Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:48, 4 January 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Feb 2007–August 2009)

NY Times/CBS Poll UNRELATED to Single Payer Health Care

The poll should be removed from this page. The poll question asks if the respondents are in favor of a public health care insurance OPTION to compete with privatized health insurance. The caption of the poll states the poll is showing how the majority of the US is in favor of a single payer system when the poll itself makes no mention of a single payer system. Again, it refers to a public option in addition to privatized insurance, NOT a single payer system where government run health care is the only option. Please rectify this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.130.3 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New section needed: Arguments in Favor of Single Payer

Initial skeletal outline:

1. Cost Savings by lowering bureaucracy, administration, and overhead (referneces to GAO and CBO studies having these findings..
2. Patient Freedom to Choose Doctors (related issues like portability when moving, changing jobs, can be put afterwards as well)
3. Healthcare decisions made by physicians and other medical experts and their patients.
4. Prioritizing sicker patients first, rather than more profitable procedures/patients first
5. Democratic (one vote per person) control over the healthcare system
6. Negotiating global budgets including negotiating best-prices from drug companies through purchasing power.
7. add your own additional reasons For here, if they really don't fit into any of the above, or add to the above... Suggest references for (and improvements to) above... --Harel (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no no. A section like this would make this even more Americentric than it is. Let's have stuff about actual Single-payer-healthcare systems, not about US healthcare reforms. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything America-specific about the general concept of who makes the healthcare coverage decisions? No. (I'll resist the urge to put "no, no, no no" there) Global budgets possible, is that specific only to the US? No. How about having lower administration than private? No, that's not U.S. specific either, and one can add other studies besides GAO and CBO.

Clearly, it is relevant, and even critical, to a solid and thorough encyclopedia article about a policy option like this, what it's rationale is or what the reasons are, or what it allows, or doesn't allow. That's a far, far cry from having a debate (yes the title had "arguments for" in it to fit in with the flavor of the Entry as it stood at the time which covered various states, groups, etc) and it's a far cry from trying to quote 'all sides'; there are basic, factual, studied and regularly analyzed features and dimensions of such a policy option as single payer, and the list above was merely an outline not a final draft, of what some of those dimensions are. If you find some such future additions to be unfactual or otherwise problematic, by all means raise the concerns at that time. But you cannot give a blanked dismissal of having the article discuss such parameters, any more than you could for an article on a proposed new technology or even technological protocol; its potential advantages, as well as potential problems and limitations, are entirely relevant.--Harel (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands

I just read this section, and I'm not even sure that it is in fact a single-payer healthcare system. As I understand it, funding is provided through private insurers, who must provide a minimum standard cover and are tightly regulated to ensure that they do not discriminate against the sick. There is some funding to equalize risk, but I don't think that makes it a single-payer system. Anyone disagree? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to take this out. We can always put it back later. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

United States National Health Care Act

It is unclear to me why the United States National Health Care Act, a bill which has been introduced on a regular basis in the US with no hope of actually becoming law, deserves a mention in the intro. It is already mentioned in the relevant section, and a single initiative (among many in the US) is not that important. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed some duplication of the various types of healthcare, and reduced the article's focus on the single-payer health care system that the US doesn't have. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion proposal - Shona Holmes

Editors to this page may wish to know that the article about Shona Holmes (who has appeared in advertsements and in congress campaiging against health care reform and especially single payer) has been nominated for deletion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shona_Holmes_(3rd_nomination)#Shona_Holmes Please feel free to add your comments about this proposed deletion as you see fit. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article should be balanced with a criticism section

As it stands the article only seems to provide a positive view of the issue. Since this is a political issue, it does not make sense to have a "Proponents and support" section without a "Detractors and criticism" section as well. On a personal note, as a young adult entering the workforce in the US and seeing the demographic trends (i.e. the baby boomer generation reaching health-care age) it seems as though proposals like this are another way of transferring money that I don't have to the people who spent all their money on making housing unaffordable. The same generation of people who underfunded Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives and now expect my generation to pay for those too. If I am critical of this type of proposal in the US context, I am sure that someone, somewhere has written a criticism. Not that this isn't a good idea, it just is inappropriate in the US context at this moment in time. 72.203.157.85 (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Criticism (and praise) sections make for bad and argumentative articles. Much better to merge positive and negative facts into the article. Non-facts shouldn't be there at all. Since we already have a large article on the US debate, this article can restrict itself to facts. Already did this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In most of the world, the children work and care for their parents in their old age. This includes medical costs. Usually this is through direct payment to medical providers (assuming that you can both pay and you can find a doctor with the skills needed nearby; neither of these are usually true in the third world.) In the first world, this is instead done through pooling of money by insurance or taxes.Grantor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Term in the US

If the title of this article really is specific to the US, then maybe we should change the article title to something more globally understood. The article should cover all the single-payer insurance systems (since we already have extensive articles on the US health care systems and the various proposals). What should the term be? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page from googling the term "single-payer health care" after reading it in a US newspaper. Many of the the terms from discussion of the US healthcare reforms are not familiar to readers in the UK as there is a general consensus here that our government funded universal healthcare is the best option and therefore discussions about funding options are not often seen. Whilst many of the healthcare reform pages seem US-centic, I think this is inevitable as these issues appear to be much more significant in the US. The terms used may be unfamiliar to UK or global readers, but that it because the concept itself is unfamiliar; hence there are no "more globally understood" terms in British or International English.86.178.51.138 (talk)Caroline, London, 26th May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

Definition(s) of single-payer

The introductory section where single-payer is defined and explained has major, multiple flaws.

1. "Single-payer health care is a public service financing the delivery of universal health care to a given population..."

Single-payer is an economic model for financing patient medical care. Universal care is the concept and practice that all persons within some given population have equal, guaranteed access to receiving some types of medical care. Single-payer is distinct from and unrelated to universal care. One can have a single-payer system without having universal care. One can have universal care without having single-payer. That first sentence presents itself as a definition of single payer, in order to be so, the reference to universal care needs to be removed.

2. "Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single government (or government-related) source."

a. There is no such thing as a true single-payer system in the West. All Western nations involve a combination of public and private health care spending. In England, considered a "socialist" single-payer system, public spending is 85% and private spending is 15%. In France it's about 80% public, 20% private (this about average for OECD nations). In Germany it's 75% public, 25% private. In Canada it's 70% public, 30% private. In the US it's 55% private, 45% public (more on this case below). Obviously not all medical fees are collected and then used to pay all services.

b. The literal single-payer does not need to be a government entity, or government-related. One could have a single-payer system if there were a single-payer in the form of an HMO not operating as a government organ with public money. An HMO could gain a monopoly in health insurance coverage, along with the elimination of public health programs, and become a private single-payer.

3. "Medicare in the United States is an example of a single-payer system for a specified, limited group of persons within a country."

Per the explanation in #1 above, Medicare is not a single-payer system because it also includes private spending for the specified population in the form of, as in other nations with "single-payer," supplemental insurance (Medigap plans), complementary (secondary private coverage), out-of-pocket via deductibles and co-pays and non-covered services. In addition, with the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) several years ago, Part C Advantage Plans provide coverage via private HMOs, as does Part D prescription drugs plans. Hence, the amount of spending for "Medicare" (treated similarly to single-payer systems in other nations) is no longer as much of a "single-payer" system as it was a decade ago.

4. "Although the fund holder is usually the government, some forms of single-payer employ a public-private system."

This sentence is an inadequate attempt to explain and note the issues I have drawn attention to and explained in point 1, 2, 3.

The whole introductory part needs to be written in order to give readers an accurate, adequate understanding of what single-payer means. I'll be submitting language after discussion has begun.

I'll provide the specific OECD, WHO, etc. references and figures for the spending, etc. when I submit more comemnts to this Talk.

Theschwasound (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Be sure to make your changes one at a time, with an explanatory edit summary. Abductive (reasoning) 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points and will make some of the changes. According to the Physicians for a National Health Program Single Payer "refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs." http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer Jerdwyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Also deleted statement that medicare is a single payer system for a certain segment of the population. It's no more single payer than my company insurance is because it does not meet the criteria of a SINGLE entity handling all health care bills. A system in which some people are covered by medicare and others are covered by private insurance is a partially universal system, not a single payer one. Jerdwyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

I would like to point out that WP:RS, which is a firm Misplaced Pages policy, requires us to link to a WP:RS for every disputable claim. If an editor claims that the UK has a single payer system, that editor must supply a link to a WP:RS which says that the UK has a "single payer" system. You can't simply link to a description of the UK system, and conclude that, in your interpretation, that's a single payer system. The link (which I corrected) to the NHS Constitution in the UK section doesn't use the phrase "single payer" anywhere. I searched it. Therefore, the reference to "single payer" has to go out, until someone finds a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there may be a terminological problem in that the term "single-payer" has no real meaning in the UK, or (I suspect) in the rest of the world outside the USA. If British people were asked to define what type of health care system we have, the general answer would be to define it as what it is called: a national health service which is owned and paid for by the nation collectively and managed by the government on behalf of the nation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Types and variations and misc.

1. "Government is increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on individuals' medical care in 2004. However, studies have shown that the publicly-administered share of health spending in the U.S. is closer to 60%."

The sentence beginning with "However,...." contains the near-consensus rejected claim that "the publicly-administered share of health spending in the U.S. is closer to 60%."

There are not "studies." There is one (1) study that makes that claim. It comes from leading figures with the US single-payer advocacy organization Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). It is a tendentious study, presenting a biased opinioned motivated for the political purpose to make it appear the US government already spends so much money on health care that it wouldn't mean much of a change if the nation adopted single-payer and had government take on a bigger role in financing health care here. I'm a very active, ardent single-payer advocate. I was on the commission created by my state legislature several years ago to study single-payer (as a supporter), and was main author of the group's final report, which I helped present to a parent health committee. I've testified about progressive exhalent reform issues, including single-payer and universal care, 14 times in the past 5 years. I speak to group, give workshops, etc. I greatly appreciate Steffie and David's work in general, but this study of theirs is an embarrassment to the movement. The basis of their claim is that tax deductions employers and workers receive due to premiums paid for employee health plan coverage constitutes spending by the government. Hence, rather than spending 45%, government spends 60%. This is voodoo accounting. In accounting theory, what they're doing is claiming that money that could've been collected in the form of taxes (with different tax laws)--potential revenue--constitutes a real expense. What they claim is that money government never has, does not determine whether it is spent or not, or how much of it is spent or not, or how it is spent is spending by the government. It makes their claim that money spent by employers is money spent by government. This is crazy. Their argument is not taken seriously by people outside of the single-payer movement as far as I know in any wide-scale way. There’s one government economist who agrees with them. I could walk through more of the logic and math about why their argument is flawed, but given that it is given little currency it shouldn't be included on the page unless presented with a serious disclaimer. At that, there are other claims made about what the percentage is, but none hold much sway; 45% is the consensus figure. Get rid of the PNHP figure and its study--singular.

2. "Although many Canadian citizens have supplemental private insurance from their employers, this covers non-medically necessary expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare, and accounts for only 12% of national health care spending."

The source of that figure is not reliable; the paper does not adequately explain its terms and more. The percentage of private health spending in Canada is 29.9%, with public spending at 70.1%. Those are the relevant figures if one wants to portray the public vs. private spending dynamic, as the reference to US government spending of 45% or 60%. To contrast Canadian spending while comparing public insurance vs. private insurance is an apples-to-oranges comparison with the US. Non-parallel construction.

The authors of the study do not explain what they consider "private insurance." They do not specific what those figures. They portray figures for total private spending, and break it down side-by-side with public spending for different categories of care, e.g. in-patient, but not so with private "insurance." The private insurance figure cannot be analyzed sans details. Canada has private insurance, out-of-pocket, and a very small amount of spending in what is known as a "cash-market" where citizens can go to doctors who work outside the public reimbursement system and get care for anything that they can get in the public system. However, they have to directly pay themselves; they cannot use insurance to pay for those services. Whatever the case, the aggregate private spending information provides the relevant figures to contrast public vs. private. To refer to private insurance, a better source is needed.

I used to participate--years ago--in trying to maintain the entries for universal care and single-payer, but gave up given the game playing that goes on non-stop by ideologues from all sides. The current entries seem freer of that sort of gameplaying. However, a problem exists in the need to cite a source for certain terms like universal care and single-payer. All sorts of definitions exist, they differ, and I don't find any/many that are adequate and accurate. I’m a bona fide expert with my own organization and site and definitions but apparently I can't cite myself. It is a major failing of Wiki that sourced definitions from some pre-existing site are required in some cases where there are no good ones, or so many that it accomplishes little to cite merely one. Can the user community for a topic agree on one?

Theschwasound (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Very 1st world centric

The experience of the 2nd world in single payer healthcare seems to be entirely missing here. Since this negative experience is the source of much of the opposition to single payer systems in a modern context, the absence of USSR, Polish, GDR, Romanian, Mao era PRC single payer systems and the rest of their communist brother systems seems to indicate large POV problems here. TMLutas (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "second world" also ran elections. Yes, they had elections. Horribly flawed and undemocratic, but they did have elections. Does this mean that we need to list the use of such elections as a section in Misplaced Pages's entry on Elections, as an argument against having elections? That's what the above logic would indicate. If you have arguments against single payer that are based on facts and logical analysis and you can cite, by all means we can incorporate such. That a one-party dictatorship does a less than wonderful job with financing-by-the-state is about as surprising as that this kind of one party dictatorship does a bad job with elections, or for that matter, public broadcasting" or anything else. --Harel (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the thrust of the argument. The essence of single payer is that it is unhelpful to have multiple players because in a multipayer system the payers engage in competitive practices just as you see now in the U.S. where insurers compete to get rid of the sick from their insured pools and retain on their books only the healthiest individuals (like those fit enough to be employed). In a system where there are not for profit insurers, the pools are owned by the contributing members, this tends only to benefit the healthy and dis-benefit the sick (which is the very converse of the object of insurance). In a system where there are for-profit insurers, things get even worse because the pool is not owned by the insured but third party owners, the shareholders, who can cream off any excesses from the pools for themselves. Thus you have the grossly offensive situation of the sick being denied access to insurance and the remaining contributors to the pool being relatively healthy and yet still having premiums sucked out of them and into the hands of people who are in the game only for the profit to be made. Sure, the insurers still do pay out of course, but the gross picture is very clear.

TMLutas seems to be confusing single payer health care and communism. These are about as wide apart conceptually as it seems possible to get. Single payer health care is about providing health care from a single source of funding (typically taxation) but not restricting where you get service from. Communism is a political philosophy in which the state controls the means of production, distribution and exchange and in which property is owned collectively and decisions taken democratically. In single payer systems, doctors take medical decisions and the cost of those decisions are carried by the community. All single payer systems give people the right to choose and if your choice is not covered by the single payer system then you have an absolute right to pay for service privately, either out of pocket or by insurance. There is thus a great deal of plurality embeded in the philosophy of single payer, (and by the way, this extends to systems like those in England or Scandinavia where the single payer also provides the main health care service). The degree to which the state controls the financing of health care is totally in democratic control. If the state provides poor coverage, people will finance the coverage they need themselves (albeitly from their own resources like most other things). That in places like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, they choose not to is a sign that the democratic system is producing the required results.

In a perfect communist system, there would not be any choice other than that which the state allows. The funny thing is that you included the People's Republic of China on your list, and as far as I know, medicine there has never been fully run by the state and it still is not, even to this day. It might be a communist country but it does not have socialist medicine.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen has given a good summary of how very far apart single payer is from the official rherotic/official ideology of Communism. Thus TMLutas' examples are off. But since the actual examples TMLutas cites are ones in which the official ideology of "property is owned collectively and decisions taken democratically" was not respected, the examples are one more step even further away removed from single payer. So single payer differs from what TMLutas conceived in all the ways Hauskalainen summarized, plus also different in this additional way. --Harel (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen and the UK

I've removed now several times statements by User:Hauskalainen that the UK's system is not a single payer healthcare. I did this for two reasons 1) it's not clear that the authority he is citing as not considering the UK as single payer is the definitive authority. The statement is a bit short on references, and prima facie the UK healthcare system is paid for by one payer (the government) 2) He changed only the intro, while leaving the discussion of the the UKs system in the rest of the article. If he truly believes this to be the case, he needs to cite references andestablish a consensus on this page for the change. He also (if he gets consensus) needs to change the whole article to reflect this view, not just the intro. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can find several sources that explain that the UK system is not single payer with a really quick search of the internet. The fact is that the UK is not single payer system because in single payer systems you have government paying for the insurance but the practitioners are mostly privately run. In the UK the vast majority of hospitals are government run and the doctors and nurses are employees of the government. Personally, I think that unless you have a reliable source that the UK system is single payer that it should not be listed as such. DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"most European countries have single-payer health insurance programs"

There is no citation for users to see a listing of who is a single payer and who is not. In fact, my reading has indicated that most European countries use mandatory private insurance, with subsidies for the poor. That does not fall within the range of definitions for "Single-payer health care". Here is a example article:

Specifically, Switzerland and Germany are entirely private health insurance companies. In Germany's case, there are 200 insurance companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantor (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

TAKE IT DOWN- it's still shit

yes this article is still shit. single payer is still a term with most of its play in the u.s.

the article sub headings for "in favor of" arguments having redirections to other articles is terrible anti-topical structure.

the "arguments in favor" amount to the necessary parts of this article to describe what was going on.

i say take the article down rather than let it be written and rewritten as it has been to date.

Rewrite

Have started rewriting this page. Am open to suggestions. info@healthcareforeveryone-alabama.org Wretan (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NOT "Single Payer" in Continental Europe

Most continental European countries do NOT have "single payer" systems, but systems of multiple private providers operating and competing within tight regulatory parameters. The UK's National Health Service viewed in isolation is a single-payer system, but it is supplemented by private sector provision (including BUPA) for hypocritical left-wing politicians and other wealthy folks.

statistical nomenclature

This article uses the term "median" in describing wait time for services in countries that have some form of single payer health system. Median describes the value at which one-half of the observations fall above the value and one-half fall below it. It may be that the correct term to us in the wait-time discussions is to use "mean" as this would be the average wait time and might have some meaningfulness to the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.230.232 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Health insurance vs health care

Isn't single payer a health insurance scheme not a health care scheme? Wouldn't that clear up the debate?

Canada taxes and pays (as a single payer) for health insurance but private companies provide the care. Public insurance, private care. Great Britain=public care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.219.33 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

California section update request

CA State Senator Mark Leno reintroduced California SB 810, "The California Universal Healthcare Act" on March 11, 2011. Can an editor please update the California section with this information? Thanks!

Senator's page for SB 810: http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={5938D509-03E9-4845-9605-F46F87A1758B}

Video to press conference announcing reintroduction: http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={0E44D2C9-74BE-4B0C-81BD-CEA912593120}&DE={DF45DD07-C60E-4D0E-BB14-2DC6EE79F3F2}

98.248.161.70 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is biased.

This reads more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.247.184 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rassmussen Reports Has Been Accused of Conservative Bias Multiple Times

They're inclusion on this subject should be removed and they have been accused of conservative bias multiple times and clearly slanted the results.

Is this right?

From the lead: "Single-payer is a market in which one buyer faces many sellers". Is that right? Surely the single health fund is the seller (of insurance)?PiCo (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the polling section

I cleaned up some accuracy issues on the polling section, which was largely distorting the evidence it was using. Specifically talking about "national health insurance" during the timeframe that the United States was discussing the so-called "public option" is not an implication regarding single payer, for instance. There are a few more issues that come up in light of this:

• The infographic provided is misstating the NYT poll completely. The poll does not show that much support for single payer, but for a "willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance" that would compete with private plans - decidedly not single payer.
• The first line shows 78% support for single payer according to FAIR citing a 1987 poll - do we have access to that poll anywhere? If we cannot see the actual poll, given the problems with polling on this issue, I'm not sure we should include that line at all.

Hopefully we can clean this issue up as soon as possible. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've made the changes to remove the infographic and to tie the reporting of the poll to FAIR as opposed to simple stating it at this time, given the lack of any protest over the last week. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DOMINANT or SINGLE? WRONG CHARACTERIZATION OF EUROPE

I just read the many complaints about this article on this discussion page and I have to agree with many of them. I cannot think of a single country that has a "Single Payer" for health care services. In Europe it may be that your employer picks up the tab, or the employer and the employee contribute jointly into a trade union insurer. There may be a private insurer, or if you are rich you pay for it yourself from your own pocket. If you're poor or unemployed or retired the government surely helps out. Its your choice and its not a monopoly. The UK and Ireland certainly have dominant payers but not single payers but where do you stop counting? In most countries people pay something for their health care, employers pay something and the government pays something. But then government gets its money from taxpayers anyway (people and businesses) so its just a matter of how want to look at it.

This article seems to me to be too dominated by an American perspective and the term, as far as I can see, is mostly used by Americans to characterize Canada's provincial health insurance programs of which there are many in the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.230.158 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PNHP poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PNHP poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PNHP poster.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Overlapping article Health insurance madate

Please note overlapping article with similar problems. Isthisuseful (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Canada

- The bulk of Canada's health care funding does NOT come from the provinces, but rather from transfer payments from the Federal Government to the Provincial Governments. - Wait times for procedures, diagnostics and surgeries vary widely from province to province and within provinces. The statistics given in this article pertaining to Canada are far too general at best and, most likely, inaccurate at worst. There is no current citation. Ntkahnert (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "like medicare" in polling section

One of the main problems with the polling section is the claim that some of the polls were compared to Medicare. The section in question is that

Many polls, such as ones administered through CNN, AP-Yahoo, New York Times/CBS News Poll, and Washington Post/ABC News Poll, Kaiser Family Foundation showed a majority in favor of a form of national health insurance, often compared to Medicare.

For one, only 4 of the 17 polls (3 that are used in the article) actually compare it to Medicare. The other problem is that Medicare is a form of single-payer and says as much in both this and the Medicare article.

Saying whether or not a single-payer option is "like Medicare" is like saying single-payer is "like single-payer". I don't think we should remove the fact-check citation but we definitely need to remove the "often compared to Medicare" and replace "national health insurance" with single-payer (especially since the AP poll was directly asking about single-payer without mentioning Medicare and there aren't other real "national health insurance" plans other than single-payer). CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't reflect the wording in the polls or the wording as understood by respondents. We must go with what the sources say - anything else is original research. With this said, separating out the polls that say "like Medicare" from those that do not for clarity would be a reasonable compromise, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all what you did was revert it and in the process reverted the addition of another poll. Secondly you completely avoided the fact that only 3 of the 17 polls actually used the words "Medicare" so saying "often compared to Medicare" is not accurate.

But more importantly, The polls were cited in numerous sources as being polls on single-payer. For one, the AP-Yahoo one directly used the words "single-payer" and what other "national health insurance" exists? If Americans weren't supporting "single-payer" on the polls what were they supporting?CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The public option was considered "national health insurance" because that's what it was - insurance, offered nationally. To give an example, your "question 49" on the ABC poll says "national health insurance...like Medicare." NOT single payer. Saying that the poll shows support for single payer is completely 100% false, as it did not ask about single payer. You've ignored the rest of my point. Regarding your new poll, the way the LAT positions the poll is not how they asked it - the question never asks about single payer, but "national insurance" "like Medicare." The current wording cannot stay, as it is factually inaccurate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the ABC poll; I'm talking about the 2007 AP-Yahoo poll and the 2009 Time Magazine poll. And that aside, you might want to check the public option article which never uses the phrase "national health insurance" nor has anyone on the subject called it that.

The point with the "like Medicare" comparison is it's like asking whether it's "like single-payer" Medicare is single-payer. It's why outside the context of the fact check citation it shouldn't even be mentioned. Also a comparison to Canada and England is used about as much as the comparison to Medicare. That and most of the plans you seem to think are just "national health insurance" and not single-payer directly compare themselves to Canada including phrasing about "guaranteed coverage."

The bigger point of course is that you are not a healthcare expert or an RS. Multiple sources have called all them "single-payer" polls including the one now and PNHP. No one has called them "national health insurance" or "government in various levels of healthcare" polls. The obvious POV wording is the one that exists now. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to go off the actual poll wording, not the spin by the writers on the poll. The LA Times one you added, for example - the overview wrote "single payer," but they never asked that. Why? Because people do not perceive "Medicare" as "single payer." Because when single payer is asked, it tanks. Another option, as opposed to using misguided, inaccurate spin from media players - offer the polls as the question was asked? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So the 2007 AP-Yahoo poll tanked? How about the polls that compared it to Canada and England? The bigger question is, are Medicare (US) and Canada/England single-payer systems? And if so, why don't simply call them single-payer polls when two sources are doing that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right on the AP poll, so I'll make that change. The comparison ones don't tell us that, and the "bigger question" is not "are they single payer systems" but rather "do voters recognize them as single payer systems." It's why we get diverging results when the questions are asked a certain way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think asserting that voters do not recognize the polls as single-payer would count as WP:OR since (a) all the sources list them as "single-payer" polls and (b) no source has said that Medicare (US) or Canada/UK are not single-payer systems or that supporting Medicare etc. wouldn't be supporting single-payer etc. The other problem is just language, if we assumed voters didn't know we would have to specify on every poll that was "like Canada's system" or "like Medicare" which itself would be burdensome.

I took a third way and created a chart. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This works. I would, however, consider removing the three-state Quinnipiac as it's not national. Otherwise, good job on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Need unbiased author

This article is written more as a promotion than an explanation, citing benefits without corresponding detriments. It also features images that advocate a single-payer healthcare system, as well as poll results showing its favorability, both of which further erode its credibility. Given that this article should be informative rather than persuasive, I recommend deleting the entire article unless it can be rewritten by someone who doesn't have a vested or political interest in the subject. KiloVoltaire (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)KiloVoltaire

I don't disagree - any suggestions? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Right wing polls"

My restoration of the old prose section was reverted, claiming that it used "right wing polls" to "mislead." What data was missing? What "right wing polls" are being used that make my prose section (with essentially identical data) problematic as compared to the table? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The content you put in used push polls to skew responses. They gave a misleading impression of how much Americans would rather have a single-payer system. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? The table section is merely the polls in the prose organized into an unsightly mess. If there are polls to add to the prose, by all means, but this idea that there's a skew isn't evident. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rasmussen poll is a push poll. It's designed to make it seem as if American's don't want single-payer, when they clearly do. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen is not a push poll, it's a respected, widely-cited organization. That you dislike their results is one thing - that the version you reverted back to includes it anyway tells me that we shouldn't have an issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott Rasmussen is respected by the right-wing, but every organization familiar with polls knows that Rusmussen polls always skew a point or two to the right. But that's not the issue. The problem here is that the specific poll used here is a push poll, with questions designed to get a result favorable to interests against single-payer health care. As you can see from the list of polls helpfully provided by the 31.170.166.18 below, the Rasmussen result is an outlier. Your version of the wording assumes this outlier is the norm, whereas the other version of the wording correctly does not ascribe too much weight to the Rasmussen result. Anyway, there's no consensus for your change to the existing wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where's the consensus against it? And you have no proof of it being a push poll, just your long-standing political biases. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was rewritten, and then you reverted it because you didn't like the way it was worded. America wants single-payer and that outlier poll doesn't reflect reality. Please stop using Misplaced Pages to further your agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that America wants single payer? Even Politifact rates that false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Click on the link left below by 31.x. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most of those polls aren't about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. One of the polls (the last one) is not about single-payer. All the rest are. You're killing me, Thargor. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Is single payer "universal health insurance?" Is it something as simple as "guarantee health insurance for all" or does that imply something more for the questionee? By your logic, anyone who was in favor of the "public option" was actually in favor of single payer. There's a reason Politifact considers your belief generally false. So are you still going to fight this, or are you going to accept the facts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong or unable to read or both. The polls in that link all talk about full health coverage paid for by the government in one form or another. That is single-payer. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of single-payer? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's actually not the wording of many of them at all, and Politfact shows fully well how that wording changes people's perception. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

has a comprehensive list of polls from 2007-2010. 31.170.166.18 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of reference, about six different sources consider all those to be single payer polls (including the Rassmussen one). CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet none of them actually are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. As usual. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This is where the person who wants to include the information needs to prove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this is where the person who wants to revert the page to an earlier version that was changed because the earlier version was wrong and gave too much credence to a deceptively-conducted push poll needs to explain himself. America wants single-payer. Get over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen's not a push poll. Your entire protest regarding the source is inaccurate, as is your concept of the facts. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence, you're going to be reverted. Remember: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You want to restore material that gives an improper viewpoint of the actual facts, you're responsible for justifying it with evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a push poll! It was conducted at the height of the Occupy Wall Street protests (which the poll focused on) with the question about single-payer snuck in at the end. Plus it was only 1,000 adults in a telephone-only poll. It in no way compares to the vast body of polls before or since that have concluded that Americans want single-payer. Honestly, you must be extraordinarily gullible to not see this. In any case, your nonsense about burden is ass backwards, since it is you who are trying to change an established section. Your "reversion threat" is meaningless and your tactics are transparent. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there were 9 questions from the poll - two about Occupy, 7 about issues Occupy purportedly cared about. The single payer question was not a "push poll," nor is anything else Rasmussen does. More to the point, it largely matches other polls Rasmussen has taken over the years: . You're opposing facts here, and it can't stand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it isn't a surprise to me that you should believe that. Nor is it a surprise that you should latch on to the single poll in the field that yields your chosen result. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A vast majority of the polls yield "my chosen result." That's why it's "my chosen result." Meanwhile, even the left wing types who dislike Rasmussen don't call it a push poll, for pete's sake. That's POV pushing of the worst kind, and a claim, like everything else you've tossed out there in the last few days, that lacks supporting evidence. Will that be forthcoming? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You're interpretation of reality is fantastic and quite wrong. I will no longer be responding to your fantasy land comments since they don't make any sense. I'll patrol this article to make sure you don't use it for your agenda though. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So that's a no, you won't be providing evidence for your claims? You will be ignoring basic verifiability policy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of any response at the NPOV noticeboard

Given the severe lack of response at the NPOV noticeboard after over a month of opportunity, I assume the protests are no longer in play here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

With no further complaint... Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

After two months of no commentary here, and two months of no commentary at the NPOV noticeboard, CartoonDiablo decides to simply revert a change that has no further protest, yet again. Explain yourself, please, or leave those of us who want to improve these articles to do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the issues still in play

We have at least four people who note that there is no consensus for the current version. How are we going to fix it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of polls / table

As advised at the npov noticeboard dialog, the best way forward is to delete the entire poll/table section and use secondary sources instead. An editor-built construction from primary sources is problematic at best, plus it appears cherry-picked. None of those are where the cost related decisions are included in the questions. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the prose section that existed prior to the table better or worse? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me a date/version that you have in mind? North8000 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, this version, which I'm not married to but is at least more in line and isn't making value judgments on the polls themselves. I'm also not against removing a public opinion section completely (especially in the National Health Care Act article, which doesn't really discuss polling specifically about that act), but I don't see how we can escape using polls when discussing public opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally it would be summary of polls by secondary objective sources. But if that isn't possible, and polls are to directly be used, it should be where the editors agree that there is a good representative inclusion. The ones in these seem to be tilted. That said, the current table doesn't have as severe problems as it did the last time I looked in but I think that the prose is better. The down side of the prose is that it involves a greater degree of summarization, and in Wikpedia the line between summarization and synthesis seems to be drawn by whether or not anybody objects. So if the summaries can be agreed on...... On the plus side, this lets the text speak for itself instead of getting labelled by headings / intros. Also flows better. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially since so few of the polls actually deal directly with single payer health care (a key dispute here). I agree with you on the table issues on a whole, along with adding the undue weight issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we seem to be in a dispute because me and Sc think the table should stay, the only way I see solving this is through DRN which Thargor has repeatedly resisted. That aside, North8000's inclusion is borderline canvassing because he was not involved in this discussion but was involved on a side against it during the NPOV board. If you wanted a neutral source it would be someone that was completely univolved prior. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually resisted DRN because the discussion was already at the NPOV noticeboard. If you have an issue with an administrator asking someone who had been involved for input as to how to solve a problem, then take it up with that administrator. Don't accuse me of canvassing when I did nothing of the sort. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to CartoonDiablo. You are conflating several different things there. I gave my opinion then in an attempt to help and then haven't even watched the articles much less participated. Unless you are looking for someone to orchestrate a mediation process, I have no idea what you mean by "neutral" ...... somebody with no thoughts on the matter? Somebody who has never had any communicated thoughts on the matter? Also, apparently the gist of my last post was not very clear. I consider the formatting of the information (table vs. prose) to be a secondary topic, and a question one which I'm ambivalent on. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you gave your opinion in NPOV noticeboard in favor of Thargor's version and then Thargor asked for your opinion here which would "tip" the consensus in his favor, that is the definition of WP:CANVASS. Someone that is neutral is someone who hasn't participated in the dispute yet.

As of now if Thargor has a problem he can take it up to DRN, the canvass of North would not be a valid justification for changing the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing me with EdJohnson I don't intend to go to DRN until we've figured out if we can fix it here. That would require you to engage with us and come to an actual consensus. Are you willing to do so? If not, then it stops being a content dispute and starts becoming something else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit is done you, you asked for Thargor's opinion. And the point of DRN is to fix something we can't fix here. The consensus right now is they are polls of single-payer, if you edit without a new consensus by DRN, you are edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see that I addressed it to Ed. There is no consensus that the polls show single payer, or that they should be in table form, as confirmed by two admins: . With this information, will you work with us here, at the article, to come to a conclusion? Otherwise, DRN would no longer be appropriate, as it would become an issue of your conduct at this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus can be shown here "There is no dispute. There is only the refusal of a single editor to abide by consensus" as well as SJ's other comments on the content of the polls. You're more than welcome to challenge it in DRN but as of now that is what it is. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One person asserting consensus does not make it so. Two administrators agree with me on this one. Why are they wrong? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Me and Scjessey are not one person and the editors did not think Scjessey was part of the consensus, his edit was done afterwards. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, two people do not make a consensus when four disagree. My point remains - why are they wrong? Will you help us here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to CartoonDiablo, Thargor Orlando did NOT approach me and never asked me to comment. Your continuing (even if it is just based on refusal to go back and reread what you misread) with the clearly false "canvassing" accusation crap is starting to border on something more serious. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the table should be removed. For starters it implies that the table contains all polls regarding this question, which is highly unlikely to be true. Two, as others have stated, some of the polls are not explicitly relating to the Single-Payor question. As a side note, I wonder how many respondents to these polls even know what Single-Payor actuall means. As has been noted in discussions above, Medicare is not a Single-Payor system. I wonder if anyone actually knows what a Single-Payor system is, or what it would look like if someone tried to implement it anywhere. It would probably look like Cuba. Arzel (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading some more I see that the table is basically a reproduction of the pnhp Kip Sullivan paper, and somewhat cherry picked at that. For example, the 2009 Kaiser Family poll has a 58% - 38% response, yet CD leaves out the second question "Having a national health plan - or single-payer plan - in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan." Only 50 percent favored this proposal while 44 percent opposed. Interestingly, the second question is a single-payor question. Who knows what other polls are not included in order to present a specific point of view. Not to mention that the Kip Sullivan paper is extraordinarly biased to begin with. Arzel (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of the sources is that they are single-payer polls, this includes the Washington Post saying most Americans favor it and explicitly by sources like NPR (leaving out the advocacy groups). The fact is by not calling them single-payer polls you are inserting a POV and a fringe one at that.

I just checked again, even the Huffington Post and New York Times call them polls of single-payer. Last time I checked NPR, NYT, WaPo, and HuffPost are not advocacy groups. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but they are incorrect. Neither of the links you added describe single payer polls, so I am removing them. Also, you should really keep the public opinion section in the united states in the United States section. It's called good formatting and coherent article structure. Don't simply revert things because I'm making the change, you're lucky you didn't get blocked for violating 3RR. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey here's an exercise, go to the links I posted and do a cntrl + f search for single payer. Like for instance in the Huffington Post "In poll after poll, a majority of Americans have expressed support for single-payer health care." Care to explain?

The section is where it is because public opinion precedes public policy, it's like that in virtually every article. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, then look at the polls: the polls in question do not talk about single payer, as has been explained to you countless times and you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss. Follow the links: the 538 link is about a collection of polls about the public option, the NYT poll about "government-administered health insurance like Medicare," neither being about single-payer. This is why Politifact rates that claim false. As for "virtually every other article," can you point out some examples? Even if it should precede policy, it should do so within the United States subheader, not ahead of the US subheader. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That people like Sarah Van Gelder confuse the issue does not suddenly make it true. It is like calling the hood on my jacket a cap. Yeah they are kind of the same, but they are different. If you ask me if I like wearing a hood (which I prefer) and I say yes, it does not mean I like wearing a cap (which I don't) or vice versa. That the HuffPo article misrepresent the polls (big suprise there) does not mean that the misrepresentation should follow here. Orwell would be proud of the attempt though. Arzel (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that is Thargor/North/Arzel's opinions and you are not reliable sources. Might I ask why the New York Times citation was removed? The fact is, this has gone on for too long and will be going to DRN again soon. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The NYT piece was removed because it wasn't about single payer, much like most of the rest of the polls should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm so even though the NYT defined single payer as the thing being polled it's not about single-payer? This is why we are in DRN, this going to get solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we're at DRN because your forum shopping has yet to give your desired result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN discussion

See here for DRN discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you rush to DRN. Unbelievable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to "hash out" either they are single-payer polls or they aren't. One way or another the matter will be settled. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was settled ages ago, but your stark refusal to actually read the polls has been noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Small obvious issue shows a big problem

I made one minor wording change to fix a severe wp:npov and wp:ver problem. Namely, the assertion of an opinion of one side was worded as they "pointed to" which structurally is an assertion of fact in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Two milk-toast attempts to fixed it were reverted. (changing "point to" to "assert that" and then later "believe that") And one reversion was blended with a reference change and only the reference change was noted on the edit summary. With such a mild fix for such a blatant problem getting warred out, it's no wonder this hasn't made any progress. And then tat was followed by (in clear violation of policy) warring to remove the subsequently placed verification tag. The references support that they make that assertion, not that their view is fact. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate, yes. I don't know if an RFC/U would be of any value here, either. Really not sure where to go with this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is without getting to a bigger problem with that sentence which is that it is placed to appear to be a header for the table. I think that a good place to start would be a discussion on that one small item. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As seen in the discussion above as well as here (note the abandoning of the discussion yet again), the key issue is the belief that these are single payer polls because advocacy groups define them as such. Truly, few of those polls belong there - they don't ask about single payer, so they don't belong in a single payer article (and since none of them talk about HR676, none of those polls belong there). CD insists that they are because some group says so. I'm fine with attributing that belief to them in prose, but the table and the polls that are there? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a narrower, simpler start. Like maybe that one sentence (or you pick it....let us know) This will serve a couple of purposes. A narrow example is a good way to start sorting things out. Secondly, this article needs more involved editors, and the way that this issue was served up (huge and vague) is a barrier to entry. I don't want to become an editor here. I just got temporarily involved because there is some really-beyond-the-pale stuff happening here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem currently is the polling table, however. The section really has three pieces: the counter, which no one seems to have a dispute with, the table, and the intro. The table should be the simplest issue to solve because the table versus prose shouldn't be controversial. After all, the entire article is in prose, and a table isn't appropriate. The intro is a problem because of the voice issue, the undue weight, the poor sources, and the improper labeling of the polls. It all needs to be addressed somehow. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me be your mineshaft canary. You last post touched on about 8 issues, and the most clearly understandable of them (table vs. text) at first blush looks like a debate over style. We'll never get more eyes that way. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A place to start - sentence in table section

I moved that one sentence which was placed so as to appear to be a header / conclusion from of of the tablular info, and tweaked wording to solve the wp:npov problem where it was stating that the opinions of one side of the debate were fact, (e.g. making them the object of a object of "pointed to" statement) and doing so in the voice of Misplaced Pages. These are edits to bring it in compliance with policy. Now we have something narrowed down to have a real discussion here if there are any objections or differing viewpoints. Are there? North8000 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the descriptions are still poor, the sources bad, and the polls nondescriptive of what's being discussed. At best, we have three, possibly four, polls that describe the contents of the article. We should limit the polling section to those, add them in prose, and be done with it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right, and don't let my little effort impair progress in that area. But this is something narrower. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As this whole article is a mess, our definitions of narrow are different. :) With that said, I think having it as one line might make sense here in the short term, something like: "Advocates of single payer believe their position has wide support in polls (source/source/source), but Politifact has rated a claim that a majority wants single payer as false, as responses vary based on wording. For example, people respond more favorably when they are asked if they want a system "like Medicare."(source) Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CD? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that you two are POV-pushing ignoring legitimate sources and should participate in DRN because if we don't decide whether or not they are single-payer polls this is going to ArbCom. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the volunteer who looked at your DRN request is going to shut it down due to the conflict being based more on your behavior than a content dispute. I have commented there and will continue to do so if necessary, but answer this: What sources do you believe we're ignoring? If you want us to use a source, please explain exactly why you believe the source directly addresses single payer - a news outlet incorrectly reporting something is not verifiable on its own. Please refer to this section about reliable sources, where it states that using sources to "advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source... original research." The secondary sources, the polling, does not explicitly or directly support the claim you're making (with exceptions that we should use, such as the AP/Yahoo poll). So please share your concerns, and share them within policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The content is in the discussion, either we solve it there it will go to ArbCom. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

CartoonDiablo, you just did 4 reverts on this article in about 2 hours....this is a bright line edit warring violation. Please stop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles