Template talk:Health care in the United States

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Video Template talk:Health care in the United States

Spam magnet - please add this template to your watchlists

New template {{Healthcare}} seems rather promotional (naming specific companies while excluding others), and might bear watching. Adding a promotional link to this template would have the effect of quietly spamming one's company name into many healthcare articles (currently 12) without any indication appearing on history pages to raise suspicion. --CliffC 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the companies for now Mineralè 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Health care in the United States

Political Template

I do not believe this template explains Healthcare facts, this template explains healthcare policy options. Therefore it is more appropriate as a page about Healthcare policy options. However I do think it is a good idea to make a template that includes Healthcare in the United States along with policy options, but politics adn policy options should be clearly labelled. Mrdthree 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea provided it's developed by consensus and review the same way an article is. The problem I have with some templates, this one for example, is that they are developed unilaterally by one person and appear suddenly in many pages without any editor review. --CliffC 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I don't even know where to start for such a review. Is there an editor review policy here? There's no parent article of sorts. But I've made such templates before, see Template:SCO_Controversy. If no one takes the initiative what's the point? Mineralè 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the template, but I think it only deals with "healthcare payment" Mrdthree 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

src: www.cfr.org

Problems with template

My main problem with this template is this -- if it's U.S. only, it probably shouldn't include non-U.S. topics like NHS, and it probably should not be placed on pages that are clearly more global in focus, such as Universal health care. I've worked on several of the health care pages, and there's always a dialogue about when it's appropriate or necessary for a page to have a global focus, and when a strictly U.S. focus is acceptable.

I also agree that including company names is problematic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Where does one draw the line on what types of companies to include in such a list? Finally, what's with the irrelevant text on the left side of the template page? A bad copy-and-paste remnant? --Sfmammamia 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant text. sorry about that, I coped over the abramoff template Mineralè 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and you are free to edit it and fix it. WP:Be Bold Mineralè 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

src: www.promega.com

Template commented out for now

I have commented out (made null) the template, pending resolution of the issues raised above. --CliffC 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, please go through my coments above and below. I'm shocked that people commented very much on this but no one fixed it. This was essentially WP:Be Bold - Feel free to edit and the template, or rename it, just make sure the links are all together to list current policy options. Mineralè 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits in the template, but when I go to the articles where Minerale has re-inserted the template, the changes don't show. Is this a function of CliffC's action, or is there are time lag between when a template is edited and when the changes appear elsewhere? --Sfmammamia 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit the page and simply add a space or two, the new copy should show up. Mineralè 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

Bringing it back up

Greetings. I created the template because I thought the various articles where not tied up together correctly, I have addressed the questions put forth earlier about the template. The companies and the NHS have been removed and will move the template name to show the us centric thing.

I was trying to use wikipedia to help me during my employer's open enrollment to understand what the different plans were. I found it to be very inadecuate so far.. Mineralè 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

src: media.glassdoor.com

Disconnect between the template name, and the template content

This template, per the title, is about Healthcare in the United States, but it seems to be about only two major aspects of US health care: Publicly provided healthcare, and one particular form of private (or employer-paid via reduction in wages) healthcare, Insurance-premium-collected-then-insurance-paid-for healthcare -- plus a bit on particular Federal law related to state regulation of healthcare. A glaring omission would appear to be the kind of healthcare that many of us have, and all of our historical predecessors had a century or two ago: I want health care, I pay for healthcare, I get healthcare -- which is analogous to the major form of food provision in the US: I want food, I pay for food, I get food. Some might call this market-provided healthcare.

Moreover, this is and was the major historical way healthcare was provided for in the US, certainly a vast majority prior to approximately the first third or so of the 20th century had this sort of healthcare, and only since the 1970s or 1980s has market-provided healthcare become a more minority, but not non-existent, form of healthcare.

Therefore, this template suffers from a non-neutral-point-of-view. I think it can be fixed, but many other types of healthcare would need to be added to the template, or the template name changed, or something else. Ideas are welcome. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think for you to argue the template was non-neutral due to an omission you would need an article that exists and you think belongs but is not included. Your complaint sounds to be more of a general one on Wikipedia's recentism/systemic bias, not a non-neutral template. Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

Municipal health care "reform"

I think it is a bit silly to elevate city actions to the level of health care reform in the US. I've never read a serious source that considers municipal initatives as real reform. I'm under the impression real/encyclopedic reform only comes from federal or state action. States, for example, have influence in how their Medicaid programs are run. Jesanj (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this fixes it. Jesanj (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

src: cdn.cnn.com

Deletion of United States National Health Care Act

Jesanj has deleted the USNHCA from the template, asking for sources, even though sources such as [1] are being discussed at Template_talk:Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Single_payer. So I am reverting. Dualus (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That proposal is not law. I don't think proposals belong in that section of the template. Jesanj (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The section title is "Health care law and reform" and the bill is a reform. Reverting. Dualus (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And everything else in the section (correct me if I'm wrong) is a law. Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I interpret the section to mean "health care reform law". Maybe we should reword to make it clear. We do want to WP:Avoid template creep. Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You did more than just interpret, you imposed your interpretation on readers. Dualus (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lest we end up with pesky advocates pushing a cause. Jesanj (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that it has been for the past four years the pending health care proposal with the most cost savings. I am reverting. Dualus (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding unverified information. Whose consensus is it that this proposed act is the lead proposal? Furthermore, the act doesn't belong in that section in my opinion. It should be reserved for only health care reform law. Jesanj (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cost savings is irrelevant to the discussion. Why did you bring it up? Jesanj (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is just another reason that the Act is notable, along with the fact that it has the most popular support,[2] and the most co-sponsors in Congress. I will continue to revert unless you come up with a good reason to the contrary. Dualus (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously inappropriate to include that. There is no consensus to add it, so please don't. Thanks.  Chzz  ?  12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe it is inappropriate?

Dualus was blocked (indefinitely). I removed their RFC with this edit. Jesanj (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pending reform legislation has been in this template for a long time and the United States National Health Care Act is the pending legislation which saves both the most lives[3][4] and the most money,[5][6][7] and enjoys the most popular and congressional support.[8][9] What reasons are there not to revert? Dualus (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Pending legislation is off topic and it looks like a cherry picked undue example to put in the template, as it only contains health care reform laws. Furthermore, your rationale to include appears to be nothing more than a soapbox, in my opinion. Two people have found it to be inappropriate. Please self-revert your most recent edit.[10] (Nevermind, I did.) Also, WP:V is a core policy; where is the consensus in reliable sources that this is the lead proposal? Jesanj (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, your revert goes against the WP:Third opinion and the burden is on you, not others. Jesanj (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reforms and pending reforms have been a part of this template for a long time. For what reason do you say they are off topic? Do you intend to address any of the six sources establishing notability? I see no mention of this dispute in WP:3O but I have listed it at WP:EAR. Dualus (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Chzz served as the third opinion. WP:EAR didn't care much did it? And your interpretation is bogus. That proposed reform has no demonstrated relevance to health care in the United States. Therefore it is out of scope, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By "obviously inappropriate", I meant, because it just isn't a law, like the others. For me, it is nothing to do with the sources stated. I hope that Dualus will respect Wikipedia "BRD" principles when their block expires; two people say "no" and one says "yes" - as long as you respect that, and don't keep trying to force the edit through, that's fine. If you still disagree with our opinions, then other avenues are available of course.  Chzz  ?  23:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say that the pending legislation, which is often listed in this template, has nothing to do with the cited sources? Dualus (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate (disruptive? ... hopefully not) you thought Chzz said that. I didn't hear that. Jesanj (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Protected

This template has been fully protected one week per WP:AN3#User:Dualus reported by User:Chzz (Result: Protected). Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to reach agreement. If the editors can reach consensus, you can ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP. If warring continues after protection expires, the policies will be followed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

Editprotected

1. Please add the protection template to this template.
2. Please add Category:Healthcare in the United States to this template as <noinclude>[[Category:Healthcare in the United States|~Healthcare in the United States]]</noinclude>

65.94.77.11 (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial. Anomie? 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia