Talk:Matt Bevin/Archives/2018/February

Health care

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/business/economy/work-medicaid.html
Making Medicaid a Tool for Moral Education May Let Some Die
Eduardo Porter
New York Times
JAN. 16, 2018
Kentucky rushed last week to become the first of the nation’s 50 states to impose a work requirement on recipients of Medicaid. Under the state’s HEALTH plan, most able-bodied 19-to-64-year-olds — excluding the pregnant, the medically frail and some others — will have to work, get job training or perform community service for at least 20 hours a week to qualify for coverage, starting in July.

The initiative is, of course, not about saving the state money by pushing poor people off the insurance rolls. It is providing moral education. In the words of Gov. Matt Bevin, the HEALTH plan will free Kentuckians from the “dead-end entitlement trap” and give them “a path forward and upward” so they can fend for themselves.

But the fact remains that the plan is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by $2.4 billion over five years. Roughly half of the 350,000 able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries in Kentucky currently do not meet the work requirements, by the government’s estimates, and could lose their benefits. Five years from now, the Bevin administration calculates, the change will have culled some 100,000 people from the rolls.

--Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Purpose for posting this? What discussion is sought (to improve Bevin's article)? —ADavidB 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason for posting this is that Bevin's policy on health care, which this article only discusses briefly, is an important issue for Kentucky (and for health policy nationwide) that should be part of the article. Porter's article should be summarized and included in the entry. This is a controversial issue, and Porter disagrees with Bevin, so the editors of this article might want to discuss it to see how it should be handled. And there should be other articles on this subject, which support Porter or Bevin. Like this one. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1312793 which has been widely cited elsewhere http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/813480 I believe that Kynect, which Bevin discontinued, was a highly regarded program, but I'd have to research it first. --Nbauman (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an example of a web site that also quoted several paragraphs of a copyrighted news story from the New York Times without a copyright violaton (and without any notice of permission) https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/people-dont-take-their-pills-only-one-thing-seems-to-help --Nbauman (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What an external website does with copyrighted material has no bearing over what's permitted on Wikipedia. WP:Copyrights applies here. Removal of others' copyright violations is specifically listed as appropriate on talk pages. Given the lack of any discussion by others here, I suggest that the text you've copied be removed, with only the external links to it provided here. —ADavidB 15:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a copyright violation in the first place. This kind of quoting, especially in the Talk pages, is clearly fair use. The fact that an external web site, which is reviewed by lawyers and is clearly following the copyright laws, quotes material in this manner demonstrates that this is the customary fair use of copyrighted news stories. I've had people quote from my own published work, and I've quoted from other works in commercial lawyer-reviewed publications, so I think I have a sense of what's permitted under the copyright laws. I don't think editors should use a legal term like "copyright violation" about text that doesn't meet that legal definition. You can say that WP rules are stricter than copyright laws, and if you can show me unambiguous Wikipedia rules or guidelines that prohibit direct quotes of this length in this case, then I will follow them. Wikipedia:Non-free_content specifically allows content that would be considered fair use. I think I've been following WP:FAIRUSE, just like the Congressional web site. If you disagree, I'd like to know why. But I don't think you should take it on yourself to delete this text without further discussion. --Nbauman (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's non-free content use policy "is more restrictive than US law requires" and the reasons are explained therein. You and I differ on how much inclusion constitutes "fair use". Again, given its remaining lack of discussion for use in the article, I see no compelling reason to quote this much here. Links to the copyrighted content allow any to see it in full at the source. —ADavidB 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've been following non-free content:

Non-free content can be used in articles only if:

1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria;
2. It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created); and
3. It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and U.S. law.

I don't understand which provision you think I've violated.

Let's start with the first. I think this is clearly fair use under U.S. law, for reasons I've explained. Do you agree? --Nbauman (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be clear that I don't agree. I consider that copying and pasting multiple introductory paragraphs of copyrighted works exceeds fair use here. To offer up the sources for discussion (the initially stated purpose), simple inclusion of their URLs and a summary in one's own words of their content would suffice (and would be free content). Again, I see no compelling reason (or rationale) to quote this much here. —ADavidB 07:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear to me that you disagree, but I don't understand why you disagree.

I believe this is fair use because anyone can observe that this is the customary practice in news, research and scholarly publishing. I've shown you one example, and I could show you many other examples, of how other web sites, which follow the copyright laws with the advice of lawyers, use quotations of similar length as fair use. I learned to do this with the advice of lawyers in the publishing industry. Other authors have quoted my works at similar length.

Can you explain to me what evidence you have, other than your own personal opinion, to support your belief that this is not fair use? --Nbauman (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, but in my 11 years of editing on Wikipedia, I have no recollection of seeing that much pasting of copyrighted content within Wikipedia. What's done on other sites doesn't matter here. —ADavidB 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFC is built on the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law, which it cites. Therefore, the question of whether text is permitted under WP:NFC depends on U.S. copyright law. Copyright lawyers told me that this is largely based on court decisions which depend in turn on the customs of the publishing industry. Therefore, what's done on other sites demonstrates what's permitted under copyright law. If major publications, which are vetted by their own copyright lawyers, and which would be sued if they violated copyright law, are using a practice, that's a good reason to believe that the practice is legal under copyright law. So what's done on other sites does matter here.

I said above that copying multiple paragraphs in this setting is fair use under U.S. copyright law. Do you agree? If not, what evidence do you have that it is not? The only evidence you've give so far is your own personal opinion. What other evidence do you have?--Nbauman (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the quotation of multiple copyrighted paragraphs here is fair use in this instance. I directed you early on to Wikipedia guidance and policy. Rather than consider that, it seems you want to apply external practices. Please read WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:NFCCEG. "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." "Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace plain and concise text." (Emphasis is mine.) If you choose to disregard Wikipedia guidance, there's really no reason to continue this discussion. —ADavidB 02:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This story gives several examples of people in situations in which they would lose their coverage under the new rules, such as a working mother who sometimes doesn't get 80 hours of work a month. It also gives Bevan's statements that he will end Medicaid expansion entirely if the courts prevent him from implementing the changes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-nations-first-medicaid-work-rules-loom-and-many-fear-losing-health-coverage/2018/01/19/c29d580e-fb8b-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html

The nation’s first Medicaid work rules loom, and many fear losing health coverage

By Amy Goldstein

Washington Post

January 19, 2018

People covered by the new rules will need to log 80 hours monthly of work, school, job-training, volunteering or caregiving — or any combination. Every month, they must send the state proof of compliance. If they fail to do either, they will have a month to begin following the rules, then one more month before they lose eligibility.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/upshot/medicaid-enrollment-obstacles-kentucky-work-requirement.html

Hate Paperwork? Medicaid Recipients Will Be Drowning in It

Kentucky’s new Medicaid waiver will ask low-income people to jump over hurdles to keep their coverage. Evidence suggests that many will fail.

By Margot Sanger-Katz

New York Times

Jan. 18, 2018

[Experts say that the burden of increased administrative requirements make Medicaid recipients more likely to lose coverage, even if they are eligible and qualified.]

The Trump administration’s decision to approve a first-of-its-kind work requirement for Kentucky’s Medicaid program last week has inspired concern that the program will leave behind Medicaid beneficiaries who are unable to find or keep work. But a large body of social science suggests that the mere requirement of documenting work hours is likely to cause many eligible people to lose coverage, too.

--Nbauman (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Austin Frakt is a well-known health policy economist who also writes for journals such as JAMA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/upshot/kentucky-medicaid-work-requirement.html

Twist to Kentucky’s Medicaid Work Rule: Pass a Course Instead

A lot of people could do with a little more health and financial literacy, not just Medicaid recipients. But linking it to retaining medical eligibility may not make sense.

By Austin Frakt

New York Times

Jan. 22, 2018

The courses are just one way people subject to and failing to meet work requirements could regain coverage. But some health policy experts express dismay with the approach. For one thing, many Americans, not just those who seek Medicaid, struggle with health and financial literacy. And to some, literacy quizzes — however well intentioned — evoke the tests used to impede voting registration of black Americans in the Jim Crow South.

“Requiring people to pass a health literacy course to get care — care for conditions that might prevent them from passing — is just expensive, punitive and cruel,” said Atul Gawande, a surgeon and a health care researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “It serves no health benefit whatsoever. You have to be concerned about requirements like literacy tests, which states have a bad history of applying selectively and arbitrarily.”

--Nbauman (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)