Talk:Clinton health care plan of 1993

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bias

This article has subtle but visible bias that favors the plan and the Clinton administration and discounts any efforts made by Republicans in Congress since it's failure to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.1.174 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2005

If you've got some specific complaints, that'd be great. If you're just trying to get back at me for nominating your vanity articles for deletion, please stop disrupting Wikipedia. RadicalSubversiv E 10:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, you haven't seen fit to respond here, but taking on your edits:
  1. The plan did not "quickly stall" -- it was initially expected to pass Congress easily, as there was huge political momentum behind health care reform in the early 90s.
  2. The plan's leading opponents were conservatives and the health insurance industry, and there's no reason for the article not to name them.
  3. It's simply a fact that Congress hasn't seriously looked at universal coverage since, and that too should be reported.
I look forward to your response these points, and I'm not looking for an edit war, but your changes to the article are not acceptable as they stand. RadicalSubversiv E 10:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Radicalsubversiv. I don't see anything particularly POV in the article. I only wish it detailed more of the nuts and bolts of the plan. Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the 1000 page document? MoodyGroove 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the POV of not-so-subtle connection between this article which is supposed to discuss the 1993 Bill Clinton plan and the 2008 Presidential campaign of Hilary Clinton? There are two pictures on this page - 1 of the Surgeon General and Hilary and the other of Hilary and an unknown person. Two pictures of Hilary and none of Bill on a page dedicated to a major Bill Clinton plan? Sorria2000 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I please know why you view the connection as problematic? I'm assuming you are aware that Hillary was in charge of the health care plan. The partnership with Newt Gingrich is notable, considering their differences with regard to the health care plan, and the similarity between "HillaryCare" and "RomneyCare" is both interesting, relevant, and well referenced. "HillaryCare" does have ramifications for the 2008 presidential election. How could it not? The photos were uploaded from the National Institute of Health Medical Library and the National Archives, and are both related to the Clinton health care plan. Feel free to click on the photos are and their associated URLs and captions. I tried to find a photo of Bill from the 1993 or 1994 State of the Union address, but I was unable to find one in the public domain. MoodyGroove 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]


You raise all valid points, but one key distinction between Hillary and Romney is that Romney wants more control at the state level (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/view.bg?articleid=1031977). This is a difference you might expect between a Democrat and Republican; please know that I'm not trying to engage a hostile debate, but I did feel that this is worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain word usage shows bias. Take universal health care. Commonly accepted term or not, it is actually government health care. The former describes the often unattained goal; the latter the reality. Likwidshoe (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Socialized medicine?"

It seems like a loaded phrase. They have socialized medicine in Europe, where the government actually pays for healthcare right down to the salries of medical professionals, but I don't see Clinton's healthcare plan as resembling that. This needs fleshing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashslinger (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 November 2005

Moving us towards socialism?

Many political commentators believe the success of the Republican Party in that election was the result of a backlash towards the Clinton Administration for the attempt to move the country more towards socialism and restrict health care choice.

Obvious bias since in this country those words are often used by people against any kind of public assistance. It is possible that the original author meant that these were preceived notions in 1994 but they should not be passed off as fact here on Wikipedia in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.85.201 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 November 2005

The comment should be referenced, but this article isn't about health care, it's about the Clinton health care plan. There must be some reason it failed, whether it deserved to or not. Certainly it was a move toward nationalized health care. Was it not? MoodyGroove 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this because I can see where it looked like I agree with the sentiment. Whether or not nationalized health care represents a movement toward socialism is quite beside the point. The comment contains a weasel phrase (Many political commentators believe...) and is unsourced. As such, it can be deleted by anyone. MoodyGroove 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
This is clearly a biased, and by itself not a suitable reference, but it gives a place to start: http://www.gargaro.com/healthcare.html. - (Unsigned comment left by KeithCu (talk · contribs) 06:20, 8 June 2007)
I must disagree. I can't even bring myself to use a blatently POV pushing source as a starting point. There's just too much of this on the Wikipedia, and I can't protest the use of such sources if I utilize them myself. We should strive to present the Clinton health care plan from a neutral point of view and with fairness of tone. MoodyGroove 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove.[reply]
One of the things I learned in debate is that the best way to have a good discussion and learn the truth is to have both sides present their strongest case. Just because wikipedia is neutral doesn't mean the process to get there and all of the sources must be. That's why wikipedia exists: because both Hillary clinton, and her opponents, and the media, are not likely to present a complete picture. We need to sort through all of this mess. Note if a source has a number of inaccuracies like claiming Hillarycare was created to appease Martians, then such an article is not a good discussion, and is not presenting a strong case. In this case, while the article is against Hillarycare, I thought it passed my sniff test: it references Heritage Foundation analysis, CBO, etc. KeithCu 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the entire spirit of the Wikipedia is not to be partisan, with the reader left in the position of sorting it all out, but rather to present both sides responsibly from a neutral point of view. It's not meant to be an adversarial process, which is bad for the project. In the best case, both sides of a given controversy mean well, and appeal to the common good and our intellect, rather than their partisan interest and emotion. The link you provided seems very narrow and simplistic to me. With so many legitimate sources in the mainstream media, I just don't think sources like this are necessary or helpful. As I said, there are enough POV pushers here already, who are more interested in scoring points for their side than writing an encyclopedia. Best, MoodyGroove 03:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Yes, wikipedia should not be partisan, but it might use partisan sources. The adversarial process is part of making wikipedia, just check out every talk page and all the edit wars, etc! I find the media partisan; lots of things are partisan, even those that pretend not to be. I agree the article is simplistic, but it is a source, and the article doesn't have much info on specifics. Part as well is that there isn't much info on hillarycare because it is pre-Internet. Anyway, I'm sure we'll find more. KeithCu 09:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, often articles in the mainstream media have a subtle bias. Articles on the editorial page in particular often have an obvious bias. I would go so far as to say that you're last comment contains bias, as you refer to the Clinton Health Plan as Hillarycare, which is a stigmatizing term that gets in the way of finding out what the Clinton Health Plan actually was. I prefer a collaborative process to an adversarial process. Two editors can have different perspectives and share the same goal of writing a high quality encyclopedia. In my opinion, low quality sources diminish the credibility of the Wikipedia. Can a source be partisan and still reliable? Sure. For example, the Weekly Standard is a conservative publication, but I'd still consider it a reliable source for criticism of the Clinton Health Plan, especially since Bill Kristol appears to have come up with the political catchphrase "there is no health care crisis." There's no need to use a self published website of any kind. Regards, MoodyGroove 14:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

missing link

The article should have a link to the actual proposal. It's online somewhere. Then the points and counter points could be backed up by citations of the actual work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 February 2007

You would think it would be online, but I have not been able to locate it. But by no means do I think this article should be deleted! It's historically significant (although it might have to be renamed 'Clinton health care plan of...' as I'm sure Hillary has a new health care plan since she is running for president. MoodyGroove 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) wallah hadang[reply]

Removing weasel tag

We need references, but there's nothing egrecious left here. Chris Cunningham 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

One of the things I heard about HillaryCare is that there were lawsuits against it because they had secret meetings. I found a link, which excerpts a book, which discusses this topic. I cannot find links to the lawsuit and decisions, etc. however.

http://www.nlpc.org/hctf/tfl-09.htm.

I know this wikipedia is DIY, and I may get to it later, but I'll put this here in case someone beats me to it.

Delete

Look at this whole article and the discussion page. This article should be information about the plan. The section on 2008 is much bigger than the information about the plan itself. There is a blurb about background, information about the debate, and defeat. There is nothing of value in this whole article to warrant keeping it in Wikipiedia. Is it still true that no one here has a copy of the plan?

I recomend deletion until there is something of substance. Z07 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of value in this whole article to warrant keeping it in Wikipedia? That's a bold statement, considering how well referenced the article is now. You're welcome to tag it for deletion, but I'm guessing it will be a speedy keep. MoodyGroove 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
The article is not about the plan. It is about the spin about the plan. Z07 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some specifics please? MoodyGroove 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
The three main sections Debate, Defeat, and Implications for '08 are not about the plan. There is nothing in this article that spells out what exactly the plan was. You asked for specifics. I'm asking you for specifics about the plan not what the vote was or who said this or that about it. Please explain why the largest section is about the implications for '08. Why isn't the biggest section about the plan itself? Go to any online health insurance broker like eHealth and look at any plan. Look at the very detailed list of benefits. Nothing like that is here at all. If you look at any health plan online you will find detailed information about the plan. Where is this type of information for this plan? This article should be retitled "Spinning The Clinton Healthcare Plan" because it is certainly NOT about the plan.Z07 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well referenced and tells both sides of the story. Are you aware of some sources online that give specific details about the plan? If you could supply the relevant links, I'd be happy to expand a section. The current article is based on what the media reports about the plan. Feel free to do your own research and see what you come up with. But there has been no conscious effort to spin anything. MoodyGroove 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
See? there are in your mind two sides of the story. That is proof that this article is not about the plan. There are no "sides" to a factual account of what the plan would and would not cover. Did you even look at any other plan? Do you even understand what I'm saying? Ok spin may be the wrong word. This article is about the "politics of" and the "events surounding" but it is NOT about the plan. Can you tell me any of the following information about this plan?

Formulary
Formulary Excluded
Procedures
Procedures Excluded
Deductible
Co-pay
Annual maximum benefit
Lifetime maximum benefit
Specialists non-referral
Specialists referral required
PCP required

That is a scratch of the surface of what people expect to know about a plan weather it is paid for directly or indirectly. Z07 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. It is perfectly acceptable, and encouraged, to explore the topic an article fully, from every possible angle. It does not have to be limited to the nuts and bolts of the plan, which by the way I have never read, and had no luck finding detailed information about. The "politics of" and the relevant "events surrounding" the plan are fair game. As for your wish list about the plan, I have already challenged you to find reliable sources about it, and I have offered to expand a section on it. What more do you want? Find me some reliable sources and I will cover your list to the best of my ability. Or you can do so yourself. MoodyGroove 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Content of Plan

This article is quite weak, but its subject is notable; thus, it should be improved rather than deleted. My suggestions:

  • Provide more information about the actual plan:
    • original House bill
    • Gather lists of amendments, counter-proposals, etc. Thomas can help with that; so can contemporary news articles, once you've established familiarity with the original proposal.
  • Re-organize the article:
    • Background isn't really background; it's the early history of the plan. Background should include information like:
      • What was the American health-care system at the time?
      • Why did people think there was a health-care crisis?
      • What earlier proposals had been made, and what happened to them?
    • Debate is mostly a laundry list of quotes and references. Split it into paragraphs on each point/counterpoint: was there really a health-care crisis? How bureaucratic was the proposal? Was the plan realistically implementable? Wikipedia obviously can't answer these questions definitively, but it can give a better picture of who was asking the questions, who was responding to them, and how they were answered.
    • Defeat doesn't really tell us why the plan was defeated. Did it make any progress at all? How close was it to passing in either house? Was Congress just too uncertain about the plan? Did the White House do a poor job of convincing legislators and the public of the plan's merits? Again, Thomas can give you legislative history, and contemporary news articles can give you context.
    • Implications etc. is entirely about Hillary Clinton and how her views have changed/matured since the original proposal; that's not really quite appropriate, and it should be reworked.
      • In particular, the article should note that the health care plan is noteworthy because it remains the most prominent national proposal associated with Hillary Clinton, and it should discuss how popular conceptions of Clinton continue to be affected by the plan and its failure.
      • The contemporary views of any other candidates would be nice to note.
      • A comparison with Mitt Romney's successful plan in Massachusetts might be enlightening.

I'm sorry that I don't have time right now to read the original plan and carry out these suggestions, but maybe in a week or so. In the meantime, I think this provides a nice roadmap for improving the article. Rjmccall 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have beefed up the article a bit. If people want further details, plenty of references are provided. If we put too many details in the article, then that would obscure the big picture for those people who aren't looking for details.Ferrylodge 00:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article could definitely still use a lot more coverage of what was actually in this plan. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, definitely agreed. That is what this article should focus on: what the plan proposed. Amazingly there is nothing in the article saying what it would do. Harksaw (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added more details. It could still use further fleshing out. dweinberger 13:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

Quid pro quo

Some material was recently removed from this article, with the following edit summary: “deleted libel that was accidentally reinserted during subsequent edit.” Here is the deleted material, in bold italics:


[1] Bok, Derek. "Political Leadership in the Great Health Care Debate of 1993-1994" in Public Discourse in America: Conversation and Community in the Twenty-First Century by Stephen P. Steinberg, Judith Rodin, page 96 (2003): "the President took the unprecedented step of naming his wife."

[2] Phillips, Kevin. "All in the Family; Two books attempt to get at the real Hillary Clinton", Washington Post (2007-06-10): “Hillary's influence over policy and personnel peaked when her husband needed her to defend him from sex-related charges, especially in 1992, 1993, 1998 and 1999. Dick Morris and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin both confirm the chronology. This helps to explain how Ms. Clinton could race ahead, unbridled, in 1993-94 with her disastrous health reform program.” Philips was reviewing a book by Carl Bernstein titled, A Woman in Charge.

This seems like legitimate material to include in the article, given that the article does not endorse or oppose the attribution of this motivation to President Clinton. The references cited in footnote [2] are reputable sources. Many articles at Wikipedia include descriptions of controversial theories, and this is such an instance. This assertion about the Clintons appeared in the Washington Post. Likewise, the New York Times recently had a news article asserting that Mrs. Fred Thompson is a "trophy wife", and that assertion is included in the Wikipedia article about her. The Wikipedia article about Ms. Thompson does not endorse or oppose that assertion about her. If Wikipedia can include the latter assertion about Ms. Thompson, I do not see why the former assertion about Ms. Clinton should be off limits. Certainly, the bare argument that Ms. Clinton was libelled is insufficient to censor this material from Wikipedia (and there has been no legal action against the Washington Post or Carl Bernstein or Doris Kearns Goodwin or Dick Morris for libelling Ms. Clinton).Ferrylodge 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read this, it came across to me as a clear WP:BLP violation, so it didn't surprise me that other users similarly found the text problematic. I think part of the issue is undue weight. We say that Clinton trying to butter up his wife to support him during sex scandals is equally a valid reason why Clinton got the position as "the President's desire to emphasize his personal commitment to the enterprise". The sourcing is a bit sketchy as well, we have a conservative reviewer saying, without citing pages, that Carl Bernstein posits a theory. I believe the way we are presenting this in the article is giving too much credit to these speculations. At the very least, we should cite Bernstein and not just the review. I think it's best to leave it out until we can get the sources and wording straight.-Andrew c [talk] 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this to eliminate the undue weight problem. It is now made clear that the quid pro quo is a controversial idea. Multiple sources are cited. If this is deleted, why not delete stuff at Jeri Kehn Thompson about how she's a "trophy wife"? I think this material in the Health Care Article is much more relevant and notable and interesting than the "trophy wife" stuff.Ferrylodge 02:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this sentence to make it clearer that this is speculation; goodwin and morris may have confirmed the coincidence of timing, but Bill Clinton did not confirm what was in his mind at the time, so it is merely speculation on the part of the writer. But I agree with Andrewc and those who think we'd be better off without that part of the sentence, or at least with what's actually in the Bernstein book, not the review of it. The "trophy wife" mention regarding Jeri Kehn Thompson is completely different, and the NYT article did not say she was a trophy wife: it was considering whether an image of her as such could become an issue in the campaign. No one speculated on Fred's motives for marrying her, or suggested that he thought or thinks of her as a trophy wife. So it's not the same thing. Tvoz |talk 07:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Health Plan Part II?

I came here looking for the details on the new health care package proposed by the presidential hopeful HRC, but little info is available. Is it time for a new article/link? Thanks. Mwlin1 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point -and accordingly I have re named this one "1993 Clinton health care plan" to distinguish it from the plan being proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton as part of her presidential campaign. A new article (or perhaps a section in her main article or her presidential campaign article or her political positions article) is in order for her plan. I'll mention it on the main article talk page. Tvoz |talk 07:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further - to answer your question, see here for a short description of the new plan which will presumably be expanded, perhaps into a separate article, but not into this one. Tvoz |talk 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tvoz, I respectfully disagree with your decision to rename this article. I believe it's premature to do so until and unless HRC becomes President and introduces her health care plan as legislation (i.e., eligible for Category:United States proposed federal legislation). And until then, there is no way that her current proposal would become a separate article; it will stay as material in the political positions article and the campaign article. In other words, there is no need to rename this article until the newer health care plan becomes commensurate with the 1993 one, which it is not yet. Wasted Time R 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if the renaming does stick, there are some double redirects that still need fixing, especially from U.S. health reform under Clinton. Wasted Time R 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading article

The article, "Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others", cited as #33 in the version I am about to alter, appears to be of low quality. The author claims, for example, that "there is little a health care system can do about the rate of cancer": this is simply false, as shown by numerous successful measures aimed at curbing smoking. The author also claims life expectancy is a poor measure of the quality of a health care system because it includes people who have, in his words, "no interaction with the health care system", and goes on to cite as an example people who die "of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives." Isn't the speed of the ambulance a factor in the quality of care? These are just two examples: the author uses outright falsehoods to support flawed reasoning throughout his article. -- 71.138.142.176 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am challenging this new section

== Problems which led to the Plan's defeat ==

- People who earned over $50,000 per year did not offer majority support, so it was unpopular with the middle-class
- Restructured Medicare, so it was unpopular with the elderly
- The public expected costs to be high and did not believe that a cigarette tax would be sufficient financing
- The public disliked direct government involvement, but strongly supported regulation
- The public disliked Managed Care Organizations
- The public associated national health spending limits with rationing, and it was unpopular
- There was not enough public transparency for people to get behind the plan

Please provide a reliable source if you wish to salvage this content. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

"Hillarycare"

The original statement attributed this term to a "Elton Bordonave" who is not actually a living person. There is an Elton Bordenave, however the internet reveals no mention of that name with the term "hillarycare". Therefor we are left with the original reference source, an article from the Weekly Standard which is a Rupert Murdoch owned "leading neo-conservative magazine" according to it's Wikipedia entry. It also has a circulation of less than 85,000 people and posts millions in losses anually (also from it's wikipedia article). It smacks me as a pejorative term that cannot be attributed to an actual individual source, just self-proclaimed "neo-conservative" propaganda outlets. Surely this at least requires a better source, if not further text to describe the derogatory slant to the term. -->Btl (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Elton Bordenave is, and that has been removed. But there are many, many references to opponents of the plan (then and later) referring to it as Hillarycare, not just "neo-conservatives". I've added a few cites, but if you look at a Google Books search, there are many others. And yes, it's a pejorative term; that's the whole point, that the debate over the plan was tied into denigration of an individual. You can't discuss the plan's history and legacy without describing that. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title again

I remain unsatisfied with this article title. It recently got changed by User:Prowler08 from "1993 Clinton health care plan" to "Clinton health care plan (1993)". But that looks a lot like our disambiguation scheme, suggesting that there are other articles with "Clinton health care plan" in the title. But there aren't; HRC's 2007-2008 campaign plan is properly located at Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Health Care. Maybe "Clinton administration health care plan" would be the best choice? It's unambiguous now and at least for the next several years; if there's ever another Clinton administration, we can worry about further modifying the title then. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the debate or votes in the House of Representatives?

Just one of many ways this article is lacking and unbalanced I guess.204.128.230.1 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just complain, add it yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare - "universal???"

(From the section "Background")

"Before President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, the United States was the only wealthy, industrialized nation that did not provide some form of universal health care, other than Medicare.[1][2]"

It seems to me that the words "other than Medicare" should be deleted. Medicare isn't universal - far from it. Am I missing something here? 174.111.242.35 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole thing should be removed. As the law is being phased-in, the US does not have universal coverage as of yet. I'm not sure what milestone should be considered "universal healthcare" however, so I will leave it as in.

96.233.33.140 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court PPACA decision

Other than a cross reference, is it appropriate for this article to describe the 2012 Supreme Court decision? Someone should truncate it, if for no other reason that it is easier to dispassionately maintain facts in one article on that subject, rather than salt them into related articles such as this, requiring redundant review. Also, it seems that this is incorrect: "The medicare [sic] expansion also initiated by the administration of President Obama was found unconstitutional in a 7-2 vote." For now I will defer to someone who has the facts more fully at their fingertips, but my understanding is that the Medicare expansion itself was not found unconstitutional, the court objecting only to the threat of withholding all Federal Medicare funds from states not participating in the expansion. Also, I would not say that the liberal justices "joined" the Chief Justice in the decision; reports suggest it was more the other way around. Eplater (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the decision, and references to the Act itself are in general off-topic for this article and should be removed. Also, your interpretation of the Medicare expansion is correct, and any attempt to naval-gaze over who joined who invites bias and should be removed even if the rest of the comments are kept. 72.145.131.147 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation subsection

I removed the below "Litigation" subsection, added by:

• 20:59, 15 August 2007 Snowdog26 (talk | contribs) (→‎Debate)
• 16:01, 19 August 2007 Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) (→‎Debate: Footnoting appeals court decision.)
• 14:09, 21 August 2007 Snowdog26 (talk | contribs) (→‎Debate)
• 14:17, 21 August 2007 Snowdog26 (talk | contribs) (→‎Debate)
• 01:35, 4 January 2008 Wasted Time R (talk | contribs) (→‎Task Force: make litigation a separate subsection; add AAPS action)

which appears to be undue trivia:

Litigation

The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to Hillary's participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.[J. Gregory Sidak (Apr 3, 1993). Amicus brief in AAPS v. H.R. Clinton] Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady of the United States can be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for purposes of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.[U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Jun 22, 1993). Decision, AAPS v. H.R. Clinton]

In 1997, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[Pear, Robert (Dec 19, 1997). "Judge rules government covered up lies on panel." The New York Times, p. A37] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[Lewis, Neal A. (Aug 25, 1997). "Court clears Clinton aide in lying case." The New York Times, p. A16]

Apatens (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal. On what basis do you consider this trivia? The Hillary health care plan was very controversial on both substance and process grounds and these were two lawsuits launched over the process. The FACA one is definitely notable; consider this AP story about the ruling and this one leading up to it and this one about the debate on the issue and so forth. And the AAPS one is also certainly notable; the New York Times published two fairly long stories covering each of the rulings. And it received lots of other news coverage, including Associated Press stories like this 1993 one and this one a week later and this one a year later and this one later in 1994 and this one when the District Court ruling came out in 1997 and so on - a lot of press coverage. And if you do a Google Books search you'll find references to the cases in retrospect, especially in books about Hillary or about communication law, such as here and here and here and here and so on. As for undue weight, these were 2 paragraphs in a 24 paragraph article; doesn't seem undue to me. I thereby request that you restore this material to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There having been no response for a week, I have now restored this material, with a few clarifications as to dates and an AP story as an additional source. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy in Retrospect and Perspective isn't about that

The first four paragraphs (especially 2-4) are a seemingly random recounting of Hillary Clinton's positions on health care after the plan failed to be accepted. They might be at home in an article about HRC's record as national health care advocate, but they seem out of place in an article about the 1993 plan. Plus, those paragraphs seem politically charged. I suggest that they be removed.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 ("Until the Obama health care plan..." and "The Clinton health care plan remains...:") offer perspective on the plan.

Paragraph 6 again focuses on HRC, questioning her role in formulating the bill. That might be worth including in the article, but not in a section that, by its title, promises to look at the significance of the plan with the benefit of some temporal distance. Unfortunately, I don't see exactly where Paragraph 6 could go in this article. Perhaps it belongs in the HRC article?

I myself don't know enough to be able to add to this section. Perhaps it could more usefully be turned into a comparison of the 1993 bill and the ACA, a topic that many readers would probably find helpful and interesting. dweinberger 20:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clinton health care plan of 1993. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993"