text:
Single-payer healthcare

Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare in which the costs of essential healthcare for all residents are covered by a single public system (hence "single-payer").

Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). "Single-payer" describes the mechanism by which healthcare is paid for by a single public authority, not a private authority, nor a mix of both.

Description
Within single-payer healthcare systems, a single government or government-related source pays for all covered healthcare services. Governments use this strategy to achieve several goals, including universal healthcare, decreased economic burden of health care, and improved health outcomes for the population. In 2010, the World Health Organization's member countries adopted universal healthcare as a goal; this goal was also adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

A single-payer health system establishes a single risk pool, consisting of the entire population of a geographic or political region. It also establishes a single set of rules for services offered, reimbursement rates, drug prices, and minimum standards for required services.

In wealthy nations, single-payer healthcare is typically available to all citizens and legal residents. Examples include the United Kingdom's National Health Service, Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, and Taiwan's National Health Insurance.

History of the term
The term was coined in the 1990s to characterize the differences between the Canadian healthcare system with those such as the United Kingdom's NHS. In the Canadian healthcare system, the government pays private agencies to provide healthcare for qualifying individuals. In other systems, the government both funds and delivers care.

Typically, "single-payer healthcare" refers to health insurance provided as a public service and offered to citizens and legal residents; it does not usually refer to delivery of healthcare services. The fund can be managed by the government directly or as a publicly owned and regulated agency. Single-payer contrasts with other funding mechanisms like "multi-payer" (multiple public and/or private sources), "two-tiered" (defined either as a public source with the option to use qualifying private coverage as a substitute, or as a public source for catastrophic care backed by private insurance for common medical care), and "insurance mandate" (citizens are required to buy private insurance which meets a national standard and which is generally subsidized). Some systems combine elements of these four funding mechanisms.

In contrast to the standard usage of the term, some writers describe all publicly administered systems as "single-payer plans", and others have described any system of healthcare which intends to cover the entire population, such as voucher plans, as "single-payer plans", although these usages generally do not meet strict definitions of the term.

Regions with single-payer systems
Several nations worldwide have single-payer health insurance programs. These programs generally provide some form of universal health care, which is implemented in a variety of ways. In some cases doctors are employed and hospitals are run by the government, such as in the UK or Spain. Alternatively, the government may purchase healthcare services from outside organizations, such as the approach taken in Canada.

Canada
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities. The system was established by the provisions of the Canada Health Act of 1984. The government assures the quality of care through federal standards. The government does not participate in day-to-day care or collect any information about an individual's health, which remains confidential between a person and their physician.

Canada's provincially based Medicare systems are cost-effective partly because of their administrative simplicity. In each province, every doctor handles the insurance claim against the provincial insurer. There is no need for the person who accesses healthcare to be involved in billing and reclaim.

In general, costs are paid through funding from income taxes. A health card is issued by the Provincial Ministry of Health to each individual who enrolls for the program and everyone receives the same level of care.

There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity and infertility problems. Depending on the province, dental and vision care may not be covered but are often insured by employers through private companies. In some provinces, private supplemental plans are available for those who desire private rooms if they are hospitalized.

Cosmetic surgery and some forms of elective surgery are not considered essential care and are generally not covered. These can be paid out-of-pocket or through private insurers. Health coverage is not affected by loss or change of jobs, and there are no lifetime limits or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

Pharmaceutical medications are covered by public funds, privately out-of-pocket or through employment-based private insurance. Drug prices are negotiated with suppliers by the federal government to control costs.

Family physicians (often known as general practitioners or GPs in Canada) are chosen by individuals. If a patient wishes to see a specialist or is counseled to see a specialist, a referral can be made by a GP.

Canadians do wait for some treatments and diagnostic services. Survey data shows that the median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than three months. The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks, with 86.4% waiting less than three months. The median wait time for surgery is four weeks, with 82.2% waiting less than three months.

While physician income initially boomed after the implementation of a single-payer program, a reduction in physician salaries followed, which many feared would be a long-term result of government-run healthcare. However, by the beginning of the 21st century, medical professionals were again among Canada's top earners.

Taiwan
Healthcare in Taiwan is administered by the Department of Health of the Executive Yuan. As with other developed economies, Taiwanese people are well-nourished but face such health problems as chronic obesity and heart disease.

In 2002, Taiwan had nearly 1.6 physicians and 5.9 hospital beds per 1,000 population, and there were a total of 36 hospitals and 2,601 clinics in the island. Health expenditures constituted 5.8% of the GDP in 2001, 64.9% of which coming from public funds.

Despite the initial shock on Taiwan's economy from increased costs of expanded healthcare coverage, the single-payer system has provided protection from greater financial risks and has made healthcare more financially accessible for the population, resulting in a steady 70% public satisfaction rating.

The current healthcare system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan which centralizes the disbursement of health care funds. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004.

NHI is mainly financed through premiums, which are based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers. Most health providers operate in the private sector and form a competitive market on the health delivery side. However, many healthcare providers took advantage of the system by offering unnecessary services to a larger number of patients and then billing the government.

In the face of increasing loss and the need for cost containment, NHI changed the payment system from fee-for-service to a global budget, a kind of prospective payment system, in 2002. Taiwan's success with a single-payer health insurance program is owed, in part, to the country's human resources and the government's organizational skills, allowing for the effective and efficient management of the government-run health insurance program.

South Korea
South Korea used to have a multipayer social health insurance universal healthcare system, similar to systems used in countries like Japan and Germany, with healthcare societies providing coverage for the whole populace. Prior to 1977, the country had voluntary private health insurance, but reforms initiated in 1977 resulted in universal coverage by 1989. A major healthcare financing reform in 2000 merged all medical societies into the National Health Insurance Service. This new service became a single-payer healthcare system in 2004.

Nordic countries
The Nordic countries are sometimes considered to have single-payer health care services, as opposed to single-payer national health care insurance like Taiwan or Canada. This is a form of the "Beveridge Model" of health care systems that features public health providers in addition to public health insurance.

The term "Scandinavian model" or "Nordic model" of health care systems has a few common features: largely public providers, limited private health coverage, and regionally-run, devolved systems with limited involvement from the central government. Due to this third characteristic, they can also be argued to be single-payer only on a regional level, or to be multi-payer systems, as opposed to the nationally run health coverage found in Taiwan and South Korea.

United Kingdom
Healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, meaning that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own system of private and publicly funded healthcare, generally referred to as the National Health Service (NHS). With largely public or government-owned providers, this also fits into the "Beveridge Model" of health care systems, sometimes considered to be single-payer, with relatively little private involvement compared to other universal systems. Each country's having different policies and priorities has resulted in a variety of differences existing between the systems. That said, each country provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of use, being paid for from general taxation.

In addition, each also has a private sector which is considerably smaller than its public equivalent, with provision of private healthcare acquired by means of private health insurance, funded as part of an employer funded healthcare scheme or paid directly by the customer, though provision can be restricted for those with conditions such as HIV/AIDS.

The individual systems are: In England, funding from general taxation is channeled through NHS England, which is responsible for commissioning mainly specialist services and primary care, and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which manage 60% of the budget and are responsible for commissioning health services for their local populations.
 * England: National Health Service (NHS)
 * Scotland: NHS Scotland
 * Wales: NHS Wales
 * Northern Ireland: Health and Social Care (HSC)

These commissioning bodies do not provide services themselves directly, but procure these from NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts, as well as private, voluntary, and social enterprise sector providers.

Australia
Healthcare in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. Medicare is the publicly funded universal health care venture in Australia. It was instituted in 1984 and coexists with a private health system. For example, Medicare covers all of the cost for an Australian citizen in a public hospital, while it only covers 75% of the cost in a private hospital. Medicare is funded partly by a 2% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance.

As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications. The Minister for Health administers national health policy, elements of which (such as the operation of hospitals) are overseen by individual states.

India
India has a universal multi-payer health care model that is paid for by a combination of public and private health insurances along with the element of almost entirely tax-funded public hospitals. The public hospital system is essentially free for all Indian residents except for small, often symbolic co-payments in some services. At the federal level, a national health insurance program was launched in 2018 by the Government of India, called Ayushman Bharat. This aimed to cover the bottom 50% (500 million people) of the country's population working in the unorganized sector (enterprises having less than 10 employees) and offers them free treatment even at private hospitals. For people working in the organized sector (enterprises with more than 10 employees) and earning a monthly salary of up to Rs 21000 are covered by the social insurance scheme of Employees' State Insurance which entirely funds their healthcare (along with pension and unemployment benefits), both in public and private hospitals. People earning more than that amount are provided health insurance coverage by their employers through the many public or private insurance companies. As of 2020, 300 million Indians are covered by insurance bought from one of the public or private insurance companies by their employers as group or individual plans. Unemployed people without coverage are covered by the various state insurance schemes if they do not have the means to pay for it.

In 2019, the total net government spending on healthcare was $36 billion or 1.23% of its GDP. Since the country's independence, the public hospital system has been entirely funded through general taxation.

Israel
Healthcare in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. All Israeli residents are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. The Israeli healthcare system is based on the National Health Insurance Law of 1995, which mandates all citizens who are residents of the country to join one of four official health insurance organizations, known as Kupat Holim (קופת חולים - "Sick Funds") which are run as not-for-profit organizations and are prohibited by law from denying any Israeli resident membership. Israelis can increase their medical coverage and improve their options by purchasing private health insurance. In a survey of 48 countries in 2013, Israel's health system was ranked fourth in the world in terms of efficiency, and in 2014 it ranked seventh out of 51. In 2020, Israel's health system was ranked third most efficient in the world. In 2015, Israel was ranked sixth-healthiest country in the world by Bloomberg rankings and ranked eighth in terms of life expectancy.

Spain
Building upon less structured foundations, in 1963 the existence of a single-payer healthcare system in Spain was established by the Spanish government. The system was sustained by contributions from workers, and covered them and their dependants.

The universality of the system was established later in 1986. At the same time, management of public healthcare was delegated to the different autonomous communities in the country. While previously this was not the case, in 1997 it was established that public authorities can delegate management of publicly funded healthcare to private companies.

Additionally, in parallel to the single-payer healthcare system there are private insurers, which provide coverage for some private doctors and hospitals. Employers will sometimes offer private health insurance as a benefit, with 14.8% of the Spanish population being covered under private health insurance in 2013.

In 2000, the Spanish healthcare system was rated by the World Health Organization as the 7th best in the world.

Spain's healthcare system ranks 19th in Europe according to the 2018 Euro health consumer index.

United States
Medicare in the United States is a public healthcare system, but is restricted to persons over the age of 65, people under 65 who have specific disabilities, and anyone with end-stage renal disease.

A number of proposals have been made for a universal single-payer healthcare system in the United States, among them the Medicare for All Act originally introduced in the House in February 2003 and repeatedly since.

On July 18, 2018, it was announced that over 60 U.S. House Democrats would be forming a Medicare for All Caucus. On March 17, 2021, exactly a year after COVID-19 had appeared in every U.S. state, House Democrats introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2021 with 112 supporters.

Advocates argue that preventive healthcare expenditures can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year because publicly funded universal healthcare would benefit employers and consumers, that employers would benefit from a bigger pool of potential customers and that employers would likely pay less, would be spared administrative costs, and inequities between employers would be reduced. Prohibitively high cost is the primary reason Americans give for problems accessing health care. At over 27 million, the number of people without health insurance coverage in the United States is one of the primary concerns raised by advocates of health care reform. Lack of health insurance is associated with increased mortality – about sixty thousand preventable deaths per year, depending on the study. A study done at Harvard Medical School with Cambridge Health Alliance showed that nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with a lack of patient health insurance. The study also found that uninsured, working Americans have a risk of death about 40% higher compared to privately insured working Americans.

Backers of single-payer or Medicare for All note that minorities and the poor, as well as rural residents in general, are less able to afford private health insurance, and that those who can must pay high deductibles and co-payments that threaten families with financial ruin.

Advocates have estimated a long-term savings amounting to 40% of all national health expenditures due to the extended preventive health care, although estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and The New England Journal of Medicine have found that preventive care is more expensive due to increased utilization.

Any national system would be paid for in part through taxes replacing insurance premiums, but advocates also believe savings would be realized through preventive care and the elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs.

A 2008 analysis of a single-payer bill by Physicians for a National Health Program estimated the immediate savings at $350 billion per year. The Commonwealth Fund believes that, if the United States adopted a universal health care system, the mortality rate would improve and the country would save approximately $570 billion a year.

National policies and proposals
Government is increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on individuals' medical care in 2004. However, studies have shown that the publicly administered share of health spending in the U.S. may be closer to 60% as of 2002.

According to Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt, U.S. Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) represent "forms of 'social insurance' coupled with a largely private health-care delivery system" rather than forms of "socialized medicine". In contrast, he describes the Veterans Administration healthcare system as a pure form of socialized medicine because it is "owned, operated and financed by government."

In a peer-reviewed paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers of the RAND Corporation reported that the quality of care received by Veterans Administration patients scored significantly higher overall than did comparable metrics for patients currently using United States Medicare.

The Medicare for All Act is a perennial piece of legislation introduced many times in the United States House of Representatives by then Representative John Conyers (D-MI). The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare, the United Kingdom's National Health Service, and Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance, among other examples. The bill was first introduced in 2003 and has been reintroduced in each Congress since. During the 2009 health care debates over the bill that became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 676 was expected to be debated and voted upon by the House in September 2009, but was never debated. In the wake of Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, in which a push for universal healthcare featured prominently, single-payer proposals gained traction. Conyers reintroduced his bill in the House of Representatives in January 2017. Four months later, the bill was supported by 112 co-sponsors, surpassing for the first time the 25% mark of co-sponsorship. In September of the same year, Sanders himself, together with 16 co-sponsors, introduced a Medicare-for-all bill in the Senate (S. 1804). An analysis of a Mercatus Center study of the 2017 proposal by economist Jeffrey Sachs found that "it rightfully and straightforwardly concludes that M4A would provide more health care coverage at lower cost than the status quo, projecting a net reduction in national health expenditures of roughly $2 trillion over a 10-year period (2022-2031), while also enabling increased health care coverage."

The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a single-payer health care system several times since 1991. The Government Accountability Office published a report in 1991 noting that "[I]f the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

The CBO scored the cost in 1991, noting that "the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health" and that "all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured."

A CBO report in 1993 stated that "[t]he net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative" in part because "consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita" in order to pay for the plan. A July 1993 scoring also resulted in positive outcomes, with the CBO stating that, "[a]s the program was phased in, the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care services.

Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline." The CBO also scored Sen. Paul Wellstone's American Health and Security Act of 1993 in December 1993, finding that "by year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline."

A 2014 study published in the journal BMC Medical Services Research by James Kahn, et al., found that the actual administrative burden of health care in the United States was 27% of all national health expenditures. The study examined both direct costs charged by insurers for profit, administration and marketing but also the indirect burden placed on health care providers like hospitals, nursing homes and doctors for costs they incurred in working with private health insurers including contract negotiations, financial and clinical record-keeping (variable and idiosyncratic for each payer).

Kahn, et al. estimate that the added cost for the private insurer health system in the US was about $471 billion in 2012 compared to a single-payer system like Canada's. This represents just over 20% of the total national healthcare expenditure in 2012. Kahn asserts that this excess administrative cost will increase under the Affordable Care Act with its reliance on the provision of health coverage through a multi-payer system.

A February 2020 study published in The Lancet found that the proposed Medicare for All Act would save 68,000 lives and $450 billion in national healthcare expenditure annually. According to a 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a single payer universal healthcare system would have saved 212,000 lives and averted over $100 billion in medical costs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020 alone. Roughly 16% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in the US, despite having only 4% of the world's population.

State proposals
Several single-payer state referendums and bills from state legislatures have been proposed, but with the exception of Vermont, all have failed. In December 2014, Vermont canceled its plan for single-payer health care.

California
California attempted passage of a single-payer health system by initiative in 1994, as Proposition 186, which got 27% of the vote.

Multiple legislative proposals have been proposed in the state legislature, one of the earliest by Senator Nicholas Petris. The first successful passage of legislation through the California State Legislature, SB 840 or "The California Universal Healthcare Act" (authored by Sheila Kuehl), occurred in 2006 and again in 2008. Both times, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. State Senator Mark Leno has reintroduced the bill in the legislative session afterwards.

On February 17, 2017, SB 562, which is also known as "The Healthy California Act" was introduced to the California State Senate. This bill is a $400 billion plan that was sponsored by the California Nurses Association to implement single-payer healthcare in California. Under this bill, which was co-authored by State Senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), Californians would have health coverage without having to pay any premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. Under this proposed bill, all California residents will be covered in the Healthy California Act SB 562 regardless of their immigration status. This bill will also include transient students that attend California institutions who purchased their healthcare program through the school. Services that will be covered by this bill will need to be determined as medically necessary by the patient's chosen health care provider. These services will range from preventive services to emergency services, in addition to prescription drugs services. SB 562 passed in the State Senate on June 1, 2017, with a vote of 23–14. When the bill was sent to the State Assembly, it was put on hold by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who expressed concern over financing.

According to SB 562, a Healthy California Trust Fund would be established to provide funding for the bill. Currently, states receive funding from the federal government for certain healthcare services such as Medicaid and Medicare. In addition to taxes, these funds would be pooled into the new trust fund and provide the sources of funding needed to implement The Healthy California Act. However, California must first obtain a waiver from the federal government which would allow California to pool all the money received from these federal programs into one central fund. A new bill, AB 1400, proposed by Assemblymember Ash Kalra in 2021, would have established single-payer healthcare in California under the name of CalCare. The bill was ultimately withdrawn by Kalra before a floor vote could be held on it in January 2022 because AB 1400 did not have the votes to pass if one was to be held.

In 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom appointed a "Healthy California for All" (HCFA) commission to study the feasibility of adopting a universal health care system with unified financing, such as a single-payer system, in California.

Colorado
The Colorado State Health Care System Initiative, Amendment 69, was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment proposal in November 2016 to vote on a single-payer healthcare system called ColoradoCare. The system would have been funded by a 10% payroll tax split 2:1 between employers and employees. This would have replaced the private health insurance premiums currently paid by employees and companies. It would have begun operating in 2019 and was estimated to require revenue of $38 billion annually (from the Federal government and payroll taxes) and provide coverage for all residents, with no deductibles.

The ballot measure was rejected by 79% of voters.

Hawaii
In 2009, the Hawaii state legislature passed a single-payer healthcare bill that was vetoed by Republican Governor Linda Lingle. While the veto was overridden by the legislature, the bill was not implemented.

Illinois
In 2007, the Health Care for All Illinois Act was introduced and the Illinois House of Representatives' Health Availability Access Committee passed the single-payer bill favorably out of committee by an 8–4 vote. The legislation was eventually referred back to the House rules committee and not taken up again during that session.

Massachusetts
Massachusetts had passed a universal healthcare program in 1986, but budget constraints and partisan control of the legislature resulted in its repeal before the legislation could be enacted.

Question 4, a nonbinding referendum, was on the ballot in 14 state districts in November 2010, asking voters, "[S]hall the representative from this district be instructed to support legislation that would establish healthcare as a human right regardless of age, state of health or employment status, by creating a single payer health insurance system like Medicare that is comprehensive, cost effective, and publicly provided to all residents of Massachusetts?" The ballot question passed in all 14 districts that offered the question.

Maine
In June 2021 LD 1045 became law without the signature of Governor Janet Mills. The law would establish a board called the Maine Healthcare Board which would be tasked to design, implement, and maintain a state health insurance plan called the Maine Healthcare Plan which would cover all residents of the state of Maine. However, neither the board of the Maine Healthcare Plan have been created because they are contingent on the passage of the federal legislation H.R.3775, the State-Based Universal Health Care Act.

In 2020 Maine AllCare, a statewide chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program organized as a 501(c)(3), launched a 501(c)(4) called Maine Healthcare Action to run a statewide ballot initiative directing the legislature to establish a universal, publicly funded health care system that covers everyone in the state by 2024. The campaign needed 63,000 valid signatures from registered Maine voters to get on the 2022 ballot. The campaign was suspended in April 2022 after collecting more than 41,150 signatures from voters across all 16 counties in Maine. In a blogpost Maine Healthcare Action said the reason was that they were not on track to collect the needed signatures by the June deadline.

Minnesota
The Minnesota Health Act, which would establish a statewide single-payer health plan, has been presented to the Minnesota legislature regularly since 2009. The bill was passed out of both the Senate Health Housing and Family Security Committee and the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee in 2009, but the House version was ultimately tabled.

In 2010, the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voice vote as well as the House Health Care & Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee. In 2011, the bill was introduced as a two-year bill in both the Senate and House, but did not progress. It has been introduced again in the 2013 session in both chambers.

Montana
In September 2011, Governor Brian Schweitzer announced his intention to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Montana to set up a single-payer healthcare system. Governor Schweitzer was unable to implement single-payer health care in Montana, but did make moves to open government-run clinics, and in his final budget as governor, increased coverage for lower-income Montana residents.

New York
New York State has been attempting passage of the New York Health Act, which would establish a statewide single-payer health plan, since 1992. The New York Health Act passed the Assembly four times: once in 1992 and again in 2015, 2016, and 2017, but has not yet advanced through the Senate after referrals to the Health Committee. On all occasions, the legislation passed the Assembly by an almost two-to-one ratio of support.

Oregon
The state of Oregon attempted to pass single-payer healthcare via Oregon Ballot Measure 23 in 2002, and the measure was rejected by a significant majority.

Pennsylvania
The Family Business and Healthcare Security Act has been introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature numerous times, but has never been able to pass.

Vermont
Vermont passed legislation in 2011 creating Green Mountain Care. When Governor Peter Shumlin signed the bill into law, Vermont became the first state to functionally have a single-payer health care system. While the bill is considered a single-payer bill, private insurers can continue to operate in the state indefinitely, meaning it does not fit the strict definition of single-payer.

Representative Mark Larson, the initial sponsor of the bill, has described Green Mountain Care's provisions "as close as we can get [to single-payer] at the state level." Vermont abandoned the plan in 2014, citing costs and tax increases as too high to implement.

Washington
There have been multiple campaigns for statewide single payer in Washington state. In 2018 a 501(c)(4) called Whole Washington ran an initiative to the people (I-1600) for a statewide single payer plan called the Whole Washington Health Trust - they did not collect enough signatures to make it onto the ballot. Washington has also passed legislation to create a universal healthcare work group that is tasked with creating a statewide universal healthcare plan by 2026. In 2021, Senate Bill 5204, a legislative version of Whole Washington's ballot initiative, was introduced into the state legislature by Senator Bob Hasegawa. It has seven cosponsors, though it has never been introduced into the Washington House of Representatives.

Public opinion
Advocates for single-payer healthcare point out support in polls, although the polling is mixed depending on how the question is asked. Polls from Harvard University in 1988, the Los Angeles Times in 1990, and the Wall Street Journal in 1991 all showed strong support for a health care system comparable to the system in Canada.

A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan", poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."

Between 2001 and 2013, however, polling support declined. A 2007 Yahoo/AP poll showed 54% of respondents considered themselves supporters of "single-payer health care", and 49% of respondents in a 2009 poll for Time magazine showed support for "a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all." Polls by Rasmussen Reports in 2011 and 2012 showed 49% opposed to single-payer healthcare. In April 2019, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed 56% of Americans favor "a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all", with support remaining steady over the previous two years.

A majority of Democratic Party voters support Medicare for all. From 2010 to 2020, all House members who supported Medicare for All won reelection including those in Republican-leaning districts.

Advocacy groups
Physicians for a National Health Program, National Nurses United, the American Medical Student Association, Healthcare-NOW!, Public Citizen, and the California Nurses Association are among advocacy groups that have called for the introduction of a single-payer healthcare program in the United States.

A 2007 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that 59% of physicians "supported legislation to establish national health insurance" while 9% were neutral on the topic, and 32% opposed it. In January 2020, The American College of Physicians endorsed the concept of single-payer system for the US and published a series of articles supporting this in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

title: Single-payer healthcare


text: User talk:69.81.125.148

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:69.81.125.148


text:
Talk:Sydney Parade Avenue

Untitled
Should this not be Sydney Parade? Jlang 01:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved. Jlang 10:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete
Should this not be gone? --Balloholic (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sydney Parade Avenue


text:
General Motors Ultralite

The General Motors Ultralite was a 1992 low emission vehicle concept car intended to demonstrate the benefits of advanced materials and low fuel consumption.

It was rated at 88 mpgus by the EPA, but could achieve 100 mpgus at a steady state cruising speed of 50 mph.

The carbon fiber shell was fabricated by Scaled Composites and it weighed only 420 pounds (191 kg). The total weight of the car was 1,400 pounds (635 kg).

The car had gull-wing doors and no B-pillar. The drag coefficient, Cd, was 0.19, significantly lower than that of production cars of the decade.

Its three-cylinder 1.5 L two-stroke engine could produce 111 hp (83 kW), which made a speed of 135 mph (217 km/h) possible. The car could accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) in less than eight seconds.

The shape was reminiscent of the Ford Probe concept, and the Ultralite presaged the production General Motors EV1 electric vehicle and other production models.

In popular culture
Due to the unusual design, the Ultralite has been featured in several science fiction productions, most prominently among them was in the 1993 film Demolition Man as the squad cars used by the fictional SAPD (San Angeles Police Department). They also appeared in the second episode of the second season of seaQuest DSV, and in the 1999 movie Bicentennial Man.

title: General Motors Ultralite


text:
Professor's Cube

The Professor's Cube (also known as the 5×5×5 Rubik's Cube and many other names, depending on manufacturer) is a 5×5×5 version of the original Rubik's Cube. It has qualities in common with both the 3×3×3 Rubik's Cube and the 4×4×4 Rubik's Revenge, and solution strategies for both can be applied.

History
The Professor's Cube was invented by Udo Krell in 1981. Out of the many designs that were proposed, Udo Krell's design was the first 5×5×5 design that was manufactured and sold. Uwe Mèffert manufactured the cube and sold it in Hong Kong in 1983.

Ideal Toys, who first popularized the original 3x3x3 Rubik's cube, marketed the puzzle in Germany as the "Rubik's Wahn" (German for illusion or delusion). When the cube was marketed in Japan, it was marketed under the name "Professor's Cube". Mèffert reissued the cube under the name "Professor's Cube" in the 1990s.

The early versions of the 5×5×5 cube sold at Barnes & Noble were marketed under the name "Professor's Cube" but currently, Barnes and Noble sells cubes that are simply called "5×5 Cube." Mefferts.com used to sell a limited edition version of the 5×5×5 cube called the Professor's Cube. This version had colored tiles rather than stickers. Verdes Innovations sells a version called the V-Cube 5.

Workings
The original Professor's Cube design by Udo Krell works by using an expanded 3×3×3 cube as a mantle with the center edge pieces and corners sticking out from the spherical center of identical mechanism to the 3×3×3 cube. All non-central pieces have extensions that fit into slots on the outer pieces of the 3×3×3, which keeps them from falling out of the cube while making a turn. The fixed centers have two sections (one visible, one hidden) which can turn independently. This feature is unique to the original design.

The Eastsheen version of the puzzle uses a different mechanism. The fixed centers hold the centers next to the central edges in place, which in turn hold the outer edges. The non-central edges hold the corners in place, and the internal sections of the corner pieces do not reach the center of the cube.

The V-Cube 5 mechanism, designed by Panagiotis Verdes, has elements in common with both. The corners reach to the center of the puzzle (like the original mechanism) and the center pieces hold the central edges in place (like the Eastsheen mechanism). The middle edges and center pieces adjacent to them make up the supporting frame and these have extensions which hold the rest of the pieces together. This allows smooth and fast rotation and created what was arguably the fastest and most durable version of the puzzle available at that time. Unlike the original 5×5×5 design, the V-Cube 5 mechanism was designed to allow speedcubing. Most current production 5×5×5 speed cubes have mechanisms based on Verdes' patent.

Stability and durability
The original Professor's Cube is inherently more delicate than the 3×3×3 Rubik's Cube because of the much greater number of moving parts and pieces. Because of its fragile design, the Rubik's brand Professor's Cube is not suitable for Speedcubing. Applying excessive force to the cube when twisting it may result in broken pieces. Both the Eastsheen 5×5×5 and the V-Cube 5 are designed with different mechanisms in an attempt to remedy the fragility of the original design.

Permutations
There are 98 pieces on the exterior of the cube: 8 corners, 36 edges, and 54 centers (48 movable, 6 fixed).

Any permutation of the corners is possible, including odd permutations, giving 8! possible arrangements. Seven of the corners can be independently rotated, and the orientation of the eighth corner depends on the other seven, giving 37 (or 2,187) combinations.

There are 54 centers. Six of these (the center square of each face) are fixed in position. The rest consist of two sets of 24 centers. Within each set there are four centers of each color. Each set can be arranged in 24! different ways. Assuming that the four centers of each color in each set are indistinguishable, the number of permutations of each set is reduced to 24!/(246) arrangements, all of which are possible. The reducing factor comes about because there are 24 (4!) ways to arrange the four pieces of a given color. This is raised to the sixth power because there are six colors. The total number of permutations of all movable centers is the product of the permutations of the two sets, 24!2/(2412).

The 24 outer edges cannot be flipped due to the interior shape of those pieces. Corresponding outer edges are distinguishable, since the pieces are mirror images of each other. Any permutation of the outer edges is possible, including odd permutations, giving 24! arrangements. The 12 central edges can be flipped. Eleven can be flipped and arranged independently, giving 12!/2 × 211 or 12! × 210 possibilities (an odd permutation of the corners implies an odd permutation of the central edges, and vice versa, thus the division by 2). There are 24! × 12! × 210 possibilities for the inner and outer edges together.

This gives a total number of permutations of
 * $$ \frac{8! \times 3^7 \times 12! \times 2^{10} \times 24!^3}{24^{12}} \approx 2.83 \times 10^{74}$$

The full number is precisely 282 870 942 277 741 856 536 180 333 107 150 328 293 127 731 985 672 134 721 536 000 000 000 000 000 possible permutations (about 283 duodecillion on the long scale or 283 trevigintillion on the short scale).

Some variations of the cube have one of the center pieces marked with a logo, which can be put into four different orientations. This increases the number of permutations by a factor of four to 1.13×1075, although any orientation of this piece could be regarded as correct. By comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated at about 1080. Other variations increase the difficulty by making the orientation of all center pieces visible. An example of this is shown below.

Solutions
Speedcubers usually favor the Reduction method which groups the centers into one-colored blocks and grouping similar edge pieces into solid strips. This allows the cube to be quickly solved with the same methods one would use for a 3×3×3 cube, just a stretched out version. As illustrated to the right, the fixed centers, middle edges and corners can be treated as equivalent to a 3×3×3 cube. As a result, once reduction is complete the parity errors sometimes seen on the 4×4×4 cannot occur on the 5×5×5, or any cube with an odd number of edges for that matter.

The Yau5 method is named after its proposer, Robert Yau. The method starts by solving the opposite centers (preferably white and yellow), then solving three cross edges (preferably white). Next, the remaining centers and last cross edge are solved. The last cross edge and the remaining unsolved edges are solved, and then it can be solved like a 3x3x3.

Another frequently used strategy is to solve the edges and corners of the cube first, and the centers last. This method is referred to as the Cage method, so called because the centers appear to be in a cage after the solving of edges and corners. The corners can be placed just as they are in any previous order of cube puzzle, and the centers are manipulated with an algorithm similar to the one used in the 4×4×4 cube.

A less frequently used strategy is to solve one side and one layer first, then the 2nd, 3rd and 4th layer, and finally the last side and layer. This method is referred to as Layer-by-Layer. This resembles CFOP, a well known technique used for the 3x3 Rubik's Cube, with 2 added layers and a couple of centers.

ABCube Method is a direct solve method originated by Sandra Workman in 2020. It is geared to complete beginners and non-cubers. It is similar in order of operation to the Cage Method, but differs functionally in that it is mostly visual and eliminates the standardized notation. It works on all complexity of cubes, from 2x2x2 through big cubes (nxnxn) and only utilizes two easy to remember algorithms; one four twists, the other eight twists, and it eliminates long parity algorithms.

World records
The world record for fastest 5×5×5 solve is 32.88 seconds, set by Max Park of the United States on 30 July 2023 in an official competition at CubingUSA Nationals 2023, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The world record for fastest average of five solves (excluding fastest and slowest solves) is 36.46 seconds, also set by Max Park of the United States on 02 July 2023 at Western Championship 2023, in Berkeley, California, with the times of 	34.73	(33.38)	38.43	(40.56), and 36.23

The record fastest time for solving a 5×5×5 cube blindfolded is 2 minutes, 4.41 seconds (including inspection), set by American Stanley Chapel on 10 November 2023 at Henrico Sports & Events Center in Richmond, Virginia.

The record for mean of three solves solving a 5x5x5 cube blindfolded is 2 minutes, 27.63 seconds (including inspection), set by Stanley Chapel of the United States on 15 December 2019 with the times of 2:32.48, 2:28.80, and 2:21.62.

=== Top 5 solvers by single solve ===

=== Top 5 solvers by average of 5 solves ===

In popular culture

 * A Filipino TV series from ABS-CBN Entertainment named Little Big Shots shows a 10-year old cuber named Franco, who solved a 5×5×5 cube in 1 minute and 47.12 seconds.
 * In the movie Line Walker 2: Invisible Spy, two children are shown solving the 5×5×5 cube. They compete to solve multiple cubes consecutively, blindfolded, known as "5×5×5 multi-blind" by speedcubers.

title: Professor's Cube


text:
Extended play (disambiguation)

Extended play (EP) is an audio recording longer than a single, but shorter than an album.

Extended Play may also refer to:

 * X-Play, a television show on G4, formerly known as Extended Play
 * Extended Play (film), a 1982 short film
 * An SLP videocassette recording mode; see VHS tape lengths
 * The EP mode on DVD video recorders; see DVD recorder

Music

 * Extended Play (Austin Mahone EP), 2013
 * Extended Play (Cabaret Voltaire EP), 1978
 * Extended Play (Denver Harbor EP), 2003
 * Extended Play (Dive EP), 1994
 * Extended Play (E.g Oblique Graph EP), 1982
 * Extended Play (Fleetwood Mac EP), 2013
 * Extended Play (Gin Wigmore EP), 2008
 * Extended Play (Ladytron EP), 2006
 * Extended Play (Mi-Sex EP), 2016
 * Extended Play (Pretenders EP), 1981
 * Extended Play, a 1994 EP by The Raincoats
 * Extended Play (Statik Selektah album), 2013
 * Extended Play, a 2016 EP by LANCO
 * Extended Play and Extended Play Two, a pair of EPs released in 2000 by Broadcast
 * The Extended Play E.P., a 2011 album by T.J. Miller

title: Extended play (disambiguation)


text: User talk:69.22.39.198

title: User talk:69.22.39.198


text:
User talk:Nhandler

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 01:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Cocaine for medical use
Hi,

Recently you wrote "Cocaine is available for medical use if warrented by the physician, I've seen cocaine sulfate used for in-hospital procedures within the past year".

I'm interested to know the procedure specifically, whether it was a commercial pharmaceutical product and the general country/region this took place. I've been curious whether cocaine is actually still used medically yet, despite people claiming it is, I've been able to find zero substantive evidence to support this. For instance, no medical supply distributors list cocaine in any form as an available product (while they do list other Schedule II drugs like Fentanyl). Likewise, I can't find cocaine listed anywhere in references regarding modern medical procedures, only synthetic anesthetics like lidocaine or benzocaine.

Any help or references you could give to help clear this up would be appreciated. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:06krui.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:06krui.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:03oldcap.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:03oldcap.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:14prairielights.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:14prairielights.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nhandler


text: User talk:69.111.152.154

title: User talk:69.111.152.154


text:
User talk:Willard

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 01:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Just noticed you were on the old "List of Wikipedians in Scotland" page but you're not on the new one. Add your name to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Scotland if you want to. Just a heads-up from a fellow Greenockian. Nach0king 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gallery of triband flags
An editor has nominated Gallery of triband flags, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Gallery of triband flags and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.  — fetch ·  comms   00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of flags by design

The article List of flags by design has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * WP:FORUM WP:NOTREPOSITORY This is pointless Original Research. There has been no rationale given for the choice of variables. It would be like conducting a scientific investigation with variables like the color of the investigator's socks, or what he had for breakfast. Cyprus is placed in a category of designs because of maps, but there is another category for those with plants. Who cares anyway? There could be some objectivity in articles about The Star of David to feature the flags that have that; or the Arab colors, the Tricolor, the African colors and the Jack. But apart from stuff like that the rest is just made-up nonesense

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Willard


text:
User talk:Jeff321

Jeff321 08:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bloomington–Normal, Illinois

The article Bloomington–Normal, Illinois has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Do we need an article on every city pair? This article appears to exist to repeat material already covered in the articles on the individual cities about the sports teams. As such one could say just upmerge to the two city articles, but there is nothing to upmerge.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeff321


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/British conservatives

Category:British conservatives
Personally, I think the Category:Conservatives is highly suspect, akin to the issue with liberals. At any rate, this category is very misleading, and empty. There is a political party with the name Conservative Party in the UK. If this were for members of that party (who do not necessarily hold to the conservatism ideology), it'd need a captialized C. If it isn't it's highly POV. 132.205.15.42 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Sep 2004)

Unblock please
This is VeryVerily. I have been improperly blocked by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Could you please undo this? - VV

 * Thanks! V V 22:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That note on my page which you read was the only "notice" I received. (No, no IRC, I've never been there.) I was writing a reply to Aevar's oddball note when I found I could not post at all. Yes, I was "slowed down" waiting for the block to be immediately reversed, but gave up on that soon enough. No, I'm not going to complain about the protected version, however unfortunate. Sorry to drag you into this, but I contacted admins who were on Recentchanges, and only you replied. It seems a straightforward action to me, actually, just reverse the improper block. Thanks again for doing that, I don't know what accounts for the inaction of the other sysops. V V 23:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger
Thank you for protecting the page. Will you serve as an informal arbitor on the discussion page? Not in the sense of deciding who is right, more in the sense of guiding the conversation and keeping it constructive.

LegCircus 23:21, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * How unappealing does that sound? V V 23:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for your characteristically calm discussion of the issues. Yes, I figured out it was some technical issue or other that caused the unblocking to fail; in fact, when I saw the unblock "#8xx"something appear in the log, I thought even then it might have been that. Also, I don't really know what my reputation is around here; I have vocal critics, to be sure, but how in general I'm thought of it's hard to say, and I do get periodic support.

My theory was that Node and Aevar knew each other in RL, esp since Node called him a nice kind man, but IRC is another possibility. Maybe I'll poke my head in there one day to see what it's all about. Though, it was only with reluctance (and provocation) that I posted to the mailing list.

As for deleting the RfC, that's hard to say. Since some people used it to attack me, it might be improper for me to suggest its deletion; I was even nervous that it would be conflict of interest for me to delist it, but did so anyway since it was my complaint and I wanted to withdraw it. I also don't know what the policy is on deleting discussion of this nature; it doesn't seem Wikipedia-like, but it's done with uncertified RfC's for some reason.

The Kissinger situation may sort itself out. It was a combination of (a) me deciding to revert to Stargoat's version instead of mine and (b) Node ue calling me a vandal and re-inserting the disputed text, that made it into a mess. Maybe that won't happen again. (Node is notably absent from the Talk page.) V V 06:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Re: reputation. It seems odd you could know what I'm "known for", as I don't really; are you extrapolating from a handful of impressions?  Anyway, I also wanted to ask what sort of "statute of limitations" there is with RfC's.  You removed mine, which indeed has been inactive for weeks.  Of the people who initiated it, Neutrality has apparently washed his hands of the conflict and GBWR is no longer active.  So it seems KB relisting it, the same one, is probably not appropriate.  I may just remove it myself, but as you removed it once you may sense more precisely when it is time for them to go. V V  04:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Michael. I've thought about this at some length previously, and come to the conclusion that every trustworthy user "may as well" be an admin—even if they don't necessarily plan on making a great deal of use of the privileges (see Robin Patterson's nomination, for example). Therefore, I'd be honoured to accept, if you did decide to nominate me. Regards  — Kate Turner | Talk 00:01, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I wanted to thank you for taking the leadership at the press release. I was feeling lower everyday thinking that no one took the time to take care of this, for such an important milestone. So, great relief to see you do it :-) Of course, I will participate to translate it, and sent it as well.

. SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal RfC
[Courtesy copy from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/orthogonal. -- orthogonal 01:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

 * Actually, an RfC listing is generally allowed to start (and run for 48 hours) without being certified, although during that period it should be listed under the Candidate pages heading. Also, I think it is clear that Snowspinner at least did make efforts to resolve the dispute. Question the sincerity or the effectiveness if you like, but his efforts are quite clearly in evidence. Thus at the very least, Snowspinner could legitimately open this RfC and see if someone else would certify it within the allotted time. The issue of improper certification applies to Fennec only, but you are blithely lumping Snowspinner in with him. Though they may be allies here, still it makes about as much sense as holding you responsible for Plato's behavior because he has endorsed your summary of the dispute and you were once invited to join his "Red faction".

 * Sticking with the analogies to legal processes, it's like filing a lawsuit and later having it dismissed. Of course, the defendant can argue that the case was frivolous and seek sanctions against the plaintiff. Frivolous, in my view, means that there wasn't actually a substantive dispute involved, and it's abundantly obvious that you and Snowspinner do have a substantive dispute. As it turns out, RfC is not the best place to handle this particular dispute. Mediation could work much better, and I think it's time to focus your attention there. I regret any injury to reputations or waste of time, but in bludgeoning each other for the past month, you two had already harmed your reputations and wasted your time plenty, and this RfC fiasco is just the icing on the cake. --Michael Snow 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Michael Snow, I have no issue with allowing the RfC to start and run 48 hours without it being certified; that period is necessary for certification to be given, I agree. When I say that Snowspinner did not make sincere efforts to resolve the dispute, I refer to his page User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, a rather long page on which he indicated he would neither read nor reply to anything I might say to him. He linked to this from several talk and wikipedia pages, wherever I attempted to engage him in dialogue. If someone refuses to even listen to others' views, it's a bit futile to try to talk to them. As Snowspinner listed that page for speedy deletion only three hours before starting the RfC, it's a bit much to say he was trying to resolve the dispute. I'd ask you to read Snowspinner's page and judge for yourself, but Snowspinner refuses to allow it to be undeleted. -- orthogonal 01:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

¡Thanks For Protecting The Article Circumcision¡
User:Robert Brookes has really made a mess of it and many other articles. Circumcisiopjiliacs not only mutilate poor innocent defenseless babies, but articles as well. I suppose that mutilating articles is a means to the end of mutilating poor innocent defenseless babies.

Ŭalabio 08:34, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Translation
I sicced the linguists onto the press release a couple days ago; better results than waiting for the freeze, since it's much easier to modify an existing transl than to start one. See Translation requests for progress updates. +sj + 21:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) (and thank you for taking on the task of coordinating the release. this was much needed.)
 * People work well with changes and revisions. Indeed, it's always good to have more than one translator look at the copy in any case; they double as proofreaders.  I still haven't had a chance to take an editorial look at the press release... late tonight. perhaps. +sj +

Deleting user subpages
There's a vote in progress at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages. Please consider voting. I have also requested that the proposal be frozen for the period of the vote, but this has met with opposition. Your participation in the process would be greatly appreciated. Andrewa 10:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV RfC
The dispute is still active/ongoing. It is not "stale". There is still some activity on the page, and I expect new contributors to it in a few days. Kevin Baas | talk 16:40, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I've always considered the existence of a dispute to be the overriding criteria for the preserverance of an RfC, not activity on the RfC page. This seems more relevant to the problematic. I don't know what the general practice regarding this is. If you archive it again, I will leave it alone, but please understand my reasoning and take it into consideration before making a decision. Thank you. Kevin Baas | talk 17:10, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I do understand your reasoning. Archive away. :) Kevin Baas | talk 17:50, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

VV admin message
I've taken the rather bold step of amending your comments on VV's talk page. I went there myself to say much the same thing but saw you beat me too it. I felt that "even you know" sounded a little bit, sort of 'you don't have any friends, you know it's true'. This is probably me being hypersensitive about niceties but I've amended it none the less. I didn't put in any brackets or anything becasue i didn't want to imply that you'd said anything wrong. Only that I like my wording a bit better. Anyway revert me if you think I'm nuts, out of order, or stupid. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You are correct that I did not know about it until your note. It's indeed probably not good at all; besides the fact that I will not get consensus now or perhaps ever, the pending conflict I'm in may make it ugly and invite those baying for my blood.  I will remove the RfA after I put a note of explanation on the nominator's page. V V  05:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * In case you're wondering, I'm delaying on removing it. It's clear to me now the "damage" is mostly done, and since a slew of negative things were said about me over a short time, I've opted to wait a few hours to see if any countereffect materializes.  This may be irregular, but I'm also giving myself time on what to do. V V  07:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Got rid of it. V V  13:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing username
Thank you for the recommendation, Michael. :) Wow, the proceedure listed at Changing username is far more complicated than what I actually did. I don't consider the reattribution to be a big deal. So far as I can tell, the only purpose it would serve would be to eventually get User:Blankfaze to vote for me for admin. ;-) Since I have no desire to admin, I think I'll give the developers a break and not burden them with more work. func(talk) 17:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support
Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 00:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Chameleon's changes
I am slightly annoyed by the way chameleon has split off of an "international english" version of the press release... particularly the way it started with an edit war, and hasn't remained frozen since then. And I feel somewhat responsible, since I asked for his help. But some of his changes were good; particularly adding a note about how WP is now cited by so many other sources (cf. this diff).

Is it worth adding those changes to the other english version? +sj + 03:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll chalk it up as just another translation artefact. +sj +  07:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Feces" comment
If you read this and the associated comments by me on Kevin Baas's talk page, as well as the history of edits on my talk page, you would have clearer view of the provocation I was repeatedly subjected to by Neutrality, et al.

Even so, in light of the "feces" edit battle on my talk page, I do see how you would be skeptical of my explaination about this "tally" controversy.

However, you really ought to consider that I have shown clear proficiency in locating links to past edits and for that reason, I would not possibly think that any edit I make would somehow be invisible to others who can view the same.

Certainly, you are not suggesting that I "manipulated" a tally with the aim of going undetected do you? Such a proposition flies in the face of the known fact that I have several editors who despise me (JML in particular) and review every edit I make. In light of that being the case, how do you suppose I hoped to remain undetected with a suppsedly intentional vote tally manipulation? It simply makes no sense. 17:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * But, in order to come to that conclusion, you have to disregard my assurance that it was a mistake. If not, then you are not assuming good faith. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 18:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * But that's the reason I tell you that it was a mistake - I am not sure how it happened. My only surmise is that because I sometimes copy out a section (into Cetus word pad - a program I use) and then add in my comments, spell check and re-insert, something must have happened. Frankly, I did not even remember that edit until it was brought up. Also - you've see my edits - when have I ever failed to explicitly state my concerns or comments? If I had problems with that RfD, then you can be sure I would have explicitly said so. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 18:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki
Here a link to an edit by JML, where he states his "hard ban" goal to Neutrality. These two seem inordinately focused on making and/or amplifying trouble for me. Here is another, where JML is even more explicit with Kevin Baas. 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's Dialog with Kevin Baas
You should read this here 18:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunately, the software does not call for an explanation when restoring a page the way it does for deletions.
 * Hmmmm, you know, you are perfectly correct. It would be best that the software calls for an explanation...

I would have thought that if you thought my deletion was inappropriate, the normal way to handle that is through Votes for undeletion.
 * I think that most of the time, this page is used by trolls. I think my request would have not have any answer given. I knew it would just by undeleting it. Of course, you are perfectly correct to delete it, in the sense that policy authorized you to do so.

In any case, at the very least I should have been informed of the undeletion and the reason for it (see Undeletion policy).
 * I put a word on the talk page, so as to start a discussion there, and insure you would see I was not hiding.

Accordingly, I am requesting that explanation from you now. Also, in this situation the undeletion policy calls for the page to immediately be listed on VfD, which I have done. --Michael Snow 22:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No, problem. I'll answer there :-)
 * (Michaël, do not be so formal :-))

TV Naming conventions.
At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Patrick Noddy RfA
It was a joke nomination? But I thought it was a self-nomination? -- orthogonal 20:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Courtesy copy from my Talk page. -- orthogonal 20:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

 * If you check out the nomination as originally posted, noting the unusual end date (Christmas) and the inclusion of "votes" attributed to other people, I think that's the most sensible conclusion. Humor is admittedly difficult to gauge when text is the only context provided. Also, based on his user page, this is a 7-year-old and so there may be a little gap in what people think is funny. Anyway, I left Patrick a message on his talk page, and if he's really serious I have no problem if he wants to restore the self-nomination. If no joke was intended, I think that should be good enough. --Michael Snow 20:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems likely given that. I do however get nervous when anyone's vote is removed, in case a precedent is set that could be misused to deny unpopular minorities a chance at nomination (and I note that in the past, certain nominations have been treated that way). -- orthogonal 20:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An Issue of Fundamental fairness
As I understand that you are the administrator of the RfC process, I'd like to notify you of the following post on Village Pump:

Thanks. -- orthogonal 17:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFC
Michael, can I ask you to archive Requests for comment/Netoholic off the main page. This was a frivolous attempt and the content is just a ramble of random minor disputes. My objections to the certifications are documented on the page, and the submitters have not answered my challenges. Neither certifier is involved in the same dispute and many of the charges are un-substantiated. This really shouldn't have been marked "Approved" at all. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks for your humorous support(?) of my adminship. :)  – Andre ( talk )  17:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging
Hi, sorry for the late answer but I was out of town for two days. The table will be updated every now and then (say each week or two) to keep track of the progress. It's not difficult, since I'm doing the same on the Italian wiki and so the program was already written :-) Alfio 13:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging images uploaded by me :) I wanted to do it myself but never had enough time... Nikola 10:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Release date
Hi Michael,

The press release is ready in over 30 langs! Now if only everyone uses the Logbooks properly. .. :-)

I can't find any official mention of a specific release-time for the press release, and people in europe in particular want to know when to send out their letters. Midnight UTC seems like a natural interpretation of 'Monday'; what do you think? Drop me a line on meta. +sj + 18:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
I appreciate the note you left -- it helped me read your comments more swiftly (and respond -- see talk), and it was much appreciated encouragement. I should be a bit more bold, but the other arbitrators have become so adept at care in wording that I am hesitant to set clumsy steps out there, largely because a poorly worded principle requires a lot of time to correct (making sure everyone who's already voted sees the new option, or agrees with rewording the old one). You're right, though -- I should be a bit more bold....though obviously I made at least one poor suggestion which even I wouldn't support now, just a few hours later. Such a difficult job.... You'd be excellent at it, and I hope you'll consider running in the next election. I fear I haven't sufficient time or care for the position, but I do what I can. :-) All my best to you (you who also have my respect, and whom I think of as a friend, if that is not seen as "too bold"), may you have a good evening and lend your advice and perspective frequently to this timid arbitrator, Jwrosenzweig 00:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

State of limbo
I'm confused by the continuing existence of Requests_for_comment/Xed. Since your wintry namesake Snowspinner's last edit, it seems to have been put into limbo. I feel like Terence Stamp in a Superman film.--Xed 16:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ago Gratias
My dear Mr. Snow: Thank you for your kind words. I've always been an eager beaver in elections--I ran for my school board at nineteen--and jumped into this one too. One difference is here I know why voters opposed me. I was surprised to see criticism of "fishing for a nomination." Well, in the real world one has to go around and get signatures to get on the ballot--in my state the petitions say right at the top, "Nominating Petitions," and the voters declare they are nominating the candidate-- and I didn't see how this was different. You have to ask people, right? I guess some of our fellow Wikipedians see campaigning as unseemly--perhaps they are 21st century virtual Progressives. Oh, and if it isn't obvious, I'm a poli sci major too. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Thanks for your suggestion. Andrew was the first person that came to mind, although he is currently living in the US. He has expressed an interest in it if no one outside the US wants to though. Angela. 22:12, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I don't know where I got that idea. I don't think it's currently true. Angela. 19:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Renominations to VfD
At Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, you raised the concern that we may be creating unnecessary instructions and complications. I share your concerns about instruction creep. I think we may be forced into getting closer consensus on this issue, though. There is certainly a great deal of passion around the issue. I've proposed a revote in a different format in an attempt to at least find out what the consensus really is. I'd appreciate your comments and changes before people start using the table. Rossami 14:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seattle meetup
Actually, the thought had reoccurred to me just recently -- glad you thought of it too. I'm teaching now, so my schedule has gotten more complicated than it once was -- Friday and Saturday nights are therefore best (well, all day Saturday, actually), although nights preceding school holidays like Veteran's Day (or nights on a school holiday like Veteran's Day) work well also. Would you give your schedule a look and propose a list of dates? Once we have one, I think it could be publicized in the usual places -- I know Jmabel and Lukobe are local, and I think a few other contributors are (at least one is a UW student who's been polishing up those pages). We may have lost all our Vancouver editors, I can't remember, but certainly it would be good to meet some of them. You're right that the lack of star power will reduce turnout, but then I'd frankly rather spend time getting to know a few people than spend time trying to simply shake all the hands of a massive crowd. :-) Maybe we should start setting up the details in a user subpage -- yours or mine?  Makes no difference to me either way.  Thanks for the spark -- let's make this happen.  Jwrosenzweig 14:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's look at those first two Saturdays in November -- does either one appeal to you? I can do either one at this point.  I think 16th is too soon, the 23rd is the Huskies at the #1 team in the nation, which will probably distract at least a few, and the 30th was out for you and for Halloween.  Let me know which Saturday you prefer.  If you have absolutely no preference, let's aim for the 6th.  As far as a location goes, the brand new downtown Seattle library presents itself as a good candidate -- perhaps in the cafe on the main level?  I'd be open to other possibilities also -- on the UW campus (a library, cafe, or the student union bldg.), Bell Square, a restaurant that doesn't mind a lively discussion happening in the corner.  I'm in Sammamish -- I don't know where you'll be coming from.  If you have some preferences, feel free to suggest them: I'm just tossing around some ideas that occur to me at the present.  Let me know what you think. Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The 6th it is. I haven't been inside the library either (and we call ourselves scholars!), but I read the special section in the newspaper so many times, poring (pouring?) over diagrams that I feel as if I know the space.  Though obviously I don't, since I thought the cafe space was bigger.  Any scouting you can do would be fantastic -- Seattle's a bit of a drive for me, and I don't do it often.  As far as meeting space, a study room of some kind would be wonderful -- can we arrange it as private citizens, so to speak?  I like the 3 pm idea -- lends itself naturally to dinner downtown somewhere if anyone is willing, without imposing the expense on starving college students (or starving public school teachers, come to think of it, but I think I can swing it if people are interested).  Two things remain, then -- what page shall we use to plan this (a user subpage or something in the Wikipedia namespace?) and when/how shall we announce it (village pump?  mailing list?  both?)? Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good. I left notes (having see you do so) for User:Jkiang, the fellow who rewrote the UW page and is a student there, I think, as well as User:JHK, who is unlikely to attend (she was one of the early Wikipedipioneers who is on semi-permanent vacation now, but now and then I catch her lurking and she always seems pleasant -- I thought it would be neat to get a sense of the history of the site if she showed).  I also dropped notes to Mkmcconn and Llywrch as the only two Portlanders I can think of.  The only fellow in Vancouver anymore (now that Vancouverguy is gone) is Eclecticology, I think -- I'll drop him a note.  I figure the odds of any of them attending is low, but it would be neat to meet them if they wanted to make the trip.  I figure if one or two out-of-towners show and most of us in-towners do also, that's 6-7 people, which is a good number, I think -- small enough to be manageable but large enough to have a couple of conversations going at once.  The only other experienced name I know in the general area is Sarge Baldy, but he's down in Corvallis and I figure that's too far to drive for a Saturday afternoon meeting.  If he doesn't think so, I'm sure he'll catch the announcement on the pump. Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?
Hi, thanks for offering to nominate me for adminship...I'm definitely interested. I tend to concentrate on editing cryptography articles — pretty uncontroversial and vandal free — but there's still been a number of times when admin powers would have come in handy for various housekeeping bits. I'd be quite happy to keep an eye on Recent Changes every now and then, too. — Matt 16:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


text:
Mbege

Mbege is a kind of banana drink traditional to the Chagga ethnic group of Tanzania located in Kilimanjaro region. It is an alcoholic drink made from fermented bananas. The process of making of mbege is labor-intensive and time-consuming as the majority of the process is done by hand without the aid of modern technology. The initial taste of mbege is said to be sweet and is followed by a slightly sour aftertaste.

Process
The bananas are mashed and then cooked in a cooking pot over a fire for 6 hours. The product is then covered and left outside to ferment for up to 7 days. The fermented mixture is strained through shredded grass and banana leaves and a thick porridge made from the flour of finger millet and water is added to the strained liquid. A small amount of quinine-bark flour is then added to the mixture in order to tone down some of the sweetness of the bananas. It is then left to sit out for another day before it is ready to be consumed.

In popular culture

 * The process of making mbege was featured on Travel Channel's show Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern.

title: Mbege