Jump to content

Talk:Single-payer healthcare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EllenCT (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 1 May 2014 (→‎Public Citizen report: citation needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is essentially twenty-five separate questions, and an RfC formulated this way is unlikely to resolve the dispute on its own. The proposed ELs vary greatly along multiple dimensions, including quality (e.g. from the US Institute of Medicine down to blogs). However, most editors left "support all" or "oppose all" comments with very general rationales, and it is difficult to conclude that any of the rationales apply equally (in either direction) to all of the links at once.

Out of several editors who were generally in favor of inclusion, only one offered reasons, saying "The general rule of thumb is that more information is better provided said information has legitimate citations and references," which (setting aside the observation that ELs do not themselves need to be supported by references) is not really correct. For example, WP:EL: "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." Editors who were generally in favor of exclusion gave rationales in three categories: WP:NPOV, about linking to advocacy websites; WP:EL, for multiple reasons; and WP:NOT, about the number of links in the list.

The consensus is that these links should, in general, be excluded. However, despite some discussion about the individual links, none of them were discussed by more than a couple of editors, so there is no consensus about any individual link. For those in favor of inclusion, I suggest selecting a small number of the best examples, with reference to the concerns raised in this discussion, and proposing them individually. Sunrise (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above has clearly not yeilded agreement on the external links, so I am opening an RFC on them:

(Since the numbering may be used in discussions, please do not make any changes that would affect the numbering of existing entries)North8000 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citizen action or resource groups
  1. Single-Payer Healthcare Resources. A collection of links to primers, national/state resources, comparisons to other nations, bills/terminology, etc.
  2. Healthcare-NOW!. A nonprofit advocacy group for single-payer healthcare.
  3. Progressive Democrats of America Advocates for single-payer system.
  4. Physicians for a National Health Program. Advocates for single-payer system. Extensive source material from peer-reviewed journals.
  5. Single Payer Action. Activist nonprofit organization supporting single-payer universal healthcare.
  6. Single Payer Central. An independent/unaffiliated central clearing house of information (groups, legislation, etc.), for single-payer.
    • Articles, books, and broadcast programs
  7. Five myths about health care around the world "For people over 65, we're Canada ... for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma" by T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter.
  8. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Hidden costs, value lost: uninsurance in America. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2003. Frequently cited monograph.
  9. Pros and cons of single-payer healthcare Pros & Cons List from Formosa Post.
  10. Sick Around the World: Can the U.S. learn anything from the rest of the world about how to run a health care system? from Frontline, PBS.
  11. Single Payer Healthcare Now. An activist blog supporting single payer healthcare
  12. States Moving Towards Comprehensive Health Care Reform in the U.S., The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
  13. The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
  14. The Socialists Are Coming! The Socialists Are Coming! by Phillip Boffey. Editorial on U.S. "socialized medicine" in the military, the Veterans Health Administration, and Medicare, The New York Times, September 28, 2007.
  15. Whither a health-care solution? Oh Canada BusinessWeek, March 21, 1994, by William C. Symonds, article in a business journal writing favorably about single payer.
    • FAQ and summaries by NGOs favoring single payer
  16. Get the Facts on Health Care Reform Single-payer solution myths and facts from Public Citizen.
  17. Report Card on Single-Payer and Public Option from PDA and Healthcare-now comparing, contrasting, and grading the two proposals.
  18. Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts summary from PNHP.
  19. What is Single-Payer Healthcare? from Healthcare-Now.org (expanded from PNHP with additional information)
    • News feeds
  20. Latest news and analysis about current and upcoming State based single-payer legislation in United States
  21. http://www.healthcare-now.org/category/news
  22. http://www.pdamerica.org/issues/healthcare-for-allsingle-payer
  23. http://www.pnhp.org/news/latest-news
  24. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/category/news/
  25. http://www.pnhp.org/news/state-single-payer-news

Which of the external links numbered above are appropriate? Are there other links which would also be appropriate? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Which specific guideline or policy provisions prohibits the free National Academy of Medicine book, and why? You have given no applicable specifics for your assertion here in the sections above. EllenCT (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a commercial link. Use it as a reference if appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose including any of them. It's inappropriate to create a section that's basically just a link dump to advocacy groups. The purpose of this article is to concisely explain what "single payer" is, not advertise for activist groups or promote a point of view.VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include all. I agree with EllenCT. After carefully reviewing them, I might be able to eliminate some of them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, if we are doing an RFC, I think we should also include medical groups, not just Politics, government, and law and Economy, trade, and companies. Politics and Business groups don't necessarily have expertise in health care policy. --Nbauman (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (invited by the bot) Please don't close this too quickly. I'm intending to do a thorough review with respect to this and the policy but that will take a little time. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend including none of these or else only #10 and #15 (invited by the bot) (see analysis below) Even though these are also biased, they both provide some good information and are produced by professionals as coverage rather than simple advocacy. as an overview. And maybe 1 or 2 good quality pieces elucidating the opposite view. Relevant thoughts are:
  • The most relevant policies and guidelines are WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:External links
  • WP:NPOV is a core policy. I think that an external links section where 100% of the 24 or 25 links advocate one side of the issue, with most of those being pure advocacy certainly violates that
  • In two places, WP:EL clearly forbids long lists like this
  • WP:ELSays to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". IMHO arguments from one side of the debate would not be included in this.
  • WP:EL says: "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view" I think that 24 to 0 or 25 to 0 certainly violates this.
  • WP:EL says to avoid multiple links to the same website. Per the analysis below, at least 10 of the links are such multiple links, with 5 links to one advocacy site being at the top of the list.
  • I think on what to include, I think that both WP:EL and myself lean towards things that provide information rather than arguments for one side. And IMHO material that is simply a part of the argument is simply a part of the argument. By that standard, IMHO only #10 and #15 really provide some information, even though they are also biased.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both 10 and 15, for the record, violate #1 at WP:ELNO, as they offer nothing no unique resource. They would be appropriate as references in some regards, but even then, we should probably avoid advocacy journalism when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I guess that's why I also listed "none" as a recommendation. To me those were the only two that had some information quality vs. pure advocacy. I wasn't sure what to recommend on those two. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove all just use as references Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None - Per many discussion points above. Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include All Randomly selected by the 'bot. Include all of the external links, they are all testable, falsifiable, and they meet Wikipedia's general requirement guidelines. The general rule of thumb is that more information is better provided said information has legitimate citations and references. Checking the links, all of the proposed links which are provided in the Talk:: above are suitable for conclusion.
Also the RFC usually describes whether there are editors in disagreement about a proposed edit and there is usually a brief and concise explanation of what the merits are for different proposed edits. Since all of the proposed external links are suitable for inclusion, I'm not sure why one or more editors felt an RFC was needed. Damotclese (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Damotclese, can you please share as to why you believe the links meet our guideline on external links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all - They come off as references (at best) more than anything. Many of them seem opinion based and not really factual or information based. Maybe if there were some unbiased fact-based sites that everyone could agree are unbiased (maybe the PBS link? or do people some folks not trust them..) The other links seem to have some bias and making an argument favoring one side rather than providing both sides or just facts. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude all - The article contains links to notable publishers of web sites and their official links can be located in their respective articles, so there's no need for a link farm here. If any of these contain information that supports article content they should be used as references not external links. A Wikipedia article should not be a directory of links. Jojalozzo 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Analysis of "side" of the content Not counting the one dead link (#12), I think that 100% of these are promoting single payer health care, and 92% are simple advocacy type wording. The other "8%" are the NPR piece (#10) and #15 (The Bloomberg-published piece). North8000 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of site owners/publishers The first one is mysterious .....it's just an completely anonymous (no author, organization etc. noted) document on google docs. Not counting this or the dead link, of the others, >82.6% (all except #7,8,10 & 16) are links on websites run by groups that are clear about having strong advocacy role towards Single Payer Health Care. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of multiple links to the same web site: There may be others but I spotted these:

  • 5 External links to the "Physicians for a National Health Care Program" website
  • 3 External links to the "Progressive Democrats of America" website
  • 2 External links to the "Healthcare-NOW!" website

North8000 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIASED says the following:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
I think the PNHP site is a good source for supporting information. Does anybody disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do. They're a violation of NPOV and the links are ones "normally to be avoided" according to our external link guidelines, specifically numbers 1, 13, and 19, as well as the WP:ELPOV section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the American Cancer Society is an advocacy organization to be avoided because they advocate against smoking? I think you should review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources --Nbauman (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nbauman, it's important not to conflate RS as used in the article body (bias can be ok, depending on context) with external links. Two different things. The latter should not be a link dump to advocacy sites. VictorD7 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VictorD7, PHNP is the best source of information I know of on single payer overall, pro or con. And most of their sources are publications in peer-reviewed journals, since that's what doctors want to see. Do you know of a better source of information? If I knew one, I'd use it, pro or con. --Nbauman (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nbauman, your reply had nothing to do with my post. I think Woolhandler and her buddies at PNHP are hack propagandists, but I didn't mention PNHP. I just observed that you quoted a rule that doesn't necessarily apply to this discussion on external links. VictorD7 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Victor. We're not talking about reliable sources for the article, we're talking about the external links section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any valid arguments so far against the National Academy of Medicine book? EllenCT (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that it's a valid reference, not an external link. It's not even about single payer, it's about uninsurance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses single payer in at least seven separate chapters, meets all the EL criteria, and doesn't meet any of the ELNO criteria. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an external link, it's a book. It's literally a link to a book. Beyond that, again, it's a commercial page. It's a page designed to sell you something, meeting one of the ELNO criteria. I'm not sure how many ways I need to rephrase this for you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TO, your claim that the National Academy of Medicine is a commercial page is tendentious. If you don't accept our explanations, go to WP:RSN and see what they say. --Nbauman (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a reliable source if it is to be used for a reference. The issue is that a link to the commercial page does not belong in an external links section. Please stop confusing the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" per WP:EL? Sure it's a book; plenty of links to books appear in external links of Featured Articles. The idea that it's commercial is completely absurd. Not only is it easier to download the entire book for free than order a printed copy (if you want a paper copy for your library or whatever) it's from a nonprofit, government national academy. EllenCT (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If many books appear in the external links of FAs, those should be removed as well. It's still a commercial link (a link that provides a form of commerce), no matter how much you like it. The book itself is not about single payer (even if some chapters touch upon it), so it's not really "further research" under that scenario even if it didn't violate ELNO. Again, I encourage you to incorporate relevant information from this book into the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Journal of Oncology Practice

Journal of Oncology Practice just had an article on single payer which a lot of news sources are citing. It's published by ASCO, which is the main and largest organization of oncologists. Einhorn is a former president of ASCO and distinguished in his own right.

http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/10/1.toc

Why Oncologists Should Support Single-Payer National Health Insurance

The authors support the establishment of a single-payer national health insurance plan and encourage ASCO to put its advocacy behind such a program.

Ray E. Drasga and Lawrence H. Einhorn

JOP Jan 1, 2014:7-11.

I think this is a WP:RS. Anybody disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something is "RS" on a case by case basis depending on context and what it's being used to source. We typically don't disqualify a source across the board from ever being used on Wikipedia (even personal blogs can be used to source that blogger's opinion), nor does something being considered a generally RS mean that anything and everything that appears in it is appropriate for a particular section/article. VictorD7 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This needs to presented in context. It can be a reliable source if what's pulled from it is germane to the article.Mattnad (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, are you looking to add from it? Also, what news sources are covering this? A Google News search isn't showing much of anything, it may not even be worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary peer reviewed source at best, or maybe a journal editorial, and certainly not a secondary peer reviewed source like the National Academy of Medicine book. EllenCT (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Here's a Senate hearing with a comprehensive discussion of single payer, including points of view pro and con. There are submissions by people who are recognized experts, and they are questioned afterwards.

http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=8acab996-5056-a032-522e-e39ca45fcfbe Subcommittee Hearing - Access and Cost: What the US Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries

Committee: Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Date: Tuesday, March 11 2014, 10:00 AM

Place: 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Panel I

Tsung-Mei Cheng, LLB, MA , Health Policy Research Analyst, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Ching-Chuan Yeh, MD, MPH , former Minister of Health for Taiwan; Professor, School of Public Health, College of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan

Sally C. Pipes , President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA

Danielle Martin, MD, MPP , Vice-President Medical Affairs & Health System Solutions, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Jakob Kjellberg, MSc , Professor, Program Director for Health, KORA-Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

David Hogberg, PhD , Health Care Policy Analyst, National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C

Victor G. Rodwin, PhD, MPH , Professor of Health Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY

--Nbauman (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the press release that summarizes the hearings. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/what-the-us-health-care-system-can-learn --Nbauman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked sources

I propose including summaries of HealthAffairs.org[1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4], some of which were manually archived after obtaining consensus for inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (edited to name links EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not opposed to #3 being incorporated in some form and #4 being incorporated where appropriate. I am strongly opposed to #1, as it's not really germane to the topic, and #2 seems to be just some advocacy piece that isn't especially valuable, so I'm not really seeing that as worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with any of them provided they are put in the right sections. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#2 is not "just some advocacy piece," it's actually a LAT story http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-watch-a-canadian-20140312,0,2995139.story#axzz2xgEbnfTm reporting on the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging hearing, which I cited above. I think it's especially valuable because it shows the criticism a U.S. Senator has about single payer and a rebuttal to that criticism, which has led others to believe that the Senator is wrong and misinformed. It's been reported in many WP:RSs, so it meets WP requirements for WP:WEIGHT and many professional editors at those WP:RSs thought it was valuable. --Nbauman (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "reporting" at all, it's clickbait from the HealthcareNow advocacy group. The LAT piece that you've linked is a much better source on the material (even if it's also clickbaity), but I'm not sure it has enough weight for a worldwide piece on single payer, nor am I seeing this significant weight in actual news searches. It might be a better fit in a comparison article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link should be to the LAT, not HealthcareNow.

Try searching Google for "Richard Burr Danielle Martin" without the quotes.

In addition to the LAT, this exchange was reported in The Star and the National Post, which (I think) are Canada's 2 main newspapers (and the Post is conservative and a frequent critic of the Canadian government health system). It was also reported on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in the U.S. by more publications. Multiple reports in WP:RS is the criteria that Wikipedia uses to decide whether something is important enough to belong in an entry.

http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/03/13/toronto_doctor_smacks_down_us_senators_myths_about_canadian_health_care.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/12/toronto-doctor-smacks-down-u-s-senate-question-on-canadian-waitlist-deaths/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dr-danielle-martin-gives-washington-a-lesson-on-canadian-health-care-1.2570872

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/03/12/canadian-doctor-schools-us-senator-on-public-health-care/

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/canadian_doctor_makes_anti_obamacare_senator_look_like_a_buffoon/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/martin-1-burr-0

It is a comparison of the health care system in the U.S., Canada and Australia, not just the U.S. and Canada, so it's international.

It compares the results of a more government-run system with a more privatized system. The issue of public vs. private is one that health care systems are dealing with internationally.

The many editors at WP:RSs who chose to report this exchange realize that it addresses an important, critical part of the health care debate. --Nbauman (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a small amount of media have used it as a short hit on a wider debate. I don't see the weight that it would have for this article, but I can see it perhaps having a place in a comparison article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like it looks like 5 articles about one speech renouncing a straw man, renouncing an erroneous argument made by one person. In essence,, for effect, and off topic. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why off topic? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have expanded that to "too far removed from the topic of the article to be in the article". It is basically a comment about a (straw man selection of a) comment that was about the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Burr isn't a straw man. He's a U.S. Senator, who has significant power over health policy. I've seen his arguments repeatedly, when people argue against single payer, in many WP:RSs, including the Wall Street Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Manhattan Institute.
For example, many critics of single payer have said that doctors are leaving the Canadian system, and many defenders have cited evidence to the contrary. Danielle Martin is rebutting Burr's objections. This is exactly on topic.
Criticism and defenses of single payer are essential to the article, according to WP:NPOV. How can we can comply with WP:NPOV if we don't give the arguments against single payer and the responses to those arguments? --Nbauman (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one, it's not an advocacy article. For second, there are surely better sources to use for point-counterpoint style offerings than a virally-shared-but-otherwise-ignored portion of government testimony given in a nation without single payer, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said a straw man comment, and so someone created and implied another straw man - that I had said the Senator is a straw man. BTW the selected straw man comment was a factul error about the situation in Canada. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article is not an advocacy article, but under WP:NPOV it should provide both sides or all significant sides of controversies. Burr and Martin are presenting two sides of a controversy. If you have other sources that present both sides better, I'd like to see them; until then, this should go in.
The exchange is not merely virally-shared, it has been reported by many WP:RS national newspapers and broadcasters, some of which I cited. That's the criteria for including something in Wikipedia.
The purpose of legislative hearings is to establish the facts and debate the arguments about matters of legislative importance. They are standard references widely used by journalists, book authors, academics, policy analysts, and others interested in the topics they cover. If you have other sources that present the issues better, I'd like to see them. But you have consistently refused to tell us what sources you would like to use.
A straw man by definition misrepresents an opponent's argument. Barr is arguing that Canadian doctors are leaving the public system, and that Canadians are going to America rather than Canada for surgery, and that Canadians die on wating lists. Those arguments might be straw men, but those are the arguments I've seen repeatedly by policy analysts at the Manhattan Institute and elsewhere in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, in many WP:RSs (according to Wikipedia's definition of "reliable," which is verifiability and not truth). If you believe that those are straw man arguments, you should be happy to include them in the article followed by Martin's rebuttal, according to WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet that's still not quite what we do. We're not necessarily here to offer arguments, we're here to provide information. What information does a little-interest short debate in a House committee provide with the proper weight to this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several major newspapers and news outlets report the Senate (not House) testimony, but Thargor prefers to champion his view from nowhere Wikipedia hobby horse, pretending that both sides of political debates are always equally valid, as he brags about on his user page, instead of examining the sources (which Thargor very rarely does.) So he asks us to ignore the news reports and believe him when he says the fact-based rebuttal is "little-interest" because it doesn't fit his worldview of political neutrality over accuracy. That is POV pushing, Thargor. Cut it out. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can explain why it's relevant instead of resorting to personal attacks, I might be swayed on agreeing with you on inclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely lost track of which sources are being referred to by pretty much everyone at this point, so I named them: HealthAffairs.org [1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4]. Please succinctly restate your objections and the reasons for them, if any. EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection is that for the US Senate testimony, we should use the LAT article rather than the Healthcare Now article, to avoid any debate about whether Healthcare Now is an advocacy organization or a WP:RS. (And I think it's a better editorial practice to link to the original LAT article rather than a reprint.) --Nbauman (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree because the news article is the secondary counterpart to the primary source video of the Senate testimony. How do you feel about this Wired article? EllenCT (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That Wired article is a great story, and I'll file it (and the Yglesias aritcle) away for the next time somebody mentions Stephen Brill, who seems to have gotten a free ride as a brilliant health care policy analyst from people who haven't done much critical thinking. However, for Wikipedia, Dobbs doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. It's a blog, and for WP the guideline is WP:NEWSBLOG:
"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
Dobbs was giving his own personal account, which was good but it's not verifiable. It doesn't look like it's been fact-checked. He doesn't even give the name of the hospital. There have been many first-person accounts of Canadian health-care horror stories, and Obamacare horror stories, and when journalists checked them out, they turned out not to be true.
It should be possible to find a WP:RS with the same argument, that free-market health care isn't really a free market because consumers don't have adequate information. Then we can have a section on the argument that free-market health care is more efficient than single payer (which I don't think Brill makes). --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth asking [1] whether the blog post was fact checked? EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:NEWSBLOG, so it would be fine if it were relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody else wants to use it I won't object. --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it isn't relevant, Thargor? It's an consumer-perspective account of the relative costs of single payer by a highly reputable medicine and science journalist. If it was fact-checked, per the excerpt above, then we can use its conclusions, right? EllenCT (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired piece has nothing to do with single payer at all, simply one man's opinion on the market for health care. I don't see how it's relevant at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article's conclusion: "You want a market-driven healthcare economy? You’ll get it when the payer has as much clout as the biller does. And as Yglesias notes, the name of that payer is government."
That clearly makes it secondary to the original Brill and Yglesias pieces. So if the editors put it through their fact checking process before publication, it meets the stated criteria for inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It merely states the author's opinion. The meat of the piece is a criticism of the marketplace. I'm not saying it's not reliable, I'm saying it's not relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that the article isn't directly about single payer defies reason and renews my opinion that you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia and you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to contribute to improving it. You are merely pushing your personal point of view that political neutrality is superior to accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ensuring we have a neutral point of view is pretty much one of the most important things we do here with the project. It's not my point of view on the matter, it's Wikipedia's regarding neutrality. If you can explain why a newsblog post about the United States marketplace is relevant to a worldwide article on single payer health care, I could be swayed into agreeing with you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the reliable sources agree that 1+1=2, one political party says 1+1=3, and another political party says 1+1=4, then what does WP:NPOV require? It requires 1+1=2 featured prominently as a controversy, with citations to the reliable sources, and an explanation of why the other popular but incorrect points of view are being espoused by their backers. EllenCT (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using this basis, we should barely have mention of single payer in the American context at all. You're not really understanding how this works, and I'm struggling to figure out how to fix that. What this article needs is a broader expansion of what single payer is and the history behind it from a worldwide viewpoint, not an accounting of every little battle that occurs in the chambers of a Senate committee or every mention in the press. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TO, I think you're the one who doesn't understand how this works. According to WP:WEIGHT, Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There is a huge, prominent literature of WP:RSs on single payer in the U.S. There is no similar prominent literature on single payer outside the U.S. So it follows Wikipedia policy that this article gives greater WP:WEIGHT to the U.S. If you want to include the "worldwide viewpoint," you are welcome to add it if you can find it -- but you haven't provided it despite our many requests. Let's have it. Where are your citations for the "worldwide viewpoint" according to WP:WEIGHT? --Nbauman (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prominent point of view on single payer in the United States is not pro. I'm not sure how you're coming to such a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Among whom? Likely voters? Accountants? CEOs? Those who are covered by single payer systems in the US are most strongly in favor of them. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The polling is quite clear on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The polling that you deleted was quite clear that a plurality or majority of the U.S. public supports single payer. I think we should restore that polling to the article.
But even if the support for single payer was a minority position, it should still go into the article. To repeat, according to WP:WEIGHT, Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If there is a significant minority of opinions supporting single payer, that goes into the article. There are many WP:RSs supporting single payer. I think you would have more difficulty finding opinions opposing single payer, and you haven't done so. --Nbauman (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single payer polling missing from this article as far as I can tell. I agree that significant positions should be included, and this article is chock full of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the single payer polling missing from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-payer_health_care&oldid=588333061 In addition, when this table was deleted, the editor did not preserve the links to the sources, so readers could no longer check the original sources to evaluate it themselves. --Nbauman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the archives for the discussions on those, as the polls you claim are "missing" were not about single payer or did not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the archives demonstrate is that you don't understand polling or how poll questions are written. --Nbauman (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stick to the topic at hand instead of vague ad hominem attacks? North8000 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ad hominem attack to say that somebody was deleting essential information from the article because he doesn't understand polling. If you want me to be specific instead of vague, Thargor Orlando doesn't understand that standard polling practice is to repeat polls using synonyms for the topic (single payer) being polled. He also doesn't understand that in reporting on polls, it's important to quote the exact wording of the questions. I will return to this matter when I can find other Wikipedia editors who understand polls. --Nbauman (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is any point in your discussed post (17:43 April 12) that is not simply ad hominem?
It is not Wikipedia practice to put in polls named as being on the same topic where the poll is not on that topic because the wikipedia editor has decided that they are "synonyms". BTW, if it were determined that they are synonyms, then some articles will need to get deleted as forks, because there are separate articles on the named topics of those polls that you are discussing. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give me the specific text and citation of Wikipedia guidelines which say that polls are on a different topic if they use different terms to refer to related ideas. --Nbauman (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Citizen report

Public Citizen is nonpartisan with a long history of public interest issue support in the US. Is [2] acceptable for summarizing here? EllenCT (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a left wing advocacy group, but what is it that you'd want to summarize? Their points are more or less covered here, as this is more of a summary than a real proposal, and a cursory search doesn't show that the report got noticed. So I'm not sure what this would add at first glance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is dated April 8, 2014, so no notice in the media, etc., is not surprising. It has a 2 page introduction to a 25 page report, so what do we want to say in the article and how do we use the report to support what's said? – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any experienced editor not think that the one paragraph conclusion is most appropriate to summarize?

"A publicly funded, universal health care system would sever the tie between employers and the provision of health care. This would benefit employers in numerous ways. Those that currently provide benefits would likely pay less, and would be spared the administrative costs of furnishing health care benefits. Inequities between employers would be reduced. Perhaps more importantly, employers would benefit from a more fluid economy that should boost economic growth, leaving them with a bigger pool of potential customers."

I hope a competitive labor market isn't too far "left wing" of an idea. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this document is worthy of note, but if the idea that it would free up employers is a noteworthy viewpoint, it isn't expressed in the article by proponents so we should definitely address that if need be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do you object to any of those conclusions or not, and if so, on what grounds? EllenCT (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expressing an opinion on any other points of view here. My sole point is that, if this is a noteworthy viewpoint held by many, it should be included in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say you want to reserve the right to object at a later date? If so, why? How many points of inflection do you think should be on [3]? EllenCT (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the relevance of the image you linked is, but my point is solely that notable viewpoints held by many should be included in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes, American Medical Student Association, some advocacy group which claims members in 16 different California counties, U.S. Senator Sanders in The Guardian, The Atlantic. Are you trying to imply that this viewpoint is not "held by many" or not? EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please meet your WP:BURDEN and describe how you propose to use the report in the article. In what context can it be used to improve the article? You opened this thread referring to Public Citizen. How can the Public Citizen report be helpful in editing? That is the editing question in this thread which we should be focusing on. Posting links to forbes.com, amsa.org, healthcareforall.org, etc. does not assist in article improvement unless you describe how these items can be used. These questions as to what other editors imply is not helpful. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. What do you think it makes you look like to other editors when you spend so many words trying to mansplain building an encyclopedia in response to obviously suggested sources without suggesting any sources of your own or suggesting any article improvements? From my perspective, your edits appear to be the product of remorse over a life wasted supporting the enemies of your personal goals, leaving no alternative but to try to take it out through strongly worded letters to people trying to build an accurate encyclopedia. But I'm starting to develop a Stockholm Syndrome reaction to it, so if you're hoping to get a rise out of me and make me report you for stalking, you can forget that idea. Let's see a source that supports your contention that asking someone what they may or may not be implying can not help resolve a debate. EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EllenCT:, you wanted to add the information in, so the burden was on you to offer up the evidence that it's a noteworthy viewpoint. Clearly, this viewpoint deserves a line in the article given the offerings here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That has got to be the nicest thing anyone has said to me here in weeks if not months. EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single-payer_healthcare&oldid=606575205"