Talk:Health insurance cooperative/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
POV problems
Well, we have two paragraphs criticizing the concept and one tiny thing in support. This is way unbalanced. We need more pro-cooperative material here.
Of course, two editors with a long-time history of ideological biases, distortion of sources, and putting their own unsourced opinions into articles love this, but I don't- and no Wikipedia editors should either. The Squicks (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
In the debate over healthcare reform, health care cooperatives are an alternative to both publicly-funded health care and single-payer health care. There once were numerous rural health cooperatives established by the Farm Security Administration (FSA). They have nearly all died from lack of economy of scale, i.e., too small to compete.[2]
It has been proposed as part of the health care reform debate in the United States by the Barack Obama administration as a possible compromise with Republicans in the search for universal health care in the United States.[3][4][5] As it is being proposed by President Obama, a future health insurance cooperative would not be government owned or run, but would instead receive an initial government investment and would then be operated as a non-profit organization.[6]
- Well, here's the bias laid on thick already. The article states that previous co-operatives failed just before it goes on to discuss the recent proposals. It's leading the reader's mind to be slanted against what is coming up next.
While a health insurance co-op is not strictly run by the government, hence not making it a public entity, it has been described by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who is also the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Finance as "tough enough to keep insurance companies’ feet to the fire."[7] Others have suggested that this model has its own problems that should be closely studied before adoption.[8]
- Note the use of "others" here, which clearly violates WP:SYN.
"... such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system." and "Nonprofit health-care cooperatives won't have any real bargaining leverage to get lower prices because they'll be too small and too numerous. Pharma and Insurance know they can roll them." - former US Secretary of Labor and economics professor Robert Reich[9]
- By segmenting the text out this way, it makes Reich's opinions more prominent than Baucus'- which is biased and unfair.
"... according to the Congressional Budget Office, they (health insurance cooperatives) 'seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.'" - 2008 Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman[11]
- See the comment above. The Squicks (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you and our consensus against you. -MBHiii (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I regret the fact that I have to waste time with you, especially given your unrepentant use of sock-puppets to game the Wikipedia system and to get around things, but I'm afraid that I am stuck with you and you are stuck with me. Neither of us is going away. Both of us are here to stay.
- I have no trouble reverting changes by you when they are blatant vandalism (as with doodle, yankee doodle, teabagger, and so on), but the issue on this article is different. It's a bias issue. A lot of what is here seems fine. Hopefully, you and I can work this out.
- It should not be hard for you to find some pro-health-cooperative material and add it to this article. It also should not be hard for you to find anti-health-cooperative material that attacks it from the right (all of the stuff in the article now is from the left) as a trojan horse. Let's get working :) The Squicks (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, what you consider bias is its inherent quality. If you want more info, you find it. The controversy's over, not when you say so, but when a majority does. MBHiii (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- what you consider bias is its inherent quality I'm well aware of your left-wing personal views and that you prefer articles that reflect those. But this is an encyclopedia, and we must follow WP:NPOV.
- If you want more info, you find it. Either you're finding material that is pro-cooperative and that is anti-cooperative from the right, or I am removing material from this article right now to keep it balanced.
- The controversy's over Like I said before, you are stuck with me. Get used to it :) The Squicks (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The article as it is now looks pretty good. I would prefer to elaborate some of the points in the 'criticism section (i.e. exactly "why" does Krugman believe that they will not compete effectively), but I withdraw the POV tag now. The Squicks (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)