Its not a semantics game and I am quite clear about the differences between all of the terms being bandied about. It is true that too many people tend to purposely obfuscate the term "universal healthcare" with "single payer healthcare" as a way of manipulating their bases. Dems love the "universal healthcare" moniker because it makes their base look at the ACA as some wonderful bill sent from the heavens to make sure everyone gets health care just like in England and Canada while Repubs us the term "universal healthcare" to rile up their base over the specter of evil Commie socialist medicine taking over the good old US of A. So to me the correct use of words is important because people on both sides of this issue would be better able to discuss this subject if the correct terminology was used.
And calling it a mix of "socialized and private insurance" is misleading too because it makes people think that the government will be footing the bill for everyone's health insurance (instead of that only being the case for those below a certain income level who will qualify for tax credits, partial subsidies, or coverage under expanded Medicade) when in actuality the combination basically breaks down to private companies providing the insurance based on rules set by the government.
You essentially cant be proven wrong til its too late.
I see you dont get how I favor our current system over Obamacare, and you want proof of how its better.
My fault. I'll explain.
