The Affordable Care Act is ultimately has more positives than negatives for our society.

"Prior to the Affordable Care Act in the United States, healthcare was still treated as a necessity and not as a commodity."Untrue. http://thinkprogress.org...http://economy.money.cnn.com...http://www.cato.org...http://money.cnn.com...(notice these are counted in thousands of millions)It isn't even feasible that a plethora of companies run by shareholders and C.E.O.'s would possibly offer healthcare "for the good of society". They are doing it for profit. The idea behind "necessity versus commodity" is that necessities should not be for profit --or if they are, the profit margin does not come before the needs of society. Take a look at what these insurance companies have been doing with your premiums (besides investing them and giving you nothing in return).http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org..."Anthem Health Plans of Maine argues that regulators violated state law and the U.S. Constitution when they reduced requested premium increases in each of the past three years, depriving the company of "a fair and reasonable return."Ah, I see, everyone who is poor needs to magically find a better job; while their employers should make 58 million a year."Those who could not afford to pay their bills were, in most cases, offered free treatment."--If this were accurate, medical bills would not be the number one cause of bankruptcy. http://www.cnbc.com..."Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program." --You still can in most cases. Now more people are able to get medicaid and chip, in states where they expanded it. Ironically, states that did not have some of the highest rates of uninsured, like Texas. Unless your employer switches your plan entirely, you are fine. "They would also be covered in hospital visits." --Unpaid E.R. visits are one of the biggest contributing factors to our medical expenses, that our taxes end up paying for one way or the other. Many people also put themselves in debt by being hypocondriacs and going to the hospital over every little thing. The plans under the A.C.A. mandate preventative care coverage and certain procedures, as well as capping out of pocket expense and deductibles. Less people will get sick if they are able to get medical care while younger, and less people will frequent the E.R. unless they feel it truly necessary."Now, there was also a significant population who did not qualify for the free insurance programs."--Right..."These individuals often fell into an income bracket of around $50,000-$100,000 a year."The range began much lower. You had to be dang near broke to qualify at all. Our poverty level also hasn't been adjusted in over 70 years. 50 k is really the start of "middle class" these days."These individuals also did not purchase insurance because it was likewise too expensive for them."--Uh huh..."Now, under the ACA, they aren't getting "free" insurance, they are getting insurance at a slightly lower cost, but still, many of these families can not afford to pay this insurance premium, which, in some cases, can exceed $5,000 per year."--This has been claimed by many, and yet many others claim the opposite. Everyone I have found saying this admits they either didn't look at the exchanges or didn't enter their information to see what subsidies they qualify for. I personally got a gold plan for $50 a month. I'm an A & B student just now being insured for the first time in my life. I have no moral qualms about the fact that someone who makes 5 times as much as me for the same amount of effort or less (like insurance company c.e.o.'s) is helping to pay for it."However, thanks to the poorly written ACA, they are now forced, by law, to pay money which they don't have for the "affordable" insurance, or otherwise pay a significant fine."--A larger pool of insurees means more accurate forecasts, and lower premiums if healthcare were treated as a necessity. Under free market capitalism, a larger pool means insurers raise rates because they know people will blame Obama instead of them. Which is why single-payer is going to be next on the liberal agenda. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when you will need medical care, and with our current costs, you would be among those trying to figure out how to file a medical bankruptcy (many places, you can't)."Does this sound helpful to you?"--No, but you aren't describing the A.C.A. You are describing the average conservative'sunderstanding of the A.C.A. http://www.hhs.gov... "Prior to the A.C.A., Americans have been paying the most per capita for health-care (and higher education) of any 1'st world country."I will defer you to my rebuttal for your first point, which shows that the ACA actually is more financially taxing on low income families than the status quo."--50 k is NOT low income. I know a lot of people who would drop out of college right now for that kind of base salary. Families below 110% poverty level are exempt from the mandate and the tax hit. If you make above poverty and refuse to participate in the exchanges, you are actually helping to stifle the effectiveness of the A.C.A. and that is why you are being fined. Also, you are not understanding that it is the insurers raising their rates out of spite, admittedly because their profit margins are under attack. God forbid they have to sell their 747 and buy smaller planes. Finally, as I have already stated, the majority of families claiming that their rates would go UP have NOT looked at the subsidies, or had very cheap, crappy plans before. It was left to the insurer to decide whether to cancel plans or raise rates, and in many cases they were very deceptive about it --often tricking people off of grandfathered plans.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://health.wusf.usf.edu..."The law has already made insurers provide customers with preventive care like mammograms and contraception without copays, has allowed 3 million adults under age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance, and has lowered prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients." -- http://health.wusf.usf.edu..."Just because the ACA is being protested by billionares doesn't mean the general public doesn't appose the poorly written legislation as well."--Are you saying that you believe lobbyists are looking out for US, and not the people who pay them?http://www.nytimes.com...=These peoples' sole focus is neither the betterment of America or the prospering of its people, but rather "how can we derail the black man".http://www.theguardian.com...http://talkingpointsmemo.com..."as part of what Charles Koch has called a "radical philosophy," the Koch brothers have founded and bankrolled conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, with the long-term goal of shrinking government until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, in the famous words of Grover Norquist (partially funded by the Koch brothers). They have financed the tea party, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Washington's deficit obsession, which brought us the painful austerity measures of the "fiscal cliff" and sequestration. -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.forbes.com...http://www.forbes.com..."those who "make less money" as the OP puts it, still have to pay out of pocket with money that they don't have, with yearly premiums sometimes exceeding $5,000."-- For one thing, those who make less money get the biggest subsidies. Secondly, 5000 barely covers one surgical procedure. Thirdly, insurance SHOULD get cheaper with more people enrolling, if the private insurers weren't doing it solely for profit margins."Furthermore, while the ACA may prevent the hours of employees from being cut to avoid insuring them, it won't prevent the employees themselves from being fired to save on costs."--Companies with fewer than 50 employees wont be affected. Do you really think businesses that rely on 100 employees are going to cut back to 50 to save on healthcare? The loss of productivity would not justify this. Not to mention, whenever businesses that make billions in profits are willing to lay-off to save money, it is a sign of greed, which is why free-market doesn't work in real life. There are also tax credits for small businesses included in the ACA."All companies look for the cheapest possible way to function and make a profit."--Right..."the Affordable Care Act, is actually more harmful to our society"--You say this because you have only heard about it, and do not actually know how it has helped many people who are actually poor. On the off chance you or your family makes above 100k, I am sorry to tell you, but nobody feels sad if you are taking a tax hit over this.A large inflow of newly insured individuals will begin going to emergency rooms for any sort of injury.Your opening argument was that E.R. is now more expensive, but you expect more people to go? The ACA will force hospitals to shut down. --Not likely. Plus it contradicts your previous statement about more people using them.insurance companies will pay for all emergencies and hospitals no longer need state fundsThat's the way it is SUPPOSED to be.