Kuan wrote:
Can someone please help me understand the whole controversy behind the ACA and why reform was needed for the healthcare system. I have been trying to learn more about this issue but it has just been confusing me even more.
You might have to dumb it down a bit.

Well, there were a lot of people who could not get insurance. Also , costs were skyrocketing for medical expenses. So, there were regulations and restrictions put into place into the insurance market, and standards for the offerings. Then, there were penalties put into place so that people would be encourage to buy insurance, and subsidizes put into place so that poorer people could afford it.
The 'you got to buy it', irked conservatives. A couple of the restrictions irked the insurance business. For example, it used to be that you could get rejected from getting insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition. Now, that can't be done. Insurance companies now have to let kids stay on their parents insurance (if the parents pay for it), until they are 26.
One of the pre-existing conditions that used to stop people from getting health insurance (in about 15 states) was 'being a victim of domestic abuse'. Some birth defects also were 'pre-existing medical conditions'. Now, that can't be used against someone if they try to get insurance.
May insurance polices were not worth the paper they were printed on. Now, insurance polices have to meet certain standards.. one standard is 'out of pocket maxiumn' for the year. That means, if a catastrophe happened, you can only be charged so much for a year.. no matter what. Previously, the company could insure up to a certain amount, then anything over that, you were on your own.
According to a 2007 harvard study, medical bankruptcies accounted for 62% of all bankruptcies, and that is another issue that the ACA was designed to address.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella