Pro: Everyone will be able to get insurance.
Con: This is not going to do anything to lower the cost of healthcare.
Well...
A lot of people are focusing on two things: The mandate and the pre-existing conditions. The reason we're able to fund the pre-existing conditions is because we're forcing all of these healthy people to buy insurance and allowing a bunch of unemployed art history majors the ability to mooch off of their parent's insurance into their mid-twenties. The hope is that by greatly expanding the pool, we can lower the individual cost of healthcare for those who want to buy insurance. Will it work? Eh, I don't know. But that's the general thought.
From an overall cost perspective, there are a TON of things going on right now that the ACA is trying to address. The EHR stimulus, the healthcare exchanges, reduced payments to physicians, a change from a fee-for-service to an outcomes based reimbursement model, ACO's, a tightening of of reimbursement standards, etc. Trying to keep up with regulatory standards right now is really, really hard. Financially successful hospitals are gobbling up less successful ones and creating tighter and more efficient care delivery networks.
I guess if I were to look at it from my perspective, I'd boil the ACA down into three things:
1) Trying to insure as much of the population as possible
2) Attempting to decrease the personal cost of healthcare by addressing #1 and by utilizing an exchange system similar to what Switzerland has
3) Trying to decrease the cost of healthcare in general by making it more efficient and essentially pouring gasoline on the fire of consolidation that was already happening in the industry
Anyway, that's my two cents. I left a lot out, but that's because I save my really long winded stuff for realignment.
