Difference between revisions of "Talk:ObamaCare"
Romneycare (Talk | contribs) (→Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) |
(→Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::Well, I have no problem with the change. Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation. I think it's best to go with the name of the law and just redirect Obamacare to the page (which Wikipedia also does). Wikipedia is very obviously biased on the Obama page though, so imitating so biased a site as Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. You have a good point about the Viagra comment too - if that's to stay in the article it should be very well-sourced. I checked the page history and apparently it was added in April 2010 by a now-blocked user.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ObamaCare&action=historysubmit&diff=767952&oldid=764365] It should be fine to remove that I'd think. Good catch! --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT) | :::Well, I have no problem with the change. Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation. I think it's best to go with the name of the law and just redirect Obamacare to the page (which Wikipedia also does). Wikipedia is very obviously biased on the Obama page though, so imitating so biased a site as Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. You have a good point about the Viagra comment too - if that's to stay in the article it should be very well-sourced. I checked the page history and apparently it was added in April 2010 by a now-blocked user.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ObamaCare&action=historysubmit&diff=767952&oldid=764365] It should be fine to remove that I'd think. Good catch! --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT) | ||
::::"Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation". With all due respect, that ship has sailed. | ::::"Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation". With all due respect, that ship has sailed. | ||
| + | :::::Rarely do ships sail without returning. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 11:35, 3 September 2012 (EDT) | ||
== New Material == | == New Material == | ||
As a sidenote, a lot of this research I actually did back in 2010 for an eBook I wrote for the elections that year.[http://www.slideshare.net/Jzyehoshua/the-zambrano-report] Many of the sources are re-used from Chapter 3, pages 87-114. I actually have even more sources provided there relating to ObamaCare that I could use if I needed to, about 90 all together (and dozens more if counting the cases where multiple sources are given for a single footnote). Anyway, this is less detailed than what I wrote there. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 14:22, 30 July 2012 (EDT) | As a sidenote, a lot of this research I actually did back in 2010 for an eBook I wrote for the elections that year.[http://www.slideshare.net/Jzyehoshua/the-zambrano-report] Many of the sources are re-used from Chapter 3, pages 87-114. I actually have even more sources provided there relating to ObamaCare that I could use if I needed to, about 90 all together (and dozens more if counting the cases where multiple sources are given for a single footnote). Anyway, this is less detailed than what I wrote there. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 14:22, 30 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:35, September 3, 2012
The caption is humorous, but somewhat frivolous for an encyclopedia. Good message, nontheless. TheHeroExcelsior 09:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
I deleted the reference in the "treatment of the elderly" section. It linked to an Onion article. --Whizkid 16:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)
- I feel that while being a humorous depiction of "Obamacare," people may think that the picture used in this article is infact the symbol used for the bill. What do you think?
ObamaCare just kicked in. Health care prices increased across the board for me - directly due to Obama's "affordable" health care plan, and my employer said to "expect worse to come." She wouldn't even go into the details for how bad it will get under socialism, but it looked like she was going to start crying. I guess small businesses are already learning of the bad news before the storm actually hits. ...Oh, and now I'm also limited in the amount of doctor visits that I can take per year. I guess I have to make room for 30,000,000 people who will be receiving free health care, paid for by people like myself. Prescription costs increased for me, too. I wonder who I am now paying for to get free health care? Perhaps the unemployed who are already sucking taxpayer dollars out of the system - and probably have been doing so for the last two years. Or, maybe I'm paying the cost for a Public Union member, who is of course also seeking more bailouts for their pension. ...So, I guess this is what it's like to go from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy. We are witnessing the fundamental transformation of the United States, and it's truly one of the most tragic moments of our lives. How did we let this happen? DerekE 00:29, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
It might be more appropriate to change to title of the page from "ObamaCare" to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" since it is now actual law instead of a series of health care proposals by the president. The first line of the page could be changed to reflect this. --Marqmike2 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
- Hmmm. The move makes sense to me, but maybe we should get a little more discussion. After all, conservatives (and maybe even everyone in general, I don't know) use ObamaCare more often, so even though "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" may be more accurate, "ObamaCare" is more familiar. --StoryMaker 21:49, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
- I disagree with Marqmike2. Calling it "Obamacare" seems to fit more with the bias of this site. The real wikipedia says "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare" and we say the opposite, "ObamaCare, more formally known as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I think if we change it to be less obviously biased, people will think we've gone liberal. Also, the first sentence should mention how Obamacare forces citizens to "pay for sex offenders to use Viagra", right now this outlandish strawman is buried all the way in the fourth paragraph. --Romneycare
- Well, I have no problem with the change. Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation. I think it's best to go with the name of the law and just redirect Obamacare to the page (which Wikipedia also does). Wikipedia is very obviously biased on the Obama page though, so imitating so biased a site as Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. You have a good point about the Viagra comment too - if that's to stay in the article it should be very well-sourced. I checked the page history and apparently it was added in April 2010 by a now-blocked user.[1] It should be fine to remove that I'd think. Good catch! --Joshua Zambrano 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
- "Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation". With all due respect, that ship has sailed.
- Rarely do ships sail without returning. --Joshua Zambrano 11:35, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
- "Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation". With all due respect, that ship has sailed.
- Well, I have no problem with the change. Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation. I think it's best to go with the name of the law and just redirect Obamacare to the page (which Wikipedia also does). Wikipedia is very obviously biased on the Obama page though, so imitating so biased a site as Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. You have a good point about the Viagra comment too - if that's to stay in the article it should be very well-sourced. I checked the page history and apparently it was added in April 2010 by a now-blocked user.[1] It should be fine to remove that I'd think. Good catch! --Joshua Zambrano 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
- I disagree with Marqmike2. Calling it "Obamacare" seems to fit more with the bias of this site. The real wikipedia says "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare" and we say the opposite, "ObamaCare, more formally known as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I think if we change it to be less obviously biased, people will think we've gone liberal. Also, the first sentence should mention how Obamacare forces citizens to "pay for sex offenders to use Viagra", right now this outlandish strawman is buried all the way in the fourth paragraph. --Romneycare
New Material
As a sidenote, a lot of this research I actually did back in 2010 for an eBook I wrote for the elections that year.[2] Many of the sources are re-used from Chapter 3, pages 87-114. I actually have even more sources provided there relating to ObamaCare that I could use if I needed to, about 90 all together (and dozens more if counting the cases where multiple sources are given for a single footnote). Anyway, this is less detailed than what I wrote there. --Joshua Zambrano 14:22, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
