Jump to content

Talk:Single-payer healthcare/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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))

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)
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)
#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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Why off topic? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Is it worth asking [1] whether the blog post was fact checked? EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a WP:NEWSBLOG, so it would be fine if it were relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If anybody else wants to use it I won't object. --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The polling is quite clear on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the single payer polling missing from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)
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)
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)
Could you stick to the topic at hand instead of vague ad hominem attacks? North8000 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Criticism section

Just a question, shouldn't there be a "criticism" section to this article? It's a fairly controversial topic and other than "the bill failed" type content, there's no real criticism. Both sides of the issue should be represented, the economics of it, legal questions, pros & cons etc. Coinmanj (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. If you've got some stuff in mind, please share it. Keep in mind that this is a worldwide piece, and the relative popularity of single payer outside of the United States makes it a little more difficult to find quality criticism. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the topic, so I can't really offer much in the way of specifics - although I could do some research. Regardless, there's always another side to something, like capitalism for example. I'll see if I can find some things keeping in mind the global nature of the article. Coinmanj (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, which I referenced in the previous message, gave all sides, including lots of criticism. --Nbauman (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We need something a little more noteworthy, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a Congressional hearing, with several Senators, written submissions by experts with every major point of view, and covered by dozens of stories from major media, is noteworthy. Why do you disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I missed this before, did not want to imply I was ignoring it. The situation with the subcommittee is that we'd expect it to get some coverage, but it's simply not important enough in the worldwide or national discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
IMO such a section is problematic. This should be a general, world-wide topic. Criticism and criticisms, if added, would be focused on the US, and complicated by the various state systems. For those various states, countries, and systems, criticisms are best handled in the various other articles. For more, see WP:NOCRIT. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

Has anyone added this yet? EllenCT (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person who wants it included, so if you haven't, no one has. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What happened to deserving a line? I thought that meant you were offering! EllenCT (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I note that the report was added to the lede. I reverted. Several problems: 1. The report is US centric, and not appropriate for the lede. 2. It leans left, and thus is not appropriate to use in Wikipedia's voice without proper attribution. 3. The rationale for using the report (as per the edit summary) was not accurate. If it is presented in order to "balance", then admittedly it is a POV based report (which is not bad in itself). 4. There was no talk page support for using the report. This discussion died out two months ago without consensus. So, unless the report can be characterized as a "some argue that Single payer health care...." type line, I am opposed to using the report. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I have moved it down with some attribution and fixes. If you're still opposed, I have no problem with you removing it in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I removed it because those advocate assertions are already made earlier in the paragraph, including the claim about reducing employer inequity. The section and indeed the article has a serious one sided POV skew. It reads like a political commercial. The arguments against single payer, and there are many in general and regarding certain details, are almost entirely absent. The article requires significant balancing material or the removal of the list-like advocate talking points. Hopefully regular posters here can do that, but I suppose I will at some point when I get enough time if no one else does. VictorD7 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
My time has been extremely limited as of late, but the article does need help, yes. A lack of a history section is really one of the biggest issues from a balance perspective, as it would help in making it about single payer as opposed to a bunch of arguments. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT:, the information you're inserting, if it's new to the article, needs to be attributed properly and needs to be NPOV. The way you're adding the information implies that it is undisputed fact and does not attribute the claims to any source, which doesn't work. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Who archived the section where the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging testimony was being discussed? There were three other sources if I recall correctly.... EllenCT (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Archiving is done by a bot. Per archive page instructions, they (the archived pages) should not be edited, which includes un-archiving them. Un-archiving such pages disturbs indexing and other bot related editing features. To reopen a discussion, please follow the instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions. The un-archiving you did has been reverted. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Those sections clearly appeared below the archive footer in the archive. Who set the bot to leave one thread instead of ten? EllenCT (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The bot archives any section not touched in 2 months, a pretty long time compared to other pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Down from 90 days. Who ever wants minthreadsleft=1? The various bots have defaults around 10-20. EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to keep any stale threads, but I'm also not touching the bot controls. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with EllenCT that the bot is archiving too quickly. It is splitting up active discussions. If you want to extend it to 90 days, I think you should do it. --Nbauman (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with 90 days, but my understanding is that the bot would not be splitting up active discussions, as it looks at sections. If a section has activity, it won't archive it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Institute of Medicine

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-payer_health_care/Archive_5#External_links some editors said that the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10719 National Academies Press and publication for the Institute of Medicine was unacceptable because it was a commercial site.

Actually, WP:MEDRS specifically gives the U.S. National Academies and Institute of Medicine as examples of WP:RS:

Medical and scientific organizations
Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

--Nbauman (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you think of a good way to summarize its health care outcomes points? EllenCT (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Not an unacceptable cite, but an unacceptable external link. I encouraged its use as a citation if relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Good article by AW Gaffney

An expert recommended this article to me, and it's pretty good. It explains why we didn't get single payer in 2008, what the problems are with Obamacare, and how single payer might succeed in the future.

|title=Beyond Obamacare: Universalism and Health Care in the Twenty-first Century

|author= A. W. Gaffney

|journal=New Politics

|date=Summer 2014

|Volume=XV

|number=1

|url=http://newpol.org/content/beyond-obamacare --Nbauman (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Here's another WP:RS that reported the single payer hearing of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

KHN is one of the most authoritative news sources in medical journalism.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/05/single-payer-advocates-hit-capitol-with-new-sense-of-reality/
Single-Payer Advocates Hit Capitol With New Sense Of Reality
By Julie Rovner
May 21st, 2014, 2:50 PM
--Nbauman (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prematurely archived discussion

The following discussion was improperly archived because someone apparently set the archiving bot to only leave a single thread on this talk page. EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
The complete transcript of the hearing should be online pretty soon. --Nbauman (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Single-payer healthcare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Single payer on PBS

PBS seems to have had a few good stories on single payer, most of them skeptical but they are at least balanced with both sides. You can browse them all with a Google search site:pbs.org single payer

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-u-s-create-single-payer-health-system/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-you-should-know-about-berniecare-sanders-proposed-health-overhaul/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/single-payer/

--Nbauman (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Those against single payer

I don't see any arguments against the system on the page, only supportive arguments. Appears to be a grave lack of balance. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Congressional hearing above had Sally Pipes, and the PBS stories usually had detailed quotes from people explaining why it's impossible. Unfortunately this page has gone through some edit wars which deleted useful, objective material. --Nbauman (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New section for hybrid systems?

The section on Australia states flat out that there are private and government components to their system. I think there should be a separate section for these hybrid systems so that readers don't site them as examples of single-payer systems. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No mention of France, major single-payer system nation

Hello, I'm landing on this page researching for an Eng-Fra translation about healthcare systems. The contents are generally good enough, thank you, but I'm very surprised to not find, in the "Countries" section, a paragraph on France, which has had near-universal HC coverage since the 1947 De Gaulle+Communists (short-lived but decisive) administration. If the page author(s) has no documentation on the subject, I could try to come up with a minimal sub-section on France's single-payer system. Lionel.Lumbroso (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article says France has a hybrid system. "In France, “everyone is covered to a certain extent by the government’s Assurance Maladie,” explains Claire Lundberg, a New Yorker now living in Paris where she recently had a baby. “But most people also have private insurance, called a mutuelle that is either offered through their employer or bought on the private market. There’s a thriving private insurance market in France. . . Private medical insurance is advertised on the sides of buses and alongside movie previews in theaters.”" Ninety-two percent of the French have supplemental private insurance. Many are insured through their employers, as they are here." http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2014/02/single-payer-health-care-is-that-what-makes-cancer-care-in-france-so-different-the-french-way-of-cancer-care-part-2/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Both "single-payer" and "single payer" are used as adjectives throughout the article, starting in the lead. This is unprofessional; we should stick to one style. Which is preferable? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does seem like a good question to me. We could look at it this way; the term is often used with the word "system", as in single payer system. Does it look better as three individual words, or as single-payer-system? Or perhaps it is as opposed to multi-payer system, in which case it is hyphenated. - KitchM (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Content Fitting Subject

There appears to be some drastic editing that occurs from time to time. Perhaps it wise to consider that the subject is only Single-Payer Healthcare and not other types of healthcare.

The only situation where others may come into play is as a comparison or to mention those that are incorrectly considered as such, and why they are not. - KitchM (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 CA and New York State Proposals

CA SB 562 analysis links and tax summaries

CA Senate Consultant report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3728610/SB-0562.pdf

"About $200 billion in additional tax revenues would be needed to pay for the remainder of the total program cost. Assuming that this cost was raised through a new payroll tax (with no cap on wages subject to the tax), the additional payroll tax rate would be about 15% of earned income."

This analysis mentions voters will have to approve this due to Gann limits.

CA Amherst Study: http://www.healthycaliforniaact.org/wp-content/uploads/Pollin-Economic-Analysis-SB-562.pdf

"We propose two new taxes to generate the required $106 billion in additional funding as of 2017: 1) A gross receipts tax of 2.3 percent. This tax will be applied to all businesses in California. It will include an exemption for the first $2 million in receipts for all businesses. Through this exemption, firms that average up to 9 employees will have no gross receipts tax obligation. Firms with up to 19 employees will pay taxes on only about one-third of their gross revenue. 2) A sales tax of 2.3 percent. The sales tax will exempt all spending on housing, utility and food at home. To be consistent with the existing California tax code, it will also include exemptions on a broad range of service expenditures. It further includes a 2 percent income tax credit for families currently insured through MediCal, to fully offset their 2.3 percent sales tax spending." page 3 (or five using PDF reader)


New York analysis link: http://www.infoshare.org/main/Economic_Analysis_New_York_Health_Act_-_GFriedman_-_April_2015.pdf by Gerald Friedman, PhD Professor and Chair, Department of Economics University of Massachusetts at Amherst

"The progressively graduated payroll assessment would apply only to earnings above $25,000; earnings from $25,000 to $50,000 would pay an assessment of 9%. Rates on higher income brackets would rise to 16% for the portion of earnings above $200,000. The rate would be split with employers paying 80% of the assessment and employees 20 percent. This is typical for employment-based health insurance. The employer could agree to pay some or the entire employee share, presumably as a result of collective bargaining. Income from dividends, interest, and capital gains would also be assessed at progressive rates, starting at 9% for taxable non-payroll income of at least $25,000 to $50,000 and rising to 16% for the portion of that income over $200,000. "

Can anyone figure out why the two Amherst studies offer such radically different tax solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Polling

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6)
Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer
By Kip Sullivan, JD
Dec 9, 2009
--Nbauman (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not a good faith proposal to improve the article. Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Single-payer plan

Medicare is NOT a single payer plan. Insureds having supplemental plans implies that. 173.90.51.60 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Any citations from reliable sources that say this? DN (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How about the Oxford dictionary? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/single The first definition is "only one." If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How about no? Single =/= Single-Payer. Single payer, or Medicare for All is relating to, or being a system in which health-care providers are paid for their services by the government rather than by private insurers. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/single-payer - It might help you to try reading an article before making any suggestions on how it should be edited. DN (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How about you trying to understand the phrase "rather than by private insurers" in the definition you cite? It means $0 paid by private insurers and 100% paid by the government. In other words, "only one" payer as I said and the Oxford dictionary implies. If an insured gets medical care and Medicare pays part and a Medicare supplement plan pays part or the rest, that's two payers, not one. 173.90.51.60 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that you are under the false impression that we are here to evaluate terms, conduct original research and use talk pages as a forum. You should read Wikipedia:Five pillars. It will help you to understand the problem here. Good luck. DN (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you believe you are a mind reader, but obviously a poor one. Ditto to you about pillars, especially #2 and #5. 173.90.51.60 (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


Sanders Institute report

Report by Bernie Sanders' foundation and the National Nurses United on single payer. Lots of statistics heavily cited to WP:RS.

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/health-care-research-paper-delivered-to-congress

July 2017

Health Care Research Paper Delivered to Congress by The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United

The Sanders Institute and National Nurses United delivered a research paper, titled Medicare For All vs All the Healthcare Each Can Afford, to every Senate and House of Representatives office on Capitol Hill. This report analyzes our current fragmented healthcare system and suggests a system of healthcare reflecting the nurses' values of caring, compassion and community.

--Nbauman (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hybrids?

I don't think France should be seen as a hybrid system, and I don't see any argument for Spain. The existence of co-pays or complimentary private insurance doesn't make it a hybrid. There is a single payer, the government, that provides health insurance for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweman (talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

UCSF Pharmacy Students Updating information for California's Single Payer topic.

A small group of students from the UCSF School of Pharmacy have chosen to update the California part of this single payer page. We plan to add information about the steps that are being taken to release the bill from its hold status. Our overall goal is to update the page with accurate and timely information. We plan to have our finals edit by December 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparella12 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sparella12 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what Steven has written, our group plans to clarify and add in more depth what SB 563 is, plus the history of this California bill so far.

Beliang (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Also expanding the Description section near the top of the page. --Scottgrigsby (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Point of View

All posts made by the group were neutral view points and provided unbiased pertinent information. Appropriate facts were included with citations regarding The Healthy California Act.The group provided information on what The Health California Act is and those that will benefit from it.The group also provided neutral information on how it will be funded and why it was not approved as of yet. The group provided a range of high quality unbiased comments that improved the overall quality of the wiki page. The overall content was neutral and informative and touched upon many aspects of the policy. Ameercat (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

All posts contributed points that were verifiable with secondary sources that are freely accessible. Sources were of good quality and included a variety of sources including the WHO and news articles. Edits made in the California section were excellent and provides the reader with updated information on the status of the implementation of a single-payer healthcare system in the state. The comments I would make on the edits in this section are relatively minor, but have to do with continuity and grammar. In some instances I can see when the editor has changed and it would be good to review the paragraph as one whole to make sure it conveys all the necessary ideas in uniformity. The last sentence in paragraph two, "...it hopes to be revived again next year..."could be more specific. Again, it's minor, but a suggestion I have would be to include who exactly would hope to see the bill revived and not necessarily refer to the bill itself as desiring a resurrection. Ryan.ng22 (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to quality of sources, more information was added to the last sentence in regards to why SB 562 plans to be revived again next year. This change can be seen in the article. In response to who would want to see the bill revived, I would say the bill is supported by the State Senate since it was proposed by two Senate Senators. The next step in this process is to get the support of the State Assembly. Beliang (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style

  • All posts used appropriate language for the general public, avoiding jargon.
  • Hyperlinks were utilized well throughout the section.
    • Consider adding hyperlinks for "premiums," "co-pays," and "deductables" since the general public may not fully understand the difference between these terms and their significance on how the current health insurance system works compared to the proposed single-player healthcare system.
  • The second paragraph refers to "The Healthy California Act" but sometimes refers to it as "The Health Care Act," or "The Healthy Care Act." It is a minor issue, but keeping it consistent will prevent any confusion. Themis.Wilson (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
  • Citations were provided for every sentence in the first and the second paragraphs.
  • Overall, the quality of the edits made in the California section of the article were good, and they followed the Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles with clear language that is appropriate for the general public; however, careful revision of the citation formatting is recommended. Themis.Wilson (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Hyperlinks were added to the words premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. In addition, changes were made to minimize confusion about the name of the bill, which is supposed to be "The Healthy California Act." Beliang (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I also updated the citations 75-78 and consolidated them to what is now source 75, since they were all the same source listed multiple times. Miraj610 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Copyright Assessment

All posts from group 11 had no evidence of copyright or plagiarism issues. Each additional post made was properly sourced. They do not attribute the ideas as their own original ideas. I would recommend adding in more reference points throughout the paragraphs so there is no question which source their information was pulled from. Overall, the quality of their posts are great and there is a source for each point that was made. kristy.hwang (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms for "Single payer"

Here's an article from Kaiser Health News which gives synonyms for "single payer" used in polls because people respond differently to the same concept when pollsters refer to it by different names.

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/
Support For Sanders’ Single-Payer Plan Fades With Control, Cost Concerns
By Jordan Rau
February 25, 2016

The words used to describe a single-payer plan also affected opinions, the poll found. “Medicare-for-all” was the most popular, with 64 percent of Americans responding positively. “Guaranteed universal health coverage” appealed to 57 percent of people. Only 44 percent liked “single-payer health insurance system” and 38 percent liked “socialized medicine.”

--Nbauman (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-single-payer-health-care/
The dumbest criticism of single payer health care
By Paul Waldman
Washington Post
July 6, 2017
...“single payer” is not well defined, and people use it to refer to a range of very different health systems. In a pure form, it would mean that the government pays for all health care and there are no private insurers; Great Britain’s system is the one that comes closest. But there are very successful systems that achieve universal coverage and have a role for private insurers, whether they’re hybrid systems built on a basic government plan that covers everyone but that also include private supplemental insurance (as in France), or systems built on private but tightly regulated plans from which everyone chooses (as in Germany).
--Nbauman (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Single payer is not loosely defined, it is loosely used by politicians. A single payer system prohibits private health insurance. That is what is meant by "single." If private insurers are allowed, it is a multi-payer system. I noticed that the person who pointed that out below was censored. I guess I will be too. Canada had a single payer system before Chaoulli. Maybe someone could start by citing to the sources that the Canadian Supreme Court used? The various citations of this article are really poor and rarely say what the text claims. This article is in really, really bad shape because of the political implications. I think it needs a POV tag. The general quality of Wikipedia articles on insurance are just really bad. Compare with Investopedia. 05:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.4.212 (talk)

Referencing discussions from 2013 to remove well sourced cites and relevant context is not advisable

See [4]...You will need a consensus to remove all this material. Nothing personal, just standard wiki-guidelines. DN (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What is Single Payer

Lots of conversations about Canada and Taiwan are saying the systems are single payer, yet they involve at least 2, if not more payment modes. Single payer is where one (1) entity pays the full bill. Even in the commentary this is attached to, it admits Taiwan has 2 payers (copays). Canada also has another entity paying for outpatient medications, making it an at least 2 payer system.

Calling either system single payer is not factually honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Cost of single payer

There is much debate on how much a Single Payer system would cost in the U S. 1) So far no national system has been scored, and some reports have it adding 4 trillion to the U S budget. 2) It was attempted in VT, and the resulting cost estimates derailed the process. From the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, he provides a rather neutral assessment of what happened http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050 3) In Germany, one of the benchmarks for a working Universal Coverage system, the cost is a 15%+ tax on worker's wages, part paid by worker and part paid by employer from worker employment burden costs. 4) If we choose a different cost approach model by approaching the costing from a current model, we can look at Medicare, which is a price controlled, service level controlled system managed by the U S government, where 1/3 of the insured are on Private Insurer Medicare advantage plans, 1/3 are on Medicare plus Medicaid or TriCare or VA care, and 1/3 are on original medicare plus a supplemental plan and plus a drug plan. The claims costs for all of the Medicare enrolled are mostly managed by private insurers, since Part D coverage (drug coverage) is all private insurer managed, and they are the constant and repetitive claims. The 1/3 on Medicare Advantage, and the 1/3 on dual plans both have medical claims processed by the insurer (or contracted private insurer) which covers the 20% and Rx coverage Medicare does not manage. Having said that - the cost for Medicare for each of those groups averages $1,000 per person per month (Medicare budget / # on Medicare), which if it is expanded to all 330 million, adds about 4 trillion in federal costs. One can argue that many are less ill, and so will cost less, and then those same persons should recognize that the that is already factored in, since Medicare only covers 80% of medical for that $1,000 per month, and not the other 20% or outpatient Rx costs, which should provide some balance to the medical health impact. here is another point of view of the costing of Mr Sander's Medicare for all to the U S system, which points to a much higher cost, based on research, and a shortfall in tax revenue from that plan https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000785-The-Sanders-Single-Payer-Health-Care-Plan.pdf

based on the differing opinions, and the different studies, and real world application costs already in place - the cost for Medicare for all is far from settled.

A word of caution: There are factors in nation to nation, GDP v cost of healthcare v health outcomes comparisons that gets stepped over in such high level abstract conversations. These high level summaries ignore effects of differences between nations that affect the costs comparisons. Costs like regulation burden, Federal and state taxes ( up to 20% of the cost) on medical supplies, drugs, medical care, regulation costs, patients lifestyle, medical and drug utilization, medical and prescription drug dependency, cost of Dr Offices and cost of equipment, and capacity costs are highly variable between nations, and have profound impacts on the cost comparisons. Policy changes and policy conversations based on "they do, so we should too" are high risk if the UNIQUE factors that affect U S costs are ignored 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Cost of single payer

There are many estimates of what single payer would cost in the US, and on whether the US could afford the tax increases. Here's an article that gives one estimate (which I cited before for the definition of "single payer"):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/06/the-dumbest-criticism-of-single-payer-health-care/
By Paul Waldman
Washington Post
July 6, 2017

(The current system will cost $49 trillion over the next 10 years, and single payer would cost $32 trillion in taxes, so it would save $17 trillion.)

“You want to raise $32 trillion in taxes?” asked CNN’s John Berman. Single payer is many things, but above all it is cheap. And what we have now is the most expensive system in the world, by a mile.

In 2016, we spent $3.4 trillion on health care. That spending is projected to rise an average of 5.6 percent per year over the next decade. If you do the math, that means that between 2018 and 2027 we’ll spend $49 trillion on health care in America. That $32 trillion number the CNN folks are tossing around comes from an analysis of the Conyers bill, which is basically a placeholder

But if we’re going to spend $49 trillion under the current system, and single payer would cost $32 trillion, doesn’t that mean we’d be saving $17 trillion?

--Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC) 2601:CD:300:C26B:95:C2C5:4A64:4DBD (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Polls on single payer

Here's a good NPOV article from The Lancet that explains the different poll results and the reasons why.

http://usa.thelancet.com/blog/2018-03-13-single-payer-healthcare-debate-takes-stage-managed-care-0 Single payer healthcare debate takes the stage in managed care
John Otrompke
The Lancet
13 March 2018

Two of the advocates in the eloquent and occasionally fiery debate cited recent surveys: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, PhD, president of the American Action Forum said that a survey of 1,100 likely voters his organization had commissioned in February found that 51% of respondents opposed single payer healthcare, while 41% were in favor of it.

To the contrary, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special projects at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Meno Park, California, his organization had been conducting surveys on the topic which found that 54% of adults favor single payer, while 43% oppose it. “The number has been growing modestly over time” since 1998, added Levitt.

“If you present people with the kinds of arguments that opponents would use, those arguments do resonate and diminish support; whereas if you present them with arguments in favor of it, that blunts the opposition as well,” he noted.

--Nbauman (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to other nations

The beginning of this article contrasts Canada vs. UK as distinct models, but then later in the article it says the United States National Health Care Act is "the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare, the United Kingdom's National Health Service" (Single-payer healthcare#National policies and proposals). I believe the Act proposes a Single-payer system as opposed to a Beveridge Model one, but I would prefer someone with more expertise clarify this part of the article. Daask (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Medicare for All" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Medicare for All. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare for All until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single-payer_healthcare/Archive_6&oldid=1194761270"