies the problem of trying to separate "implementation" from "impact"--the latter directly depends on the former. Wouldn't it make more sense to have one section that describes both how the law is being implemented and how that implementation impacts people? It would be artificial and duplicative to have a section that discusses the implementation of "Insurance exchanges and the individual mandate" or "Changes in insurance standards", and then have an entirely different section that discusses their impact. To me, it seems more sensible to say, for example, that the botched implementation of the insurance exchanges in 2013 had an impact of preventing people from registering for the exchanges in numbers originally predicted--and to say all of this in the same section.

On a separate note, I prefer that the "Overview of provisions" remain in the article and that it be placed above the "Legislative history"/"Background" section. I understand that articles on legislation typically including background/legislative history first, but given the utter complexity of this bill, I don't think the lead can adequately describes the law's substance and that its more useful to readers to have a brief overview of the provisions before jumping into the complicated history of the law. A more thorough treatment of the provisions can then be discussed in the Impact section, as it is now. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Proto that you cannot divorce implementation from impact. especially since the implementation is constantly being changed by executive fiat in response to impact, and vice-versa... to try to make the relationship between the two understandable between two separate sections would be dizzying, almost like trying to interpret complex statutes with internal references to other sections and statues. That is why I have always felt (and recommended) that at least when it comes to the implementation and impact they should be together in a historical, chronological narrative, where cause and effect can be clearly understood. "Kids" stay on plans till 26"... impact, Business waiver... impact, Web site failure... impact, You can't keep your plan... impact, Maybe you can keep your plan... impact, States still say you can't keep your plan... impact, etc. Much easier to keep things up to date and understandable as this massive lahar irresistibly plows onward, destroying everything in its path. InterpreDemon (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment (from a non-editing reader): If there is any one willing to do it, may be a consolidated timeline of the contents of the article would help us all, readers and editors, now and later? These are in the links[6][7][8] And see also Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009) and Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2010) --Qexigator (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

something's gone wrong... http://i.imgur.com/hGhQLK3.png Nsun48 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a template transcluded onto this page has been vandalized. This has been a problem recently. As soon as the vandalism is reverted and the page purged, it should go back to normal. Novusuna ^talk 06:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done...but not by me. Somebody found and fixed the vandalized template, and the page has been purged. Novusuna ^talk 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)