I don't want to address every part of that lengthy post, Azure(EDIT: I meant the first lengthy post
)--except to say that I agree with part of it but not all of it. In the end, it's splitting hairs, because you are of course correct that it would have been far better for the U.S. to finally tear off the bandaid and build a simple, efficient health care system from scratch. It's obvious to everyone--including, I suspect, people in government.
But the way US governance works is so clunky and byzantine, that it really is possible that this is the best they could do. Part of the reason is that the system offers no incentive for compromise. It's a zero-sum game: either you're the architect of change or you're working to reject change altogether. This bill is a compromise, in a sense--but it's the wrong kind of compromise--it's a compromise between the positions of "do something" and "do nothing." So... in some areas it does something, and in others it does nothing. It likely won't harm anybody, but nor will it be nearly as far-reaching as it needs to be.
There are two problems with health care in the U.S.: cost and equality. The only one the insurance companies care about is cost--they don't care what the government does in terms of equality as long as they can maintain their inflationary grip on the health care sector. They got what they wanted. This bill provides equality, but does nothing to address cost.