Talk:Medicare for All Act

3109:

majority of Americans have said in polls for decades they support while 2. These guys (Conyers and others) have tried for some 20 years to propose such bills and have not been able to get it to pass. So it's not just this bill, this is just the latest version. They've been trying since the 1990s (maybe earlier, I'll have to check). 3. Just the other day Obama mentioned in a high profile speech that the Senate could not pass something (having background checks for guns not have the loophole for internet/gun show sales) despite 90% of Americans supporting it. Why? It's a striking fact about our democracy (and in the case of single payer, context for our being the only industrialized/western country without some version).

1074:. To say the least. That "one congressional web site", is the Library of Congress, and is the official record of the text, title, and legislative action of the bill. There is no other site, nor editor who needs to be consulted. It is, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth. However, a phone call to Conyers office and to the hr676.org folks should be sufficient to get them to update their SECONDARY websites. It isn't a miss-print - the text of the bill did not change, but insurance was always a misnomer, and has been corrected. There are many references available from folks who do read, and are cognizant of the change. It is now titled 254: 233: 370: 349: 1399:"The national system would be paid for through taxes, which would replace insurance premiums. Advocates of single-payer healthcare, such as economist Paul Krugman, have argued that by eliminating insurance company administrative overhead, healthcare costs would be reduced sufficiently to cover the uninsured. One study estimated U.S. private insurer administrative costs at 30% of total healthcare costs, versus 17% for the single-payer Canadian system." 584: 955:, with both the old and new title clearly visible, so the number of people aware of this discussion would be exactly the same if this had been moved back before opening the move discussion. I encourage you to read my comment you responded to again: nowhere did I declare this move as uncontroversial (quite the opposite, in fact). That's why we need this discussion in the first place. As for the higher authority, you're of course welcome to seek other 897:

Bills and which only become Acts one they have passed the legislative hurdless. Maybe this was a false distraction). This alone should be reason to revert immediately. This "survey" is actually unncessary and wrong because a person seeing this request on their watchlist UNDER THIS WRONG NAME will not even realize that the discussion is about the THE BILL UNDER ITS TRUE NAME. Please put the article and links back as they were NOW without waiting. --

380: 264: 508: 481: 518: 202: 1689: 2526:. What they were referring to is what was in their wordings. Respectfully, I think that your approach on this is incorrect twice over. One is trying to arrive at a deduction that does not follow from the material. The second is that even if it were a valid deduction, trying to put that deduction in article space is in direct violation of policies (wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, 668:"The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of the United Kingdom's National Health Service and other similar systems in existence in every other industrialized nation; in which the government would provide every resident health care free of out-of-pocket expense, funded instead through U.S. federal taxes." 1178:

and and the usage "the Republican/Democratic . . . bill". Using the formal title would have the advantage that once legislation is passed, the article does not have to be renamed. On the other hand, the article name would not make it clear that it is discussing a legislative proposal rather than enacted legislation. It would be necessary for the lead to make it

2400:

deeper. So I might just reiterate my advice and try to sign off. I think that this article should stay if it can be pared to being just coverage of it's actual subject. That "creative construction" poll section should go. It is problematic in its own right, plus doubly so if one includes preseence in this article. Trying to "sign off" Sincerely,

3491: 1078:, as it should have been way way back when it was first introduced, as a reading of the bill will show you that the bill does not provide insurance, it provides care. You get to walk into any doctor you want and you pay nothing. That is care not insurance. There are no limits, and no reimbursements like there would be if it was insurance. 3119:, want to know about these poll, even when reading up on "only" this one particular bill, in order to better understand this bill. Maybe a shorter mention (than in the Single Payer article), but a brief mention with links to a bunch of polls, for these reasons, yes is quite relevant and useful information. 3055:

uninformative and off-topic regarding the subject of the article. On top of that, the current form also has it's own large set of policy problems (a separate question not included in this RFC. Including unsourced mis-labeling of the polls and unsourced wp-editor interpretation of the the results via

2241:

proposals multiple times in 2009, and those explain important details about why the CBO didn't get a combined score for this bill, and the betrayal that a lot of the people who agreed not to push HR 676 felt when the public option was dropped. I think readers are very likely to be interested in those

2066:

this year and for next year's midterm elections. It's been introduced in the past four congresses (and will be again any day now) usually with 15-20% cosponsors, but what really makes it notable is that it's the solution of all but two other developed nations, both for household and national budgets,

1641:

The issue is that the question was in the context of the health care bill and the public option. Having insurance is not having Medicare, and having something to compete with private plans, which is the contextual clue, is not single payer. As what they're describing is not single-payer, and is not

1544:

The distinction between H.R. and H.Res. is not "technical" or "pedantic" — they identify totally different types of items under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. items are actual bills, which can pass the house, go on to the Senate, get passed there, and go on to the president;

1402:

The introduction cites a study that argues for the monetary advantage of the bill, but does not give any counter evidence. This breaches the Knowledge policy on neutrality, and I propose that this is either taken out or that evidence in the favor of the monetary disadvantage of the healthcare bill is

1312:

While the AMA took a position on Medicare 40 years ago, Medicare has long ago been embraced and is now highly popular. The AMA's position on health care is that doctors be the ones to make decisions with their patients on care, not the government, and what they call "Health insurance coverage for all

1238:

I have been trying to find a source that will present only the facts of this bill without trying to sell me something. All the NEWS websites are either trying to push this or kick it. I was hoping Knowledge would present a neutral point of view, but this is definitely geared towards selling the bill.

931:

but now everything has been moved here. Few people will be aware of that.The article has existed under its proper name for more that 18 months and people have the right to be aware that a move was about to happen and to have been able to challenge it. If you continue to fail to act I will have little

745:

Of course, the difficulty involves money, but there seems to be no discussion of this here or even an indication that money is even involved. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon was quoted as saying, "We're already spending $ 2.5 trillion a year...and now we're going to spend another $ 1 trillion.

2731:

As far as I can tell, only two polls since the introduction of HR676 have used that language in any form: a 2008 Time Magazine poll ("Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all") that says "similar to Medicare for all," not the bill, and

2431:

I'm not at all married to the idea of a merge. I proposed it, there's an argument against it, we can revisit it if it still needs it following some trimming. I don't mind an RfC about the polling, although I've not found RfC to be that illuminating, but I'm also not seeing a really strong argument

2272:

is one example and it is easy to find others. And again, I am certain that pollsters do not typically use congressional bill titles or numbers when asking about the public opinion of legislation. Which polls in particular do you think are unrelated to the effect of the bill if it were to become law?

2152:

Neither do I. The closest I can think of in terms of governmental support in comparison to popular support/legislative success is the Fair Tax, but that's gotten actual books written about it. Part of why I think this could be merged is that most of the article isn't about the bill, but more about

1664:

I noticed the use of 'realisation' as opposed to the US spelling of 'realization'. I realize that there are many non-US contributors to this article and that is fine, but was the use of non-US diction and spelling intentional? You might re-think this use because it makes the statements sound foreign

1025:

It wasn't discussed because it didn't seem important. The bill is 99.9+% unchanged. It changed "physicians" to "physicians and other clinicians" in one place and USNHI to USNHC to reflect the bill title change and a few other cosmetic changes, but it really didn't seem important enough to even bring

715:

with 10 independent systems for the provinces, 3 for the territories, 1 for the military, and 1 for federal prisoners, plus a multitude of plans for everything not covered by the provincial and territorial systems (out-patient pharma, dental, vision, ambulance service in Quebec, and more). There are

2399:

My main involvement on these articles was to get a civilized or at least normal article development and discussion process going. I see that that has finally happened. Other than some general goal of article quality, I'm really not concerned much on which way this goes, and am resisting getting in

1177:

This one may be above my pay grade. I do have some thoughts, though. Proposed legislation, when it's introduced, includes a formal title that usually ends in "Act". On the other hand, until it is enacted, it is a proposed act or a "bill". In the news you see both the usage "the proposed . . . act"

912:

should be called, this survey is certainly not unnecessary. We would still need a discussion about the correct name even if the article was moved back. Since the result will be exactly the same in seven days regardless of where the article was in the meantime, I prefer not to move it unnecessarily.

911:

There's no obligation under Knowledge rules to discuss uncontroversial moves, and I do believe that the IP thought the move was uncontroversial. Turned out it's not, but it would be a good idea to assume good faith on their part. Since there are at least two editors who disagree on what the article

687:

The Canadian-style single payer system advocated by Kucinich is not by any manner of means "equivalent to the United Kingdom's National Health Service", as this article erroneously states. The UK has socialized medicine, i.e. a public body that employs and pays the physicians. Kucinich's bill calls

650:

No. The name that this bill is known by is US National Health Insurance Act. There are no sponsors for the other bill, so it isn't very well known anyway, and it definitely doesn't fit the notability criteria to have its own article. It is included here for clarification just in case someone does a

3114:

Similarly, that Rep. Conyers and others have tried for some 20 years to pass some version (this article is just the latest version) of Single payer, while polls show repeatedly and consistently that, something like 60%-70% or so support by Americans, yet Congress still hasn't been able to pass any

2666:

I have spent entirely too much time with these polls. :) Those are general questions about single payer, not specific questions about this bill. Compare it to the polling about the "public option," or polls about the PPACA, where the bills are being discussed directly. Or even look at the polls

2556:

I don't know what you are asking. There's a whole article that discusses single payer. But on the deductive side (which again, is not valid for content but still fun to discuss) a poll about a general topic is not statement a poll about anything or everything more specific that falls under that

2481:

I'm about 95% sure that the result would be to keep the article and drop the poll section. You might want to save all of that work to find out. :-) But a nice friendly well-written RFC would also be fine. My involvement at these articles has been just to try to get a nice (or at least normal)

1776:

As advised at the npov noticeboard dialog, the best way forward is to delete the entire poll/table section and use secondary sources instead. An editor-built construction from primary sources is problematic at best, plus it appears cherry-picked. None of those are where the cost related decisions

950:

was moved here, anyone who has added that article to their watchlist now has this article on their watchlist as well. Also, anyone opening that article will be redirected to this article, and anyone opening its talk page will be redirected to this talk page. Also, this move discussion is linked to

3108:

critically relevant to the article on Single Payer in general? Yes. Are poll data also very relevant to this article, at least for a brief mention? Yes. It passes the Martian Test: is a neutral person from Mars going to want to know this? Absolutely. Because it's highly relevant that 1. a sizable

2641:

says "a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare" and "a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan" which clearly corresponds to the detail of this particular bill.

1581:

I cleaned up some accuracy issues on the polling section, which was largely distorting the evidence it was using. Specifically talking about "national health insurance" during the timeframe that the United States was discussing the so-called "public option" is not an implication regarding single

720:

differences between national single-payer systems and "state-based" multi-payer systems in terms of administrative redundancy, monopsonistic bargaining power, race-to-the-top dynamics in provider fees, and race-to-the-bottom dynamics in regressivity of funding. Taiwan's National Health Insurance,

1529:

I do not believe that this particular hatnote would be a benefit to our readers. The distinction between the abbreviation HR and H.Res. is technical to the point of pedantic, in my opinion. Nor is the mistake unique to this particular bill. Many bills are mischaracterized as House Resolutions

896:

and subsequently actioned. The rename proposal had not even been placed first at the talk page as WP rules says it should. (There was an earlier discussion about the word Act being replaced with Bill, but that was because of my familiarity with English Law which refers to proposed legislation as

1125:

to something else. I think it is reasonable to Knowledge to call it what it is. Clearly either of the above are possible names for H.R. 676 if it becomes law. I think by calling this, and probably a ton of others acts before they are enacted, is misleading. Is there a naming convention that

926:

How can you possibly declare it to be uncontroversial? It was never discussed anywhere! I repeat, many people will not be able to contribute to this discussion because it is now taking place IN ANOTHER PLACE and not the place where it should have been discussed. It should have been discussed at

2041:

A lot of this page is editorializing about single payer health care, about costs, and about a lot of things that truly have nothing to do with the Act in question, and the Act didn't pass and never really had a chance anyway. Are we perhaps better off merging the relevant information into the

1105:

minor changes in the bill, such as everywhere USNHI is replaced with USNHC, and for example "physicians" is replaced in one place that I noticed with "physicians and other clinicians". In general a few things were cleaned up, but there is no substantive difference that I could see, other than

1549:

and they are not ambiguous. If someone searches for House Resolution 676, the best thing in my opinion would be a short article explaining what a House Resolution is and that the numbers start at 1 again with every two-year session of Congress, and that H.R. 676 of the 111th Congress is the

1513:

When researching the term, I found that (inaccurate or not), the bill is widely referred to by this name (29 of the top 30 google web hits, 30 of the top 30 google news archive hits). Editors here might want to note this use of inaccurate terminology by the media and others in the article,

1620:

The NYT poll seems to be asking about single payer as it is a plan "like medicare" and the article itself uses "Government-Run Health", the "willingness to pay higher taxes" is obviously in the context of the plan. We could ask for a third opinion but it seems overwhelmingly a poll about

1144:

bill becomes law, it will be named the "United States National Health Care Act". This bill being the one introduced into the 111th Congress. The same bill with minor changes was introduced into earlier sessions, with "Insurance" in the title. Conyers website has a page discussing the

1313:

Americans", although in practice that would be HR 676 and be "health care" for all Americans, not "health insurance" for all Americans. They also, of course, want an elimination of the discounts for Medicare payments, which have led many physicians to avoid taking Medicare patients.

688:

for a single national fund from which the physicians are paid for each service they perform for a patient, with the physicians continuing to be employed and salaried by whoever they're employed by now. That's not socialized medicine; that's not the British National Health Service.

3056:

the headings placed over them in the tabular form.) But more importantly nice to see a normal civilized process operating here. Kudos to Thargor Orlando's continuing eforts in that area and also to Neo Poz even though I disagree with them on this particular question. Sincerely,

2363:

What evidence was there that they were referring to a specific proposal? We have plenty of evidence of asking about specific bills throughout, from the health care reform bill to Arizona's immigration bill. That they didn't ask about this bill is probably telling information.

2081:

That's what's curious, though: there really hasn't been much written about it overall. Plenty of partisan blogging and advocacy groups, yes, but it seems to be as relevant as so many other bills that hit Congress on a regular basis with tons of cosponsors and no traction.

2506:

I don't know what "creative construction" is, but in general, when a congressperson or a pollster or a news reporter in the U.S. has referred to "single payer" from 2003 to the present, is there any proposal other than this bill that they could have been referring to?

1335:

As the information in the articles such as this dealing with specific proposals are more up to date, the information should be added to the comprehensive articles, and in general all articles related to the current healthcare debate need to complement each other.

1182:

clear that the subject was a proposal rather than a statute. As far as general usage goes, "proposed . . . act" seems to be the general usage when the formal title is used, and "bill" seems to be the general usage when the bill number (e.g., H.R. 676) is used.

2732:

the KFF poll (" a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?") that clearly wasn't referencing any specific bill as it was in a list of generalities. The KFF poll is probably

2464:

A polling section is appropriate when there are relevant polls to put in. I'm a fan of being as comprehensive as possible as well, but I also think that the poll section is misleading and presents a belief about this specific bill that isn't entirely true.

1344: 1339:

The comprehensive articles on the current healthcare debate desperately need to be overhauled and expanded. There is practically nothing in those articles about the ongoing major events around the current debate, a subject area that is absolutely required.

3115:

such bill including this and earlier manifestations, despite strong majority public support, a striking, interesting fact readers would want to know. An outside observer of early 21st century happenings in the U.S. political realm would, without question

1586:

The infographic provided is misstating the NYT poll completely. The poll does not show that much support for single payer, but for a "willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance" that would compete with private plans - decidedly

1545:

if he/she signs the bill, it becomes law. H.Res. items are House resolutions, which never go on to the Senate or the president and never become law. They merely express the sentiment of the House of Representatives on some topic. H.R. and H.Res. are not

2736:

to supporting your point of view, but even that's a bit messy given the Politfact piece that pretty much tears down the idea that the poll shows support for single payer. If I'm missing something specific here, I'm happy to look at it.

892:. This is the name of the proposed Act as described at its sponsor's web page. Also the article had stood for a very long time on Knowledge under its original title with no objection. Only one ip user suggested the move and that was at 691:

The article says single payer is practiced by every industrialized nation except the US. What it should say is that every industrialized nation except the US has universal health care (whether by single-payer or by socialized medicine).

2153:

general single payer beliefs. We're better off fixing the tone of that (which is still a problem over at the single payer article) and highlight the only real national single payer plan in a few relevant paragraphs there, I think.

1254:

Please be more specific in your criticism. I have moved the neutrality dispute to the debate section. The first few sections are just facts similar to other healthcare articles, so the debate section is probably giving rise to the

721:

proposed by American healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton and designed with input from American healthcare-insurance specialist William Hsiao of Harvard, is in fact the only true foreign analog. "Canadian Medicare" is

1197:

The infobox for bills has a long list of sections to indicate status. I won't list them here, but if you look at the article you can see they are all blank, or most of them, as is normal for a bill that has not been passed yet.

2242:

details and I think they deserve to know them. I don't think there's anything wrong with the polling section. In the past week I trimmed about 3 kilobytes from this article and expanded the remainder by about two kilobytes.

2557:

topic. If Jane Smith said "I hate men" , that does not mean that such justifies writing (because he is a man) that Jane Smith said that she hates Barack Obama. The latter is a more focused statement that did not occur.

1626:

That aside, the part about national healthcare being "often times compared to Medicare" is redundant because A) Medicare is a form of single-payer for a specific group of people and B) it's covered in the next section.

640:

According to the article there is a similarly named bill to this that's not quite as all-encompassing, so I think this article should be "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act" to keep them more clearly separated.

164: 2924:

Right, because, like single payer, they're discussing the general concepts. The polls clearly aren't talking about specific legislation, just like they don't when they ask about minimum wage or equality discussions.

2824:

Sheesh yourself. This is a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. Just because the bill is a single-payer "Medicare for All" bill doesn't mean that all references to those terms are about the bill. For example,

2779:

The strength of my defense was apparent when you retracted your assertion that I had presented "no evidence" as to why the polls should be included. I am asking for further editor input with the following RFC.

1011:

No I am not sure. But I would have expected the fact to have been discussed at the article BEFORE it was renamed. I have calmed down a bit since we had the previous discussion so I may take no further action.--

2061:

Well, if you decide inclusion by how many independent reliable sources write about it, I'm sure it should be included. But I'm biased because I think it's inevitable, because the ACA doesn't go far enough and

1455:@Sarek in particular.... rv to my previous 'expanded' edit- please do not keep reverting things without discussion on the talk page; my edits are not meant solely for my own ego, but also to spur discussion. 620:

Proposal: This article should be re-named United States National Health Insurance Bill. The content may need slight rewording. An act is not created until a bill passes through congress and has presidential

1996:

Right, which means they're not about what this article is about. As for whether they're about single payer, a portion of them are, yes. That's been a bone of contention over at the single payer article.

1558:

don't need the civics lesson on resolutions vs. bills, but people who enter "House resolution" looking for a bill need to be informed that House resolutions are not bills. Otherwise the error perpetuates.

3139:

Looking at the RfC, the opinion pretty clearly looks like it's in favor of removing the polling, so I have done so by the time you read this. Neo Poz was the only voice vocally against merging this into

3167:

Paul Krugman "described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows" writes an opinion page and derives income from advocating "Medicare for All"

1642:

defined as single-payer, I'm not convinced we should be treating the information as if it's about single-payer, especially when we can find polls, such as the Rasmussen and the details at politifact.

3556: 1292: 3209:, this bill never had a CBO done because it never even came out of committee. They (WashPo) did mention that the Lewin Group (some analyst consultancy) produced a report, that I found a pdf of on 1530:

based on the ambiguity of their acronym. A minor footnote might be in order but a clunky hatnote at the top of the page is going to be more of a distraction than a help to the average reader.

1370:"The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and the United Kingdom's National Health Service." 989:

to update their websites and literature. It would have better if the bill had gotten the title right in the beginning, but back then nobody noticed, apparently. It would be interesting to have

1601:

citing a 1987 poll - do we have access to that poll anywhere? If we cannot see the actual poll, given the problems with polling on this issue, I'm not sure we should include that line at all.

3010: 2207:

My 2 cents. It was a major proposal. Knowledge should cover it. Probably should knock out the highly problematic poll section including not being about the topic.....stick to the topic.

2751:

Thank you for the admission pertaining to the evidence provided. I have no further interest in this discussion and again suggest an RFC if you still think the section should be removed.

2868:

as RFC requestor, because all of the polls presently included in the section ask about specific aspects of the legislation described by this article, and some even refer to it by name.

2124:

Yeah, that's basically nothing, especially when you consider "medicare for all" isn't necessarily about this bill. Heck, I do a Google News search simply for that string and get 138.

1514:

particularly if the redirect is kept (the discussion will most likely be closed on or shortly after 25 January). Your comments on the redirect are of course welcome at the above link.

3499: 1507: 410: 2621:

I see no evidence that they've been referring to any bill. We have polls on single payer going back to the early 1990s, and they weren't referring to a nonexistent bill, either.

1373:

The NHS is not single payer. It falls under the Beverage Model of health care, totally different than National Health Insurance. Keep that in mind when writing future articles.

3163:

I marked the section because neither Paul Krugman or Physicians for a National Health Program are a neutral and unbiased source for financial analysis, the topic of the section

2063: 981:

It has, and as noted below the text of the bill was changed to in every place refer to USNHC instead of USNHI. All of the millions of people who have been opposing the bill may

876: 158: 3259:

kicks in pretty hard if you try to ask a question nobody has asked (don't do that). One of the 2018 candidates for Maryland's House of Representatives (hint: it's me) has

3049:

It appears that none of them are specifically about the particular act which is the topic of the article. Putting in editor-selected polls on more general related topics is

3581: 2910:

legislation, and there are no other possibilities. You don't see pollsters asking about the minimum wage or gender equality proposals pending with the names of the bills.

598: 427: 1435:

a reliable source the rebuts that study then it can be added to the article. But just because you don't like a fact doesn't mean that mention of it has to be removed. --

2685:

I don't agree; especially and most obviously in the case of the phrase "Medicare for All." Again, I suggest reaching out to other editors with an RFC on the questions.

593: 491: 3576: 3206: 3586: 3551: 3536: 3364: 3360: 3346: 3080: 2993: 463: 453: 320: 310: 2765:

If you have no further interest and cannot defend its inclusion, WP:V tells us we need to remove it. If you want to add it, the RfC is in your court. not mine.

2303:

About what proportion of the time do you think pollsters asking about an issue pending as legislation refer to the corresponding bill's specific name or number?

2599:-- neither is "gasoline tax" or "national holiday" or a vast number of other multiword phrases, but that doesn't prove that they refer to specific legislation. 3144:, and Neo Poz has been indefinitely banned, so that's not really weighing into this. I think I'll do the merge soon unless there's more significant protest. 1872:

We need to discuss removing the polling section completely here, as this article is about a specific bill, and none of the polls listed are about that bill.

55: 1901:

Just re-read it: you're correct, those polls are all about the public option, rather than single-payer. My terminology was briefly confused. Re-reverted. --

3561: 3546: 3531: 947: 928: 821: 417: 836:

has then disputed the move. If there's no clear consensus on what the name of this article should be, I'm going to move this back to the original name. -

2287:

That's the point. If the polls aren't about the bill they shouldn't be here. The article should be coverage of the topic, not creative "case building".

90: 3324: 1777:

are included in the questions. Plus it is copied form another article and not even about United States National Health Care Act......related to but not

3571: 3541: 2699:

I know you don't agree, but you're providing no evidence as to why. Is there any source out there at all that bonds HR676 with a single payer poll?

574: 564: 2794:

I don't see where I retracted such an assertion. You claimed they were using the name of the bill, I showed quite clearly how that wasn't the case.

2138:

If you set the date manually from 2003 to the present on "HR 676" you get 100 in Google News. I don't really have a good idea what to compare it to.

1106:

recognition that the bill offers care, not insurance - but that is not a result of any change in the bill, it is a recognition rather than a change.

422: 286: 3445:

A new bill is HR 1384; the number HR 676 has been given to a completely unrelated bill. It would be very useful to compare Medicare for All bills.

3450: 2826: 631:

It may be a bill, but the title of the bill is "United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act)".

3426:

in January 2017. The current article still refers to the bill from the previous session. I would do this, but this is not my area of expertise.

3591: 3566: 3286: 2858: 1945: 1555: 1551: 1075: 817: 3213:. Looks like a reasonable source. Less obviously biased than Paul Krugman or NHP (though EPI, which funded the study, is kind of similar to). 2667:

PNHP incorrectly highlights as single payer: the language has been consistent before and after this bill was introduced. It's most certainly

1089: 1314: 1199: 1107: 1027: 998: 96: 2011:

Well, I don't want to get into that mess, but in my view it's possible to ask about the effects of a bill without using its name or number.

1148: 1887:

SarekOfVulcan, did you read the 538 links? None of the polls he cites are about single-payer at that link. It's an error by Huffington.

2542:"Single payer" is not a term in the dictionary. If it doesn't refer to legislation, this bill in particular, then what does it refer to? 3236:-- Knowledge is chock full of sources that someone or another thinks have an agenda. Having an agenda is not a reason for exclusion. -- 2580:

it. For that not to go through, she would have to not know that Obama is a man, or that her statement was insincere, hyperbole, etc. --

1380: 693: 540: 393: 354: 277: 238: 1296: 3483: 3446: 3193: 797:. Given that we are supposed to use reliable sources to determine the proper name for an article, and that the Library of Congress is 405: 2416:

Perhaps an RFC would get wider input on which to make a decision about a merge and whether or not to keep the opinion poll section?

963:

the situation with the IP below. For example: You say that the current name of the article is wrong. Why? You listed two sources on

179: 2638:, in 2003 when the bill was first introduced, says "government-run, taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare." 2223:

If we are to keep it, there's a lot that needs to be excised out. Much of this has zero to do with the topic, polling included.

1755: 146: 2450:

than the idea that polls about single payer or universal government-sponsored coverage are not directly pertinent to this bill.

110: 41: 3173:

please post a contribution from the CBO, a Congressionally recognized Cost analysis organization, or another non-agenda source

1949: 1087: 762: 531: 486: 115: 31: 2256:

Do you have some examples of those sources? As for the polling, exactly zero of those polls are about the bill in question.

1093: 401:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

1829: 85: 3230:

neither Paul Krugman or Physicians for a National Health Program are a neutral and unbiased source for financial analysis

1419: 956: 880: 213: 3083:, not here. I have not read the poll sources, so I cannot say if they mention USNHCA or not. If a top-quality poll 1227:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

788:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2482:

process in place, (maybe throw in a few policy-based thoughts) not concern about the end result of that process.

1751: 140: 76: 3325:

https://web.archive.org/20090626125830/http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9dfd540a-3d44-4684-a333-415ef34efa5b

1079: 2175:

Neo Poz, any further thoughts on this? Are you opposed to a merge or do you not really care one way or the other?

3314: 832:

was cited as a source for the name of the Act. It seems that this wasn't as uncontroversial as I thought, because

3328: 3149: 3018: 2980: 2930: 2799: 2770: 2742: 2704: 2676: 2626: 2470: 2437: 2369: 2324: 2261: 2228: 2180: 2158: 2129: 2087: 2051: 2002: 1971: 1935: 1917: 1892: 1877: 1837: 1803: 1647: 1610: 1203: 1111: 1031: 1002: 952: 893: 825: 730: 136: 3363:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

985:

to update their websites and literature and all of the millions of people who have been promoting the bill will

3141: 2827:

https://www.thenation.com/article/single-payer-medicare-for-all-is-the-only-healthcare-system-that-makes-sense/

2043: 1948:-- if there are recent polls about it (where? deleted?) then they should possibly be there and certainly be in 1318: 1152: 201: 2954:-- they are hypotheticals; they don't refer explicitly to any extant legislation or proposed legislation. -- 697: 3252: 3037: 2833:

that health care should take, and focuses on California legislation as a vanguard for a national system. --

2447: 1930:

At this point, we need to look closer at this option. Do we know of any polls specifically about this Act?

1902: 1851: 1632: 1487: 1384: 186: 120: 2237:

I have the opposite view. There are plenty of neutral news source stories about how HR 676 interacted with

17: 3260: 3189: 1742: 1741:

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant

1731:

If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.

1696: 1564: 1016: 937: 902: 726: 652: 282: 2975:, as none of the polls discuss the bill in question. The polls are more appropriate for other articles. 632: 3472: 3402: 3382:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3370: 3263:; someone else can decide if this page should reflect that unpleasant little question about overhead. -- 3000: 1670: 1460: 1131: 959:

if you feel this discussion is not productive, but in my opinion the first and obvious step would be to

219: 3185: 1828:

So we're not cutting/pasting the same thing everywhere, I'll suggest centralizing the issue of polling

253: 232: 3502:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –

3170:

Physicians for a National Health Program is an advocacy and lobby organization with a stated objective

2906:

That's the bulk of the discussion in the super-section here above. The polls are clearly referring to

1717:

before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

1415: 1239:

The administrators need to tag this article with the "No NPOV" badge, till the situation is resolved.

857:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

3268: 3181: 3145: 3124: 3014: 2976: 2926: 2795: 2766: 2738: 2700: 2672: 2622: 2466: 2433: 2365: 2320: 2257: 2224: 2176: 2154: 2125: 2083: 2047: 1998: 1967: 1931: 1913: 1888: 1873: 1833: 1799: 1643: 1606: 1503: 1407: 1376: 1288: 750: 385: 269: 35: 3092: 3063: 2897: 2564: 2533: 2489: 2407: 2354: 2294: 2214: 1819: 1788: 1519: 1274: 1260: 1240: 806: 172: 66: 2639: 1846:

See response in single-payer talk page, if you want to solve it it's through DRN, not canvassing.

1349:

Please discuss anything not pertaining specifically to this article on the WikiProject talk page.

539:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

285:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

152: 3033: 2446:

You could ask whether other editors feel the polling section is appropriate. I'm more partial to

2270: 1847: 1628: 1483: 1411: 1244: 758: 669: 81: 3367:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2717:

is not clear evidence that the poll questions including the phrase were referring to this bill?

369: 348: 3383: 2432:

for those polls being about a specific bill, either, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish.

3434: 3422: 3296: 2915: 2873: 2785: 2756: 2722: 2690: 2671:

to assume that a poll that does not ask about a specific bill is still about a specific bill.

2657: 2547: 2512: 2455: 2421: 2338: 2308: 2278: 2247: 2198: 2143: 2115: 2101: 2072: 2016: 1987: 1957: 1592: 1560: 1535: 1332:

I have added this note to all major articles related to the current healthcare reform debate.

1062: 1012: 972: 933: 917: 898: 841: 833: 622: 62: 1478:, instead of repeating the reverts. For one thing, the very first line is wrong -- HR 676 is 3495: 3398: 3218: 3087:

specifically mention USNHCA in the Q to the pollee, then maybe it could be included here. --

2996: 1666: 1456: 1356: 1188: 1127: 1095: 829: 673: 3390: 3177:

the bill would have had preliminary CBO cost scoring, and that would replace the opinions

2992:, Polls are opinion, the Health Care Act is a fact - polls would be more appropriate here: 583: 3304: 3264: 3241: 3210: 2959: 2838: 2608: 2585: 1440: 1085: 523: 2601:

If it doesn't refer to legislation, this bill in particular, then what does it refer to?

1482:

the legal name of the act, it's the catalog designation for this particular Congress. --

1146: 3349:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3088: 2643: 2636: 1722: 1515: 1471: 1345:

Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Current Health Care Reform in the United States

1270: 1256: 1098: 1097:

And if those are not enough for you, Google has 13,000 more. Request speedy close, per

802: 3389:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1982:

lists 17, all of which seem to be about single payer instead of an ACA public option.

1091: 801:

reliable source when it comes to Congress, this is the correct title for the article.

517: 507: 480: 3525: 3509: 3256: 2238: 2190: 1735: 1726: 1714: 1475: 754: 642: 398: 1285:

Sometimes good ideas seem self-evident just by describing the facts accurately....

1126:

addresses this fact? Maybe the answer is as simple as replacing 'Act' with HR 676.

3428: 2911: 2869: 2781: 2752: 2718: 2686: 2668: 2653: 2543: 2508: 2451: 2417: 2334: 2304: 2274: 2243: 2194: 2139: 2111: 2097: 2068: 2012: 1983: 1953: 1531: 1218: 1058: 968: 913: 837: 779: 2603:-- Seriously? "healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund" -- 1665:

to US readers and speakers. And non-US speakers may interpret this as criticism.

2646: 1980: 1582:

payer, for instance. There are a few more issues that come up in light of this:

1343:

I recently created a WikiProject page to gather and discuss the overhaul effort:

1083: 3356: 3214: 1352: 1184: 3517: 3454: 3440: 3410: 3315:

https://web.archive.org/20070802220813/http://www.pressinterpreter.org/node/291

3272: 3245: 3222: 3197: 3153: 3128: 3096: 3067: 3041: 3022: 3004: 2984: 2963: 2934: 2919: 2901: 2877: 2842: 2803: 2789: 2774: 2760: 2746: 2726: 2708: 2694: 2680: 2661: 2630: 2612: 2589: 2568: 2551: 2537: 2516: 2493: 2474: 2459: 2441: 2425: 2411: 2373: 2358: 2342: 2328: 2312: 2298: 2282: 2265: 2251: 2232: 2218: 2202: 2184: 2162: 2147: 2133: 2119: 2105: 2091: 2076: 2055: 2020: 2006: 1991: 1975: 1961: 1939: 1921: 1907: 1896: 1881: 1855: 1841: 1823: 1807: 1792: 1759: 1674: 1651: 1636: 1614: 1568: 1539: 1523: 1491: 1464: 1444: 1423: 1388: 1360: 1322: 1300: 1278: 1264: 1248: 1207: 1192: 1156: 1135: 1115: 1066: 1035: 1020: 1006: 976: 941: 921: 906: 845: 810: 734: 701: 677: 655: 645: 635: 625: 3355:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3329:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9dfd540a-3d44-4684-a333-415ef34efa5b

3237: 3120: 2955: 2834: 2604: 2581: 1688: 1436: 513: 375: 259: 2890:

of 1 or more of those polls? I didn't see or hear about anything like that.

1328:

Sections and Related articles on Current Debate in desperate need of overhaul

1748:

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image

1510:

because "The bill in question was a regular bill, not a House Resolution".

967:. Are you sure that the Act hasn't actually been renamed, as the IP claims? 3318: 1508:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 18#House Resolution 676

1269:

I've significantly rewritten the section also, so please take another look.

397:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 824:— I moved this yesterday from the proposed title because it was listed at 3504: 1506:

redirects to this page. This redirect has been nominated for deletion at

536: 3500:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Medicare for all

3490: 3301:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2522:

There's a false premise in your question, that they were referring to a

1081: 1713:; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review 1546: 1798:

Is the prose section that existed prior to the table better or worse?

3473:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/our-vision.shtml

2096:

I'm seeing 165 Google News hits on without going into the archives.

1812:

Could you give me a date/vintage that you have in mind? Sincerely,

3251:

It's really hard to actually discuss things like this. The law of

1699:, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: 3309:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1598: 2713:

Why do you think that the use of the phrase "Medicare for all"

1966:

I'm not sure any polls about HR676 exist. Have you seen any?

1597:

The first line shows 78% support for single payer according to

990: 195: 26: 3255:

kicks in even when you're the only one talking about it, and

2574:

that does not mean that ... said that she hates Barack Obama

3334:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2193:, with at least a hundred news articles in the past decade. 2064:

will backfire completely making healthcare a top issue again

582: 1832:, as the issues are very similar to both article sections. 2333:

What other "single payer" proposals were pending in 2009?

1734:

If the image has already been deleted you may want to try

778:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

281:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 3290: 3285:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

1054: 964: 3032:

per Neo Poz as well as the reasons I've given before.

2859:

United States National Health Care Act#Opinion polling

2319:

Agreed. That article doesn't mention this bill once.

171: 3494:

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

3011:

these polls already exist in a public opinion article

1217:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3557:

Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance

3075:- per Patriot & North8000 ... if the polls dont 1946:

Healthcare reform in the United States#Public option

535:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3359:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2576:-- straw man. She didn't say it, but her statement 879:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 1680:File:PNHP poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion 1594:With this in mind, I have removed the infographic. 1701:All Knowledge files with unknown copyright status 2110:931 hits for the same search in Google Scholar. 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2861:section appropriate to include in the article? 2597:"Single payer" is not a term in the dictionary. 2347:That question really isn't germane. Sincerely, 3345:This message was posted before February 2018. 3081:Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States 2994:Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States 2829:makes no reference to HR 676; it's about the 1950:Public health insurance option#Public opinion 932:option but to appeal to a higher authority.-- 185: 8: 2715:while that was part of the name of the bill 1057:is the original request by the IP address. 948:United States National Health Insurance Act 929:United States National Health Insurance Act 822:United States National Health Insurance Act 199: 18:Talk:United States National Health Care Act 3420:This article should be updated to reflect 1944:I added a section with the latest news at 1286: 877:polling is not a substitute for discussion 475: 343: 227: 3582:Low-importance American politics articles 3423:the bill introduced in the 115th Congress 3079:mention the USNHCA, then they belong in 2650:which is what this bill was named in 2009 997:the title was changed. Could be a scoop. 3319:http://www.pressinterpreter.org/node/291 3159:Neutrality ==Cost analysis of the bill== 651:search for "National Health Insurance". 3465: 2502:Does "single payer" refer to this bill? 1431:No, it doesn't breach anything. If you 1293:2600:1008:B145:EB7B:FDB2:FEE5:3C91:2065 711:have a "single-payer" system; it has a 477: 345: 229: 3577:Start-Class American politics articles 3287:United States National Health Care Act 2635:How much time have you looked for it? 1556:United States National Health Care Act 1552:United States National Health Care Act 1076:United States National Health Care Act 818:United States National Health Care Act 3587:American politics task force articles 3552:Low-importance United States articles 3537:Low-importance U.S. Congress articles 7: 2886:Is that particular act actually the 2648:specifically say "Medicare for All" 529:This article is within the scope of 391:This article is within the scope of 330:This article is about one (or many) 275:This article is within the scope of 3211:this Economic Policy Institute page 2948:The polls are clearly referring to 1868:Removing polling section completely 828:under "uncontroversial moves", and 793:The result of the move request was 438:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 295:Knowledge:WikiProject U.S. Congress 218:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 3562:WikiProject United States articles 3547:Start-Class United States articles 3532:Start-Class U.S. Congress articles 441:Template:WikiProject United States 298:Template:WikiProject U.S. Congress 25: 3289:. Please take a moment to review 1743:image page (File:PNHP poster.jpg) 1554:. Why? because people who got to 3572:Low-importance politics articles 3542:WikiProject U.S. Congress things 3489: 2067:not to mention quality of care. 1687: 516: 506: 479: 378: 368: 347: 262: 252: 231: 200: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 3498:. The discussion will occur at 1725:then you may need to provide a 1695:An image used in this article, 569:This article has been rated as 458:This article has been rated as 315:This article has been rated as 3232:-- that's not how NPOV works. 2853:RFC on Opinion polling section 2189:I'm convinced it easily meets 2046:of single-payer health care? 881:Knowledge's naming conventions 549:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics 1: 3592:WikiProject Politics articles 3567:Start-Class politics articles 3518:20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC) 3482:"Medicare for all" listed at 3447:Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX 3261:asked some of those questions 3097:04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 3068:13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 3042:07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 3023:20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 3005:20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 2985:12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2944:some even refer to it by name 2935:03:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2920:02:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2902:20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 2878:04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2804:14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 2790:04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2775:03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2761:02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2747:00:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2727:00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2709:21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2695:21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2681:20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2662:20:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2631:13:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2569:12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2552:12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2538:12:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2517:11:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2494:20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2475:20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2460:20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2442:20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2426:19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 2412:21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2374:22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2359:21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2343:21:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2329:14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2313:21:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2299:11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2283:04:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2266:03:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2252:03:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2233:01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2219:00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 2203:00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 2185:22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 2163:03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2148:02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2134:02:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2120:02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2106:01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2092:01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2077:01:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2021:03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2007:03:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 1992:01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 1976:01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 1962:01:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 1760:00:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 1395:Bias of the Opening Paragraph 869:, then sign your comment with 636:18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 591:This article is supported by 552:Template:WikiProject Politics 543:and see a list of open tasks. 289:and see a list of open tasks. 53:Put new text under old text. 3411:16:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 3198:22:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 2056:22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1940:17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 1569:18:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 1540:14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1524:13:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1389:04:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 1361:04:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1323:14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 594:American politics task force 3273:03:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 1922:15:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 1908:15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 1897:13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 1882:12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 1856:21:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1842:16:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1824:16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1808:15:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1793:11:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1652:16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC) 1637:16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC) 1615:16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 1492:17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 1465:17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 1279:05:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1265:02:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 1249:01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) 735:08:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC) 656:21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 646:16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 61:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3608: 3441:13:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC) 3376:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3307:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 3282:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3223:06:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) 3129:06:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 1675:14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 957:dispute resolution methods 626:22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 575:project's importance scale 464:project's importance scale 321:project's importance scale 3154:14:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 3117:want to know this context 1301:21:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 1208:18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 1193:14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 1157:19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 1136:17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 1116:17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 1067:10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 1036:04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 1021:19:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 1007:17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 977:09:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 953:Knowledge:Requested moves 942:12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 922:10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 907:10:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 894:Knowledge:Requested moves 846:06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 826:Knowledge:Requested moves 811:02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 746:It just doesn't add up." 702:00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 590: 568: 501: 457: 394:WikiProject United States 363: 329: 314: 278:WikiProject U.S. Congress 247: 226: 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 3484:Redirects for discussion 3455:15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC) 3142:Single-payer health care 3047:Suggest leaving them out 3009:It should be noted that 1224:Please do not modify it. 1171:Any additional comments: 785:Please do not modify it. 678:19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 664:Ubiquity of Single Payer 399:United States of America 3278:External links modified 3253:unintended consequences 3246:01:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2964:01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2843:01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2613:01:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 2590:01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 1474:, I reverted -- now we 1445:00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 1424:16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 1752:CommonsNotificationBot 1605:Hopefully this helps. 1577:On the polling section 1366:UK is not single payer 587: 444:United States articles 301:U.S. Congress articles 283:United States Congress 208:This article is rated 86:avoid personal attacks 765:) 22:18, 19 July 2009 713:15-payer-plus system, 707:Further, Canada does 586: 111:Neutral point of view 3416:Update for 2017 bill 3357:regular verification 3342:to let others know. 3293:. If necessary, add 1904:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 1772:Use of polls / table 1697:File:PNHP poster.jpg 1660:Spelling and Diction 1504:House Resolution 676 1498:House Resolution 676 725:"Medicare for All." 532:WikiProject Politics 386:United States portal 270:United States portal 116:No original research 36:Medicare for All Act 3347:After February 2018 3338:parameter below to 3207:this WashPo article 1715:deletion guidelines 993:ask Conyers office 412:Articles Requested! 3352:InternetArchiveBot 1727:fair use rationale 588: 214:content assessment 97:dispute resolution 58: 3409: 3377: 3234:non-agenda source 3201: 3184:comment added by 2669:original research 2044:proposals section 1766: 1765: 1706:What should I do? 1538: 1427: 1410:comment added by 1379:comment added by 1303: 1291:comment added by 767: 753:comment added by 613: 612: 609: 608: 605: 604: 555:politics articles 474: 473: 470: 469: 342: 341: 338: 337: 194: 193: 77:Assume good faith 54: 16:(Redirected from 3599: 3516: 3507: 3496:Medicare for all 3493: 3475: 3470: 3439: 3437: 3431: 3405: 3404:Talk to my owner 3400: 3375: 3374: 3353: 3308: 3300: 3200: 3178: 3135:Revisiting merge 3061: 2895: 2562: 2531: 2487: 2448:WP:COMPREHENSIVE 2405: 2352: 2292: 2212: 1905: 1817: 1786: 1721:If the image is 1691: 1684: 1683: 1534: 1426: 1404: 1391: 1226: 946:Actually, since 873: 867: 861: 787: 766: 747: 557: 556: 553: 550: 547: 526: 521: 520: 510: 503: 502: 497: 494: 483: 476: 446: 445: 442: 439: 436: 388: 383: 382: 381: 372: 365: 364: 359: 351: 344: 303: 302: 299: 296: 293: 272: 267: 266: 265: 256: 249: 248: 243: 235: 228: 211: 205: 204: 196: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 27: 21: 3607: 3606: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3522: 3521: 3505: 3503: 3487: 3479: 3478: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3435: 3429: 3427: 3418: 3408: 3403: 3368: 3361:have permission 3351: 3302: 3294: 3280: 3179: 3161: 3146:Thargor Orlando 3137: 3057: 3015:Thargor Orlando 2977:Thargor Orlando 2927:Thargor Orlando 2891: 2855: 2796:Thargor Orlando 2767:Thargor Orlando 2739:Thargor Orlando 2701:Thargor Orlando 2673:Thargor Orlando 2623:Thargor Orlando 2558: 2527: 2504: 2483: 2467:Thargor Orlando 2434:Thargor Orlando 2401: 2366:Thargor Orlando 2348: 2321:Thargor Orlando 2288: 2258:Thargor Orlando 2225:Thargor Orlando 2208: 2177:Thargor Orlando 2155:Thargor Orlando 2126:Thargor Orlando 2084:Thargor Orlando 2048:Thargor Orlando 2039: 1999:Thargor Orlando 1968:Thargor Orlando 1932:Thargor Orlando 1914:Thargor Orlando 1903: 1889:Thargor Orlando 1874:Thargor Orlando 1870: 1834:Thargor Orlando 1813: 1800:Thargor Orlando 1782: 1774: 1736:Deletion Review 1682: 1662: 1644:Thargor Orlando 1607:Thargor Orlando 1579: 1500: 1453: 1405: 1397: 1374: 1368: 1330: 1315:199.125.109.115 1310: 1236: 1231: 1222: 1200:199.125.109.135 1167: 1108:199.125.109.124 1028:199.125.109.135 999:199.125.109.135 871: 865: 859: 853: 783: 773: 748: 743: 727:PCMartinSeattle 685: 666: 653:199.125.109.109 618: 554: 551: 548: 545: 544: 524:Politics portal 522: 515: 495: 489: 443: 440: 437: 434: 433: 432: 418:Become a Member 384: 379: 377: 357: 300: 297: 294: 291: 290: 268: 263: 261: 241: 212:on Knowledge's 209: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3605: 3603: 3595: 3594: 3589: 3584: 3579: 3574: 3569: 3564: 3559: 3554: 3549: 3544: 3539: 3534: 3524: 3523: 3486: 3480: 3477: 3476: 3464: 3463: 3461: 3458: 3417: 3414: 3401: 3395: 3394: 3387: 3332: 3331: 3323:Added archive 3321: 3313:Added archive 3279: 3276: 3249: 3248: 3226: 3225: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3168: 3160: 3157: 3136: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3111: 3110: 3099: 3070: 3044: 3027: 3026: 3025: 2987: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2881: 2880: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2361: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2108: 2038: 2037:Merge proposal 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1739: 1738: 1732: 1729: 1708: 1707: 1692: 1681: 1678: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1623: 1622: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1396: 1393: 1367: 1364: 1329: 1326: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1235: 1232: 1230: 1229: 1219:requested move 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1174: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1149:199.125.109.58 1119: 1118: 1069: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1009: 886: 885: 860:*'''Support''' 852: 849: 816: 814: 791: 790: 780:requested move 774: 772: 771:Requested move 769: 742: 739: 738: 737: 684: 681: 665: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 638: 633:199.125.109.65 617: 616:Rename article 614: 611: 610: 607: 606: 603: 602: 599:Low-importance 589: 579: 578: 571:Low-importance 567: 561: 560: 558: 541:the discussion 528: 527: 511: 499: 498: 496:Low‑importance 484: 472: 471: 468: 467: 460:Low-importance 456: 450: 449: 447: 431: 430: 425: 420: 415: 408: 406:Template Usage 402: 390: 389: 373: 361: 360: 358:Low‑importance 352: 340: 339: 336: 335: 328: 325: 324: 317:Low-importance 313: 307: 306: 304: 287:the discussion 274: 273: 257: 245: 244: 242:Low‑importance 236: 224: 223: 217: 206: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3604: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3585: 3583: 3580: 3578: 3575: 3573: 3570: 3568: 3565: 3563: 3560: 3558: 3555: 3553: 3550: 3548: 3545: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3535: 3533: 3530: 3529: 3527: 3520: 3519: 3515: 3513: 3508: 3501: 3497: 3492: 3485: 3481: 3474: 3469: 3466: 3459: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3432: 3425: 3424: 3415: 3413: 3412: 3406: 3399: 3392: 3388: 3385: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3372: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3348: 3343: 3341: 3337: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3298: 3292: 3288: 3283: 3277: 3275: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3205:According to 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3158: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3054: 3053: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3034:CartoonDiablo 3031: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2946:-- not true. 2945: 2942: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2860: 2852: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2530: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2501: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2240: 2239:public option 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2036: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1867: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1848:CartoonDiablo 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1780: 1771: 1769: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1716: 1712: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1679: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1659: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629:CartoonDiablo 1625: 1624: 1621:single-payer. 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1591:single payer. 1590: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1576: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1484:SarekOfVulcan 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1400: 1394: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1381:68.72.134.141 1378: 1371: 1365: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1327: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1220: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1164: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1101:. FYI, there 1100: 1096: 1094: 1092: 1090: 1088: 1086: 1084: 1082: 1080: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1049: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 949: 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 930: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 910: 909: 908: 904: 900: 895: 891: 888: 887: 884: 882: 878: 870: 866:*'''Oppose''' 864: 858: 855: 854: 850: 848: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 813: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 789: 786: 781: 776: 775: 770: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 719: 714: 710: 706: 705: 704: 703: 699: 695: 694:129.93.17.168 689: 682: 680: 679: 675: 671: 663: 657: 654: 649: 648: 647: 644: 639: 637: 634: 630: 629: 628: 627: 624: 615: 600: 597:(assessed as 596: 595: 585: 581: 580: 576: 572: 566: 563: 562: 559: 542: 538: 534: 533: 525: 519: 514: 512: 509: 505: 504: 500: 493: 488: 485: 482: 478: 465: 461: 455: 452: 451: 448: 435:United States 429: 426: 424: 421: 419: 416: 414: 413: 409: 407: 404: 403: 400: 396: 395: 387: 376: 374: 371: 367: 366: 362: 356: 355:United States 353: 350: 346: 333: 327: 326: 322: 318: 312: 309: 308: 305: 292:U.S. Congress 288: 284: 280: 279: 271: 260: 258: 255: 251: 250: 246: 240: 239:U.S. Congress 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 203: 198: 197: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 3511: 3488: 3468: 3444: 3421: 3419: 3396: 3371:source check 3350: 3344: 3339: 3335: 3333: 3284: 3281: 3250: 3233: 3229: 3186:SpekServices 3180:— Preceding 3176: 3162: 3138: 3116: 3105: 3104:- Are polls 3101: 3084: 3077:specifically 3076: 3072: 3058: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3029: 2989: 2972: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2907: 2892: 2887: 2865: 2856: 2830: 2733: 2714: 2649: 2600: 2596: 2577: 2573: 2559: 2528: 2523: 2505: 2484: 2415: 2402: 2398: 2349: 2289: 2209: 2040: 1871: 1814: 1783: 1778: 1775: 1767: 1747: 1746: 1740: 1710: 1709: 1700: 1694: 1663: 1604: 1588: 1580: 1561:Anomalocaris 1512: 1501: 1479: 1454: 1432: 1401: 1398: 1372: 1369: 1351: 1348: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1331: 1311: 1287:— Preceding 1237: 1223: 1216: 1179: 1170: 1141: 1122: 1102: 1071: 1050: 1013:Hauskalainen 994: 986: 982: 965:my talk page 960: 934:Hauskalainen 899:Hauskalainen 889: 874: 868: 862: 856: 834:Hauskalainen 815: 798: 794: 792: 784: 777: 744: 722: 717: 712: 708: 690: 686: 683:Single Payer 667: 619: 592: 570: 530: 459: 423:Project Talk 411: 392: 331: 316: 276: 220:WikiProjects 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 2997:Patriot1010 2952:legislation 1912:Thank you! 1781:Sincerely, 1711:Don't panic 1667:Loyalgadfly 1457:Kikodawgzzz 1406:—Preceding 1375:—Preceding 1180:immediately 1128:Vegaswikian 749:—Preceding 718:significant 621:approval.-- 210:Start-class 159:free images 42:not a forum 3526:Categories 3460:References 3265:John Moser 2652:. Sheesh. 1502:Currently 1451:lead intro 1165:Discussion 3391:this tool 3384:this tool 3106:even more 3089:Noleander 3059:North8000 2893:North8000 2560:North8000 2529:North8000 2485:North8000 2403:North8000 2350:North8000 2290:North8000 2210:North8000 1815:North8000 1784:North8000 1516:Thryduulf 1470:You were 1271:Farcaster 1257:Farcaster 991:Wikinews: 803:Aervanath 795:not moved 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 3430:B.Rossow 3397:Cheers.— 3297:cbignore 3194:contribs 3182:unsigned 1723:non-free 1547:acronyms 1420:contribs 1408:unsigned 1403:given. 1377:unsigned 1289:unsigned 1241:Bshengan 1145:changes. 875:. Since 763:contribs 755:Student7 751:unsigned 546:Politics 537:politics 492:American 487:Politics 332:thing(s) 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 3407::Online 3336:checked 3291:my edit 3102:Support 3052:at best 3030:Support 2912:Neo Poz 2888:subject 2870:Neo Poz 2866:Support 2857:Is the 2782:Neo Poz 2753:Neo Poz 2734:closest 2719:Neo Poz 2687:Neo Poz 2654:Neo Poz 2578:implies 2544:Neo Poz 2509:Neo Poz 2452:Neo Poz 2418:Neo Poz 2335:Neo Poz 2305:Neo Poz 2275:Neo Poz 2244:Neo Poz 2195:Neo Poz 2140:Neo Poz 2112:Neo Poz 2098:Neo Poz 2069:Neo Poz 2013:Neo Poz 1984:Neo Poz 1954:Neo Poz 1532:Rossami 1476:discuss 1234:No NPOV 1099:WP:SNOW 1059:Jafeluv 1051:Comment 969:Jafeluv 961:discuss 914:Jafeluv 890:Support 838:Jafeluv 573:on the 462:on the 319:on the 165:WP refs 153:scholar 3305:nobots 3257:WP:NOR 3215:Greg G 3073:Oppose 2990:Oppose 2973:Oppose 2191:WP:GNG 1536:(talk) 1412:Jleedm 1353:NittyG 1255:issue. 1185:EastTN 1123:Rename 1072:Oppose 851:Survey 741:Money? 670:Mordac 428:Alerts 216:scale. 137:Google 3238:Jibal 3121:Harel 2956:Jibal 2835:Jibal 2605:Jibal 2582:Jibal 1779:about 1437:Jibal 951:from 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 3512:Talk 3451:talk 3436:talk 3340:true 3269:talk 3242:talk 3219:talk 3190:talk 3150:talk 3125:talk 3093:talk 3085:does 3064:talk 3038:talk 3019:talk 3001:talk 2981:talk 2960:talk 2950:some 2931:talk 2916:talk 2908:some 2898:talk 2874:talk 2839:talk 2831:form 2800:talk 2786:talk 2771:talk 2757:talk 2743:talk 2723:talk 2705:talk 2691:talk 2677:talk 2658:talk 2645:and 2627:talk 2609:talk 2586:talk 2565:talk 2548:talk 2534:talk 2524:bill 2513:talk 2490:talk 2471:talk 2456:talk 2438:talk 2422:talk 2408:talk 2370:talk 2355:talk 2339:talk 2325:talk 2309:talk 2295:talk 2279:talk 2262:talk 2248:talk 2229:talk 2215:talk 2199:talk 2181:talk 2159:talk 2144:talk 2130:talk 2116:talk 2102:talk 2088:talk 2073:talk 2052:talk 2017:talk 2003:talk 1988:talk 1972:talk 1958:talk 1936:talk 1918:talk 1893:talk 1878:talk 1852:talk 1838:talk 1830:here 1820:talk 1804:talk 1789:talk 1756:talk 1671:talk 1648:talk 1633:talk 1611:talk 1599:FAIR 1565:talk 1520:talk 1488:talk 1472:BOLD 1461:talk 1441:talk 1433:have 1416:talk 1385:talk 1357:talk 1319:talk 1297:talk 1275:talk 1261:talk 1245:talk 1204:talk 1189:talk 1153:talk 1142:this 1132:talk 1112:talk 1063:talk 1055:Here 1032:talk 1026:up. 1017:talk 1003:talk 987:need 983:want 973:talk 938:talk 918:talk 903:talk 872:~~~~ 842:talk 830:this 807:talk 759:talk 731:talk 698:talk 674:talk 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 3506:MJL 3365:RfC 3327:to 3317:to 1589:not 1480:not 1308:AMA 1221:. 1140:If 1103:are 995:why 799:the 723:not 709:not 643:Jon 623:Tom 565:Low 454:Low 311:Low 187:TWL 3528:: 3453:) 3433:· 3378:. 3373:}} 3369:{{ 3303:{{ 3299:}} 3295:{{ 3271:) 3244:) 3221:) 3196:) 3192:• 3152:) 3127:) 3095:) 3066:) 3040:) 3021:) 3013:. 3003:) 2983:) 2962:) 2933:) 2918:) 2900:) 2876:) 2841:) 2802:) 2788:) 2773:) 2759:) 2745:) 2725:) 2707:) 2693:) 2679:) 2660:) 2629:) 2611:) 2588:) 2567:) 2550:) 2536:) 2515:) 2492:) 2473:) 2458:) 2440:) 2424:) 2410:) 2372:) 2357:) 2341:) 2327:) 2311:) 2297:) 2281:) 2264:) 2250:) 2231:) 2217:) 2201:) 2183:) 2161:) 2146:) 2132:) 2118:) 2104:) 2090:) 2075:) 2054:) 2019:) 2005:) 1990:) 1974:) 1960:) 1952:. 1938:) 1920:) 1895:) 1880:) 1854:) 1840:) 1822:) 1806:) 1791:) 1758:) 1750:-- 1673:) 1650:) 1635:) 1627:-- 1613:) 1567:) 1522:) 1490:) 1463:) 1443:) 1422:) 1418:• 1387:) 1359:) 1321:) 1299:) 1277:) 1263:) 1247:) 1206:) 1191:) 1155:) 1134:) 1114:) 1065:) 1053:. 1034:) 1019:) 1005:) 975:) 940:) 920:) 905:) 863:or 844:) 820:→ 809:) 782:. 761:• 733:) 700:) 676:) 601:). 490:: 167:) 65:; 3514:‐ 3510:‐ 3449:( 3393:. 3386:. 3267:( 3240:( 3217:( 3188:( 3148:( 3123:( 3091:( 3062:( 3036:( 3017:( 2999:( 2979:( 2958:( 2929:( 2914:( 2896:( 2872:( 2837:( 2798:( 2784:( 2769:( 2755:( 2741:( 2721:( 2703:( 2689:( 2675:( 2656:( 2625:( 2607:( 2584:( 2563:( 2546:( 2532:( 2511:( 2488:( 2469:( 2454:( 2436:( 2420:( 2406:( 2368:( 2353:( 2337:( 2323:( 2307:( 2293:( 2277:( 2260:( 2246:( 2227:( 2213:( 2197:( 2179:( 2157:( 2142:( 2128:( 2114:( 2100:( 2086:( 2071:( 2050:( 2015:( 2001:( 1986:( 1970:( 1956:( 1934:( 1916:( 1891:( 1876:( 1850:( 1836:( 1818:( 1802:( 1787:( 1754:( 1669:( 1646:( 1631:( 1609:( 1563:( 1559:— 1518:( 1486:( 1459:( 1439:( 1414:( 1383:( 1355:( 1317:( 1295:( 1273:( 1259:( 1243:( 1202:( 1187:( 1151:( 1130:( 1110:( 1061:( 1030:( 1015:( 1001:( 971:( 936:( 916:( 901:( 883:. 840:( 805:( 757:( 729:( 696:( 672:( 577:. 466:. 334:. 323:. 222:: 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index