Without this turning into a long diatribe, one of the major problems I have is that the general assertion that the ACA is "better than nothing / better than wha

Without this turning into a long diatribe, one of the major problems I have is that the general assertion that the ACA is "better than nothing / better than what we had before" is that it is only true in some states. Yes, many states were doing a poor job of regulating health insurers, but in my state (Washington), the ACA offers few new benefits. Whereas previously high-deductable / catastrophic plans were available cheaply for those who were willing to pay cash for the bulk of their health needs, now everybody is pushed to plans that don't do enough for preventative care and will cost ~$1000/month for a typical family. I think we are all thankful to see people with long-term chronic illness finally able to buy health insurance regardless of their state, but for those states that already had functioning marketplaces for family/individual insurance, the ACA smacks of unnecessary federal meddling that, IMHO, fixes the market rather than leading to the competitive market that was a claimed benefit. Background: I've been a buyer/selector of health insurance as both an individual and employer since 2006, so have been through this a couple times now.