The Nuances On Obamacare
Daniel P. Kessler writes in the WSJ that the best scholarly analyses of the Affordable Care Act suggest that it's neither the triumph trumpeted by its proponents nor the disaster suggested by its critics:

Obamacare has indeed reduced the number of Americans without insurance. According to a recent study in the journal Health Affairs, around 10 million previously uninsured people gained coverage in 2014--when most of the key provisions took effect--through expansions of Medicaid or the new "marketplaces" (subsidized insurance exchanges) created under Obamacare. The law thus reduced the number of uninsured people in the country from around 45 million (or 14% of the population) to 35 million (or 11%).

Was this reduction in the number of uninsured worth the cost? A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study estimated the value of Medicaid to its recipients at between 20¢ and 40¢ per dollar of expenditure, with the majority of the value going to health-care providers like doctors and hospitals. By comparison, the Earned Income Tax Credit--a cash transfer program designed to enhance the incomes of the working poor--delivers around 90¢ of value to its recipients per dollar of expenditure. Given that more than half of Obamacare's reduction in the numbers of the uninsured has been from its expansion of Medicaid, this makes the law look more like welfare for the medical-industrial complex than support for the needy.

The root of Medicaid's weakness is the program's minimal effect on health. In 2008, the state of Oregon initiated an expansion of its Medicaid program, drawing names from a waiting list by lottery. The lottery created a rare opportunity to study the effects of Medicaid with the rigor of a randomized, controlled trial. An evaluation in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, after two years, the Oregon Medicaid expansion had no significant effects on beneficiaries' physical health, though it did reduce their self-reported financial strain and depression.

...What is needed now is an honest discussion of the fundamental trade-offs that we still face: between cost and coverage, incentives and generosity, markets and government.

Unfortunately, the way Obamacare was promoted to the American people has made this discussion difficult to have. The law was oversold in several ways.

Premiums haven't gone down. Many people who liked their old health plans haven't been able to keep them. The health benefits from expanding coverage have been elusive. And the macroeconomic consequences of the law have been negative: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the disincentives created by Obamacare--subsidies are phased out as beneficiaries' incomes rise--will reduce the number of hours worked by 1.5% to 2% from 2017 to 2024.

A WSJ commenter with an example from the workplace:

John Trottman
Here is a real life example of how a company employing hourly security guards avoided being penalized.

ACA say they must offer an "Affordable" plan that meets "Bronze" standards.
Affordable means you cannot charge them more than 9.5% of their wages for single coverage. You do NOT have to cover spouses (so they didn't offer) and you can charge the full amount to the employee to cover kids (which they did).

So these employees were offered a $5,500 deductible plan for 9.5% of their wages. Out of 6,000 employees, 180 enrolled. And the rest? Since their employer offered affordable coverage at the bronze level, they do not qualify for a subsidy on the exchanges.

This is the type of garbage the Pelosi & company put out daily.

More from the same guy:

John Trottman

Sure let's not mention what additional burdens ACA has placed on businesses. The same businesses that were struggling to recover only to have more taxes, expenses and reporting responsibilities thrust upon them.

* The pass through to the consumer Health Insurer Fee Excise tax at 3% to 4.5% of premium. For a 100 employee company that is the equivalent of $75,000.
* Transitional Reinsurance Fee.
* PCORI Fee.
* Covering bum kids to age 26 with no questions asked.
* Everything HHS says is preventative must be free. Free for the employer to fund 100% of the cost.
* Modifying W-2's to show premium paid. This is a lead up to taxing benefits in 2018.
* If you are employed, ask your HR department about the ACA reporting they are struggling with. Get ready to be yelled at.
It is all just a government grab, plain and simple.

Here's a comment that reflects some of the idiocy of Obamacare:

Jeff Funk

All I can tell you is our own health plan (which suited our situation quite well, thank you very much) was cancelled due to it not meeting the maternity requirements (we were in our 50s). Now our 'government approved' plan is 45% more expensive and offers far less covereage than our 'free market' plan. But wait...at least we have maternity coverage should my wife (who is now 60) becomes pregnant. What a joke.

Another view:

Mike Schmidt

Obamacare is actually a massive success - depending on your perspective. The goals of obamacare never had anything to do with improving peoples' healthcare - they were always about controlling people, tax increases, the insurance lobby, and govt. expansion.