I hardly ever read TIME, where this article is from. I happened upon it after researching another matter. But even allowing for the liberal slant that I admit the magazine is often prone to, some of the information in here is very important to the overall debates about healthcare reform AND the budget deficits.
Aside from all of the politics, the ACA and so on, there remain many unexplained reasons for why the costs of medical care are so high and why 'retail' prices of that care vary so widely from place to place and from patient to patient.
Regardless of one's view on Obamacare (mine = it's too weak), the problem of spiraling costs for increasingly diminished value is mostly a separate one and still needs to be addressed.
Meanwhile, a rather confused conservative op-ed on Reuters on what they refer to as "free market health-care" points to the healthcare exchanges as "an important concession to the private sector" all while getting several aspects of Switzerland's model health insurance system dreadfully wrong.
And now Gov. Rick Scott wants to get the uninsured in his state onto Medicaid - termed a major "flip-flop" by conservatives re: his campaign against the ACA. I think concerns over costs like those portrayed in this article are the main reason.
Yet several states have relinquished the matter of the exchanges completely over to the federal government to run as they see fit...in a sense giving up some of their "sovereignty". It's hard for anyone - much less the uninsured people in those states - to see that as the best worst option.