The Economist reported 2 million employer healthcare plans killed off: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/09/10/encumbere...

Furthermore, I would suggest reading your sources in greater detail before posting them. The factcheck.org article does not deny the claim that millions lost their insurance through their employers. From the article:

> It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

> In a March 3 posting on the website of the journal Health Affairs, two researchers from the Urban Institute analyzed findings from a nationwide poll and said, “Our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA.” And in this case, the methodology is made explicit.

> That range could be higher or lower depending on what number is used for the total who had non-group coverage in the first place. The Urban Institute authors cite a study published last year that found estimates of the total number of people covered by non-group policies ranged from 9.55 million to 25.3 million. So if 18.6 percent of non-group policyholders got notices that their policies were being dropped because of the new law, as the poll indicates, then the actual number whose plans were dropped could be as low as about 1.8 million or as high as 4.7 million (coincidentally, the same as the AP’s figure), depending on how many had such policies in the first place.

Many "fact checker" sites try to "debunk" factually correct claims through whataboutism. This is prime example. It does not deny the claim that millions of Americans lost their insurance plans. It turns around and talks about how millions bought insurance on exchanges instead, as though this somehow refutes the previous fact. Using this to try and refute the claim that millions of people no longer have insurance through employment is intellectually dishonest.

> That [the tax mandate] was repealed last year....

Much to the disappointment of the ACA's proponents

> And none of that is true. The insurance companies have a separate pool for what they offer for group insurance and what they offer on the exchange.

> And older workers would be getting insurance through Medicare.

Not every retiree is over 65. And besides, Medicare is getting very expensive, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medicare_Parts_A_B_C_D.pn....

> You’re conflating multiple risk pools. The insurance companies don’t do that.

Exactly. Now that the affordable care act regulated insurance companies ability to determine patients, higher risk people are joining and having their healthcare subsidized by the other plan members. In the past, people either got their healthcare through insurance or subscribed to their plan when they were young and continued with it until old age. Now that companies are forced to charge the same rates, there's nothing stopping people from not buying any health insurance (or very cheap health insurance) until they start having high medical costs and then joining an insurance plan to have their costs born by the other customers. People are smart. If they can have their cake and eat it too by passing their costs off to other people, they're going to do it.

It's laughable to claim that providing more services, and increasing the quality of services can be done without increasing costs (short of some significant technological advancement). To claim that the same can be done while decreasing costs is beyond absurd.