Talk:Universal health care/Archive 1

message: Universal health care previously redirected to Publicly-funded medicine. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that this article deserves to stand-alone. A Google search of "Universal health care" receives 1,460,000 hits, whereas "Publicly-funded medicine" receives only 11,800 (many of which simply mirror the Wikipedia article). -AED 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreation of article

message: How about you register a user name, so we can hammer out this article properly? The Support and Opposition sections are to reflect what views exist on the subject. Not what you believe to be factual or not factual?-AED 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:24.17.137.180]]

message: As I stated quite clearly in the edit notes, the news article I cited came from a blog for an organization that I'm an active member of.  It is NOT a personal blog, but rather a news blog for the organization, which is the primary means through which they publish their articles.
When I first looked at the universal health care entry, there were 7 points supporting, and 14 points against, or a 2:1 ratio.  Many of those opposing points were overly broad, generalized, and even factually inaccurate.  In addition, nearly half of them all came from the same source, an article from the CATO institute, a political think-tank organization with very strong ties to the neo-liberal sector of the Republican party.  The CATO institute is one of the most vocal opponents of universal health care, or anything that is not run by the private sector for that matter.  Citing talking points from such an organization, particularly talking points that are simply not grounded in fact, is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is here for.  Furthermore, it misleads readers into thinking statements such as that universal health care creates a "decreased quality of care" are factual, when they clearly are not.  Universal health care has never been directly tied to a decrease in quality of care; in fact, in most countries it has led to an increased quality of care according to statistical data.  And on top of all that, while CATO was referenced as a resource, it was not even listed as an opposing organization, which only serves to further mislead readers about the content of the article.
All I did was balanced it out a bit.  I left most of the opposing points there unchanged, while making minimal revisions to others where possible (i.e. changing "increased waiting times" to "increased waiting times in some cases," since that point only even applies to governments with excessive control over private practices and/or that don't have sufficient infrustructure, such as an adequite number of hospitals or nurses, to compensate for a possible increase in demand created by increased access to health care).
Oh and as for the username thing, that's because I logon from on campus and at home, as well as on my laptop sometimes, and I usually don't bother to login every time I switch computers.  That's also why the IP address varies a little.  Not intended to deceive anyone!
I think it's fine now as-is.  There were a few points you legitimately corrected me on, such as an unnecessary wording change in opposition and forgetting to cite a source, and those I did not change back.  I would like to see more opposing organizations listed so it's a little more balanced there as well, but somehow I think you would be better at finding those than I would.  :)
Other than that, I think we have a reasonable compromise as it stands right now.  I removed the few opposing points that were just aggregiously unfactual, revised a few others, and added some very commonly-cited facts to the support side of it.  I understand that I kinda stepped on your turf here, and I apologize; but I'm willing to leave support and opposition at this reasonable compromise now if you are.  =)
--Kris
AED Responded:
It's not my turf; I think we agree that it is an article that deserves to be created and expanded. I would just like the opportunity to discuss our differences on how certain items should be edited before they are edited.
#RE: Your edit comment "Actual arguments for and against in the article must be fact only." I think there is a bit of a double standard here in what is considered to be "fact"; I hope to discuss our differences on the for/against points shortly.
#RE: Your blog Citizens for Universal Health Care. A Google test for "Citizens for Universal Health Care" get 114 hits. I'm currently willing to give you a little leeway on this (particularly since most of the points you make can be coroborated by other pro-UHC references), but an argument could be made per Wikipedia:Notability that it should not be listed here. You need to be extremely careful about citing yourself in encyclopedia articles.
#RE: Balance. Removing legitimate information is not how an article should be balance; again, I hope to discuss our differences on the for/against points shortly. In the external links section, I think major organizations whose primary mission has something to do with healthcare should be listed not necessarily every political group that has a take on the issue. It does make sense to me that there will be more groups organized to support UHC than groups formed to oppose it, so I don't expect the links to be equal in number.
Let's see what we can achieve here.-AED 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE 

message: Info: Publicly Funded Health Care is a derogatory/ insulting way that "Big Insuranse Companies" in Massachusetts use to slur "Universal Health Care in our newspapers." It is a propaganda word, no more/ no less. Its like someone with a beef against my state calling it Taxachewstts and not Massachusetts. Universal Health Coverage... (Thats the "legal name" for it in Massachusetts and not Publicly Funded... They say it to Malign our plan to imply that it makes an unfair "tax burden" on the taxpayers that the quality healthcare will be destroyed. I really don't want to get into this argument but make no changes on the listing due to propaganda by Big Insurance lobbyists. Just state the facts. Its called Universal Health Coverage...   --merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, I've heard that "publicly funded healthcare" is a term used by some to tone down what others call "socialized medicine". -AED 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Publicly Funded Health Care?''' 

message: Publicly-funded medicine and Universal health care are two separate things.  Specifically, the term "publicly-funded medicine" is much broader, and could be used to describe programs such as HMO's, medicare, medicaid, emergency pandemic vaccinations, subsidies to private insurance and drug companies, etc.  None of those things just described could be referred to as universal health care.  Granted, universal health care does probably fall under the category of publicly-funded medicine, but that doesn't mean the two articles should be merged.  That would be like saying you should merge an article about oranges with an article about fruits because they're essentially the same thing-- when, in fact, an orange merely falls under the category of fruit, and is worthy of its own stand-alone article.  The same thing applies to publicly-funded medicine and universal health care.  --Kris/24.19.255.254 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same category doesn't equal same topic

message: I have moved a lengthy advocacy post that was origionally place under this section by Merlinusdawna to that users talk page, based on the Wikipedia is not a soapbox principle. I will let others determine if that material is OK for the userspace, but based on the guidance it has no place here. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Care Talk: 

message: Why is one of the links being repeatedly deleted?  Salvor Hardin 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM for the reasons why. If you disagree and feel that the links meet the criteria for being included here at Wikipedia based on these guidance articles, please explain.  Thanks, -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read the guidance and I have no idea what you're talking about.  If you want to remove this link, then YOU need to make a case for why. Salvor Hardin 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: AED, I highly reguard your edits, and your recomendations here are well stated. While I still have reservations about the two links you recomend that be kept, I will not touch those at this time. After waiting now for a while to give myself some perspective, I have removed the links where you agreed with me. Thaks again, -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Section