Talk:Publicly funded health care

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change the name to "Public health care"[edit]

This name has more Google scholar citations. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may have more citations but it has a distinct definition: "Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole." [1]. More at this site. It is also well addressed at public health.
There is overlap but not identity: publicly-funded health care can look after the health of the individual, while public health care may look above all at issues that effect the health of the community, like diseases and epidemics. There should certainly be an article on public health care but they are not the same thing.
It is worth noting that in the context of "public vs private health care" the distinction may not be preserved, and this can be noted, but misuse or popular use of a term should not define the usage here.--Gregalton (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public health is not public health care. Many of those sources refer to public health care systems (meaning whole healthcare sector). --Doopdoop (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to use a title here that allows a distinction. This article deals specifically with public health care that is publicly-funded; the public health article with public health. Changing it to public health care would just confuse the issue further.--Gregalton (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the article name "Public health care systems"? --Doopdoop (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the current name?--Gregalton (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article also covers healthcare systems that are quasi-publicly funded (e.g. Germany), and public healthcare would be better description for them. Also the term "public health care system" has more citations in Google Scholar than "publicly funded health care". --Doopdoop (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first point seems to be one that could be addressed in the article (by specifying or clarifying), and I don't find the second compelling for reasons mentioned above.--Gregalton (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking request for User:LincolnSt[edit]

Editors may wish to be aware that I have today placed a blocking request on User:LincolnStfor perisitently vilolating the spirit of editorial co-operation, for demonstrating bias in his edits, for depleting the usefulness of WP articles on health care to its readers and for making changes so rapidly that they seem to be planned aforethought and dumped on the editing community. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_request__User:LincolnSt for examples and to express your thoughts if you have any.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen, you have never argued anything in the talk page. An editor associated with you, Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs), has already received a last warning from administrators.LincolnSt (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Option?[edit]

The United States is considering a bill that includes a public insurance company to act as a standard to other public insurance companies. Has this approach ever been used in other countries? Was it successful? I feel this should be added into the main article 74.109.231.139 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I came to the page to find out what this "public option" the media is talking about; I still don't have any idea. Why does Public option redirect here if it doesn't reference it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.154.200 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed It was because no article existed for it before, so someone simply redirected to here even though this isn't the most appropriate article to redirect to. Now it redirects to the newly created article Public health insurance option.--Jorfer (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen needs to be removed from the title[edit]

Please see WP:MOS#Hyphen: no hyphen after an -ly adverb. Can someone please move the article? Tony (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]