Talk:Death panel

I look forward to gaining consensus to make our Wikipedia a better place.

I was aware that it's an opinion piece. But notability, you say.

Please explain how that detracts from notability being "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

"significant coverage" Let's see, a counselor to the Treasury secretary (advisor) in the Obama administration talking about the economics of death panels, check

"reliable sources" His own words in the New York Times, check

"independent of the subject" Under the section of mere Uses, doesn't apply

Nope, not some unpopular voodoo magic!

Here are the 2 paragraphs for all that clarification you believed were evil lines to distort the message.

My edit:

In 2012, former Obama advisor Steve Rattner lamented "WE [sic] need death panels" and that "[in order for] the exploding cost of Medicare [to not] swamp the federal budget [we must] start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name". He also stated that "Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels forc[ing] elimination from the bill[;] a provision to offer end-of-life consultations[, was one of the] severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries [included in] President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act".

Source containing the same information:

WE need death panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

[...]

Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The content you added blatantly distorted the piece, omitting the 2nd sentence (which you actually provided here on talk) and for some strange reason copying the orthography of the NYT article style. It is also just some opinion piece - another shout in the talking head echosphere. Per our article on him, Steven Rattner, he has no special expertise in healthcare policy. Please a) get consensus to include anything about this op-ed and b) get consensus for the specific content. I gave you notice of the DS on american politics - please edit carefully on this topic. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, will fix the WE then. As for what he said, he agreed with the concept of death panels per se, rather than all the bad connotations that come with it. So I will make that more obvious (not a blatant distortion).

In 2012, former Obama advisor Steve Rattner lamented "We need death panels [per se, because in order for] the exploding cost of Medicare [to not] swamp the federal budget [we must] start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name". He also stated that "Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels forc[ing] elimination from the bill[;] a provision to offer end-of-life consultations[, was one of the] severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries [included in] President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act".

As for "He doesn't have medical experience" as you know Obama doesnt either and he drafted it. Why? It's economic in nature which allows laymen to draft it such as Obama. Counselor to the Treasury secretary who was yacking it up in the Obama admin before ACA was passed is much better than an actual unreliable source talking head on this article, Keith Olbermann. Maybe, that's why NYT allowed him to opine too! Since you're fast I won't edit it back which is in my rights as per Accomodations

Lumbering in thought (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has ever proposed actually "death panels". Rattner is not proposing them here. He used catchy rhetoric but what he is talking about is doing Health care rationing by policy instead of by market forces. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That must've been why he said "Not exactly [except for rationing where the death is justified]" instead of "Rationing has nothing to do with death panels". The rationing article looks typical of the Wikipedia community while in reality the two subjects are not mutually exclusive (not my words). Lumbering in thought (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog, proposed text seems to distort intent of the editorial, and I do not think op-eds like this merit inclusion, per WP:DUE. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No substance. I'm thinking of making an RFC. Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be believe that "end of life consultations" that have actually been proposed have something to do with "death panels" as imagined by the meme. They are not the same things as the lead of this article describes. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Death panel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921205111/http://www.adn.com/2009/08/11/895431/murkowski-dont-tell-lies-about.html to http://www.adn.com/2009/08/11/895431/murkowski-dont-tell-lies-about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214003001/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM%3Bjsessionid%3D828F0581510A878B74A60517E6A913C6 to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM%3Bjsessionid%3D828F0581510A878B74A60517E6A913C6
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/greggs-concerns-dont-add-up
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019011418/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/10/15/03 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/10/15/03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104154114/http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/133081833.html to http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/133081833.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713040814/http://www.insightforums.com/pop.php?id=173 to http://www.insightforums.com/pop.php?id=173

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)