1. In general it was created to make healthcare available to everyone who couldn't get decent coverage.

2. Fat chance

3.  Definitely. People (with existing coverage) have lost their insurance and yet Obama previously said that they were going to be able to keep their plan. Just recently my dad had just lost his dental insurance which he had for a while (hes pissed). People like me are not going to pay for this asinine insurance and in the process are going to be fined. Comapnies are dumping their insurance plans for their workers and would rather pay the fine as well. It's a cluster fuck of a mess.

4.  I Was a supporter of the democratic party and later briefly republican afterwards before I became a supporter of the libertarian party.

I guess I'll give my thoughts now. 

No, because it was far too weak and conceded too much to the existing, broken insurance system in the first place.

It should have been single payer the whole time and actually lowered costs by spreading them out, removing margins, and most importantly making list costs reflect the cost to provide (they currently are arbitrarily 10-100x that)

If that was the intention it didn't work. A failure of this will force a more private market, not less. The pushback will be "government run failed, let's go private".

I just saw liberals throwing away their one decent chance to get single payer by compromising too much.

1. The primary concern was to be seen as "doing something" about health care, with an eye toward increased centralization (which goes without saying because that is the only way that anyone in Washington thinks).

2. Yes.

3. Of course.

4. I'm an anarchist at heart but a minarchist in my head.

How often does this happen, however? I personally cannot think of one example where a failing of Government policy has resulted in there being more freedom. Usually, it's the freedom that is blamed, and the Government implements an even greater encroachment on freedom.

Case in point, 2008.

Other great countries don't give everyone insurance. They give everyone a basic level of healthcare paid from taxes, if you want more you either pay directly or get insurance.

The main goal of the ACA is for everyone to have access to decent healthcare at a cost they can afford

Will that goal be met? I doubt it. If the Democrats control at least one segment of government after the 2016 election then the ACA will be sufficiently entrenched that it will remain until a system even closer to true public healthcare replaces it. If the Tea Party keeps dragging the Republicans towards the looney fringe then it's likely the Democrats will at least retain a majority in the Senate, potentially keep the Whitehouse and reduce the majority in the House.

Everything has unforseen consequences, the more complex the scheme the more the unforseen consequences

I am so glad I live in a country that has Universal health care for all its citizens. I am fortunate that I do not live in America. Health care should be available for all citizens and not just for the wealthy that can afford it.

Well, I expect, not exactly more private, but a more complicated entangled public-private mess. Whereby new private entrants can't compete, the encumbent providers earn more, the government spends more money for less return, and medicaid coverage shrinks further. Basically a worse version of the old system.

The political pressure against making it outright more socialised/centralised is incredibly strong in America. I just can't see it happening as a response to anything. 

If government actually solved a problem, there would be no need for it. Thats why it only fucks it up more with red tape and more stupid shit.

I hate obamacare. It has done nothing but ruin my health coverage I could afford to something I will NOT comply with no matter what jail time they threaten. Friends and family alike.

Moochele said that Obamacare was a "holiday treat", this is how out of touch this ass clown is.

The brownshirts are coming to force thier way of life on the rest of us. Nanny state authoritarian style.