>>Because there's plenty of evidence that the "real life evidence" isn't the sunny view you're making it.

I'm not making it, the Commonwealth Institute is making it.

Contrast their careful review with the only evidence you present which is that because you say it, it must be true.

>>In cases where premiums haven't gone up, or haven't gone up significantly, look at the deductibles and look at the drug costs.

Fair point: you can't just look at price without also comparing benefits. But we have to accept that the enrollees are competent enough to figure this out for themselves, and the vast majority does not agree with you. Consider the 60% who have used their plan, 60% of whom said they could not have accessed the care previously. This is a MASSIVE increase in access that normally would be attached to a big price increase- but so far the 2015 figures are not showing the "skyrocketing" premiums that some hoped for.

>>I'll ask you the same question I asked Mike - why is it that labor unions (which once supported ACA in the beginning) have been hammered HHS for exemptions????

I assume the exemption you are talking about, is the $63 reinsurance fee that is supposed to collect $25 billion in the next 3 years to offset the cost of expensive unhealthy types who buy policies.

Go on then, you tell us your version of why unions want to avoid this fee and how you justify the implication that they don't support the ACA as they once did.