>>But here's the problem - it's come too much at the expense of too many lower-middle and middle-class Americans who had aspects of their lives disrupted (some minor, and some more than minor). And the actual number of new people who now have "any" kind of acceptable coverage is far lower than what was projected. It's been a rather expensive proposition for a much smaller benefit than what was anticipated.

As I keep saying, if you don't do this, you face disaster in a decade. Perfect? No, but then perfect is the enemy of good.

>>And on the question of "what impact does it have on your lifestyle"...that is verbal class warfare and truthfully, an unfair statement on your part.

Puh-leez. People strain at gnats and swallow camels. I don't even know what "verbal class warfare" is. Paying for healthcare and making sure everybody can eat is one of the prices of a stable society IMHO. Sort of like paying for the fire brigade- how often does your house burn down after all? What a huge cost and inconvenience paying for incompetents? Don't think so. The only issue is whether a drunk dropping his cigarette and setting the place on fire is more deserving than the father of three who has a survivable heart attack but has no coverage.

>>This is something I don't talk about normally, but my wife has fibromyalgia and complications from it. The last year and a half has been a very frustrating sequence of events related to coverage (or lack) and doctors no longer participating in certain plans. Much of it can be attributed to impact from the new laws. We also had to switch pediatricians months ago, something we did not want to do. It has cost us headaches and frustration (and stress on my wife, who had physical therapy session schedules disrupted from it) and higher premiums. So you can imagine my reaction to the term "lifestyle".

Sorry to hear it- but had ACA occurred 20 years ago when it ought, your wife would not be experiencing this. As it is, I'm very sorry for what is happening to you in a time of change and turmoil.