At least I can provide links to support my assertions. Is Wikipedia better?
Anyway, you cannot get past that term, got it. Let's talk about universal coverage instead - is this important? If not, what happens when those without it get sick/injured?
First of all, I live how you selectively quote the article. If you look at the Canadian section of the Wikipedia article you'll see
Although many Canadian citizens have supplemental private insurance from their employers, this covers non-medically necessary expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare, and accounts for 12% of national health care spending.
As far as single payer/universal health care goes, I'm opposed to it for several reasons:
1: I don't think it's governments role to provide health insurance. If you want it, work and pay for it. I believe this for several reasons:
a: I believe in limited government.
b: Almost every program the government is in charge of is less efficient than it's private counterparts.
c: Universal health care forces everyone in to a one size fits all health care system. A 22 year old recent college graduate may not want or need that type of health care. He/She may only want catastrophic health care, which is much less expensive than a comprehensive health insurance policy. Under UHC that person is subsidizing others health care just like in Obama's plan. There's no reason that person shouldn't be able to buy a catastrophic health care policy and be done with it. I don't want the government defining what options I get in my health care plan. I want to make those decisions for myself.
2: I'm not that concerned about covering EVERYONE, at least not at this point. I'm more concerned with coming up with a long term sustainable health care plan. Many, if not most, countries with universal/single payer health care are going bankrupt. That's why many of them are increasingly expanding the role private health care has in their systems. Or some just haven't addressed the issue yet. Also, see #1 re: the role of government.
3: I believe that if we focus on bringing the costs down more people will be able to afford coverage and will do so. Once we've developed an efficient, cost effective system we can look at what additional measures we can or should take to increase access for those who still don't have it.
I'm sure you'll disagree with my position. That's fine. But that's what it is and you're not going to change it. So, if you want to focus on how we can improve our health care system to make it efficient and long term sustainable, great. If you want to continue debating the merits of universal health care we'll just have to agree to disagree.