Talk:Health care reform in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] State organizations

Re: External links: I do believe it's important to list state organizations because that is the ONLY level that significant health care reform is occurring in the U.S. Currently, reform at the national level has been almost nothing but talk. --Lifeguard Emeritus (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, external links should be kept to a minimum, and the Open Directory Project category should used while we seek consensus on what is appropriate. I will make this edit and remove other links (such as specific links within more general sites already linked) and see what others think. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to this but I do feel that more attention should be directed at the state level, with the exception of the presidential race. --Lifeguard Emeritus (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this attention belongs in the content of the article, not in the links section? --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I meant. I apologize for not being clear about where it should go. --Lifeguard Emeritus (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need a list of "opponents" to maintain balance?

If we're going to have a list of pro-reform groups (state or national), do we also need a list of groups that are generally considered "anti-reform?" I'm thinking of groups that either 1) directly oppose the proposals advanced by these groups, or 2) push free market approaches instead. For instance (not carrying any water for these guys), the National Center for Policy Analysis, which seems to push as hard as anyone on the planet for consumer directed health care (NCPA web page on Consumer Driven health care). Whether we agree with them or not, they're part of the political debate. It also occurs to me that a list of advocates is a bit different than a list of sources of information ("These organizations serve as advocates and sources of information for health care reform in their respective states.") Would it also make sense to have a list of sources of information, which would highlight organizations that publish data or studies of one kind or another, rather than ones that make proposals? I'm thinking it would include, for instance, government sources like CMS and Census, think tanks that publish data like the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance industry organizations that publish data, journals like Health Affairs, etc. Or is that too much of a link farm? EastTN (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this page is extremely hard to read

Instead of putting all the pro arguments in one enormous section/column and then all the con arguments in another, it might help to sort by topic. E.g. forecasted impacts on quality of care--and in each of these sections put what economists say the effects will be. Mangostar (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and we need to find a better way. A parallel discussion has been going on the talk page for the article on Socialized medicine. This isn't the first time it's been discussed there, either. It isn't a simple question, because how you frame the debate can subtly bias the discussion. EastTN (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)