And how is it "basically a Republican plan"? What Republicans have pushed for, for years, are tort reform and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, neither of which are included in Obamacare.
While I probably should have said "mature" instead of "elderly" with respect to maternity coverage, saying that an Obamacare high-deductable policy is the same as catastrophic insurance is totally ignoring the fact of the huge premium difference between the two.
I have never questioned that a good point of Obamacare is coverage of pre-existing conditions. I do, however, believe that if that was actually the intent of the push for the ACA, that it could have been done better, cheaper, and with much less disruption.
When this bill was sold to a partisan Congress that had not even had a chance to read it, the cost was projected at $900 million dollars. Most of that was "paid for" by raiding Medicare, specifically payments to Medicare Advantage plan providers, causing large numbers of seniors to get insurance-cancellation notices two years ago, and a six- to ten-fold increase in their premiums to replace the Advantage plans with ordinary Medicare supplements. A year ago that cost estimate was "corrected" to $1.8 billion. The most recent projection I've heard is now $2.8 billion. What happens to everything else government spends money on?
As for states not going along with Medicaid expansion, please remember that a number of states, including ones like California which have huge Medicaid expenses, have been flirting with bankruptcy even without the expansion. So the feds say, don't worry, we'll pick up all of the cost the first year, and only slowly taper that aid off just a little bit. Question: why should anyone believe that? Especially as Obamacare expenses continue to ratchet up? The federal government has been supposed to pay 40% of special education costs all along, and has never provided anything even close to that despite its promises.