You can make that semantic argument if you like but all it means is that we haven't had health insurance in the country since at least 1974 when they passed ERISA.
Since then employer group plans have had to take all comers, even those with pre-existing conditions, even though some plans had short waiting periods.
It's true that private market plans used to be able to exclude those people but that's always been a small minority of the population.
In fact, even if the ACA is struck down the majority of people won't be subject to pre-existing condition restrictions since they get their insurance through their employer who is subject to ERISA.
Anyway, I'm not sure what making that point buys you since 99% of the populace is going to think that we do have health insurance in the country - even if they're wrong by your definition.
At least you recognized it as a semantic argument. If people want to cover preexisting conditions okay but don’t call it insurance. Insurance is protection against what MAY happen in the future, not what is already going on before you shop for a policy. I suppose I may be just overly cranky in my old age but I am sick of the current practice of flinging words around and expecting others to figure out what was intended but not actually written or said. My rant is not aimed at you, as I said, you at least recognized it as a semantic argument, most don’t seem to have a clue.