> one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats

The ACA is not "health care." It's an insurance regulation. The conflating of the two is a useful narrative but it is not accurate in any way.

I don't see how this is a useful distinction, but am open to your input.

In the pre-ACA insurance marketplace, pre-existing conditions either precluded individuals from coverage or forced them to pay for more expensive plans. Self-employed individuals were in a similar position.

Without insurance, health care, ranging from the mundane to emergency room coverage, was/is exorbitantly expensive. What rhetorical clarity, then, do we gain by explaining that the ACA is not health care?

The role of the elected is to carry out the will of the governed except in cases where it is the will of a tyrannical majority. I think that has been demonstrated to not work, unless your measure of success is counted by generations and not years.

I don't agree with you on the media-portrayal point, because I think your premise is way off. There is no unified conservative perspective in the way that there is with progressives. This last election has made it very clear that the old conservative guard, the ones most similar to progressives, who called for universal healthcare before Obama, are in a minority position.

I'm not likely to be the one you want to discuss this with though, as I'm an anarchist.