Talk:Single-payer healthcare

Merger proposal

Bringing it over here for more eyes, discussion, since the United States National Health Care Act article is a little bloated and is about a bill that has never even made it to the floor, with most of its sourcing coming from Congressional pages and advocacy groups, I think we should merge the relevant parts into this article under the United States header. Are there substantive thoughts about this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad suggestion. The Single payer article is about a concept, whereas the United States article is about a bill. Whether or not that bill passed is irrelevant.

Howardrandallsmith (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that they are better separate. Same reasoning as Howardrandallsmith. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Howard makes a good point, however, Thargor, if you feel it "deserves more eyes", in other words if you think that there should be a more prominent mention of, and/or more easily findable link to, the United States Natioanal Health Care Act, from the article on Single Payer, then by all means Thargor, go ahead and try to impore the latter of these two articles by updating it with better/link to Conyer's bill. Harel (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wired Magazine on Brill's Time article

Wired Magazine recently published a response to Stephen Brill's Time Magazine article about the uncontrolled cost of health care in the US. The point of it is that single payer universal care would easily solve the problems Brill wrote about. It has specific facts and I think it should be added to the article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/actually-mr-brill-fixing-healthcare-is-kinda-simple/

EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Medicare protester

Can someone who keeps wanting to add this in explain why it's relevant to any of the proceedings here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that someone in an age range already covered by a single payer system thinks it doesn't involve the government illustrates the low information voter problem. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but the section isn't about low-information voters, but about the public opinion. One man's sign is weird Tea Party trivia, not relevant at all to national single payer opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's based on the fanstasy that our Medicare payments pay for our individual healthcare. I can't imagine any other rationale for believing taxpayers are not paying for your health care in a government managed program. 12.153.234.194 (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

Hi there, This article reads like an advertisement for the single-payer system -- totally one-sided. 12.153.234.194 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links

User:EllenCT reverted my removal of the external links wholesale while saying she didn't have time to go through them. That's telling right there, but our external links guideline is pretty clear that the directory of advocacy links are not appropriate. They provide significant undue weight toward one side of the discussion, as well as a lot of this list. I'm hoping that, seeing as she wants the material included, she can explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I was objecting to the section blanking. Let's go through them one by one:

---

• 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

---

Which are the top three least objectionable? Without looking at the content, I would be inclined to keep at least one from every category, whether an anti-single payer site can be found for the first category. But that is difficult because single payer is almost impossible to oppose mathematically. Therefore I would agree with only including an advocacy group in this case, if a specific opposition group can't be found. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a single one worthy of keeping. The relevant news articles to the topic are already inline citations, the advocacy group positions are in the article, and that leaves more advocacy that doesn't fit in the article. They add no value and are clearly not providing a neutral point of view. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had to pick three least objectionable, which would those be? EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In terms of an external links section, they are all objectionable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need a list of links to advocacy sites. That's a clear violation of NPOV. This article should just be about briefly and neutrally explaining what single payer is. Ellen's preposterous claim about it being "mathematically" difficult to disagree with her on this political issue betrays a narrow-minded soapbox mentality, which isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. VictorD7 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Very often, when two sides disagree, one side is correct and the other is incorrect. Mathematical reasoning makes such situations obvious. Do you care more about accuracy or the view from nowhere? EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Including advocacy groups (when their position is stated) is not a violation of NPOV. Since they're obviously relevant to single-payer and their positions are stated, it's barely even worth debating. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. There's really no debate that this directory of links provide significant undue weight toward one side of the discussion and are inappropriate for the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In complex political debates both sides have an array of "mathematical reasoning", but deciding whether single payer is a good thing or not isn't Wikipedia's purpose. Certainly advocating for one side or the other is contrary to Wiki policy. Indulge that crusading compulsion on another site. VictorD7 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt / contested, suggest sticking to those specifically sanctioned by the guideline which are "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material......" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

So how about 6-10, 15, and 20 then? EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)