Great issues raised in the last post and I do think these warrant more discussion. So I will ask more question and spout less statistics this time.
Wikipedia
I thought the Wikipedia idea was brilliant. Putting the bill on a site like Wikipedia and letting people edit it. We could see what comes of a purely democratic process. That is just the kind of thing I had in mind. Unfortunately the Wikipedia people did not agree.
Dr A: I am trying something new. I have a blog at the Daily Kos talking about something I call miliary democracy. I am trying to write a bill for a general election in a local community that can be downloaded and run in your county. The bill will create universal health care in one county at a time. This is how Germany and Denmark got universal health care. My idea is to allow people to read the basic bill I have and either make suggestions or directly edit the bill. People could then download the bill and introduce it at the next general election in their county when the collaboration is finished. One of my readers commented that I should utilize Wikipedia.
My concern is that health care is a hot topic and there are those that do not wish to see universal health care in America. People could do malicious things to the site like delete the bill entirely. Are there protections from such vandalism? Are there previous versions of Wiki entries saved some where? Thoughts about whether the idea is a good one or not?
If I did this I would put in 2 entries: One on Health Care Cooperatives and one on Miliary Democracy.
If this works for health care, I intend to expand to other issues that should be enacted federally but are unlikely to get there--campaign finance reform maybe?
DailyKos Dr A 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like this user wants to post his political original research to the wiki, and then lock it so no one else can modify it. Sorry, but that's exactly what we do not allow on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate anything. If the term "miliary democracy" is something you just coined, it is not yet notable and is a neologism. Save this for your blog for now, and if it gains traction there, let someone else write about it, as you would have a conflict of interest. Realkyhick 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict On Wikipedia, all previous versions are always saved. But I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the right place for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political tool. You can't create an article just to promote your idea. You might be able to create an article describing the campaign itself, for informational purposes, if it has become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Otherwise you'd better stick with your standalone website.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
* WP is not a soapbox; however, if the concept is noticed by independent journalists it is a valid topic for an article. Additionally, the author of the WP article should be independent of your project. --Kevin Murray 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK...so that did not go well.
I am still considering DKosopedia. I have a copy of the bill on google docs. I am not sure how to have a copy that can be edited and keep all of the old copies. I can see that this is a controversial topic and could bring in people who wish to be malicious. Say delete the whole bill and all the work that was done. How could I prevent that? What kind of forum should be set up to get the most out of suggestions and allow people to pick and choose among the versions suggested?
Mandatory vs. Voluntary:
This is the one area I vasilated about for quite some time. I have no doubt that the insurance industry, if they get wind of what I am doing, will descend on our town. Having just received this kind of attention from Walmart on a recent bill in town I do not wish to give the opponents of universal health care any kind of leverage. Making the bill mandatory allows them to say that we are taking away choice. Business leaders who do not wish to pay for health care at all may also hate the bill. Then there is the "socialized medicine" (read first step to the dreaded communism) arguments. I feel the public will get snowed with adds frightening them about this bill and I will be unable to keep up with counter arguments.
On the other hand, maybe I am selling the public short. Jack Clark of the Rational Radical who puts out the podcast "Blast the Right" http://www.therationalradical.com/... recently did a great segment in his show. Here is a transcript of part of the pod cast:
So its no surprise that the American public overwhelmingly supports a government guarantee of health insurance for all Americans by 64% to 27% according to a Feb. NY Times/CBS poll. In that survey fully 60% of Americans said they would pay higher taxes to achieve that goal. Including 46% of Republicans.
Maybe there is hope!
Here are the comments that were made to my last entry.
I think that any real Universal Health care has to have a couple of factors:
1. It has to be universal. No Opt-In or Opt-Out. That way it isn't competing with private plans.
2. It has to be free, that way even the unemployed can afford it.
3. It has to be portable - a person who is on vacation to another state should not even have to think about whether the nearby hospital will accept them.
I hate saying this, because I know that you have put a lot of work into it, but them's the breaks.. tough love or something.
Anyways, let us say that there are 2 individuals..
Person A and Person B.
They both earn the same ammount - doesnt really matter how much.
Let us say that Person A has HIV/AIDS/BirdFlu and Person B is perfectly healthy.
Person A would be charged a LOT for private insurance, but could buy into your plan for very little, while Person B would be able to get Private insurance for a lot less...
So Person A would choose your plan, and Person B would go with the Private plan... eventually, this Opt In plan would have only those people who were completely uninsurable or very high risk people - and the Private sector would be unaffected. Not a good situation.
So your thoughts. Will making the bill mandatory make it a bill that can not be passed at a general election because Americans hate to be forced to do anything, even things that are cheaper and better? Will it make the bill to open to attack by the health insurance industry and advertising? Will keeping the bill voluntary lead to a 2 tiered health care system with the two tiers having a wide difference in health care?