Sorry, I tend to think of "universal health care", "national health
care", and "socialized medicine", as synonyms. "Universal health care"
is presumably something of a different animal as you point out, but I
suspect that what it really is, is part of an animal, the camel's nose
under the tent if you will, which must inevitably lead to national
health care/socialized medicine at some point in the future to remain
viable.

That's an interesting point. Your assumption -- which has some validity --
is that it will be impossible to properly finance truly universal health
care, thus obliging the government to take over the entire health-care
system. Which, Liberal though I am, I would not like to experience.


I get the impression that people are expecting a heath care system
free of rationing, that everyone will be able to get all the health care
they might want, and I just don't see how that could be done.

One form of "rationing" is keeping people from demanding health care they
don't actually need. Insurance companies and HMOs are supposed to be doing
this, but too often it seems that people are denied care they truly need.