Today Americans are facing a 10%-30% rise in healthcare costs, directly caused by the ACA.

Pointing out that the ACA has increased healthcare costs some does not prove your initial claim in any way. If you want to say that your initial claim was wrong and that we do not know exactly how much the ACA has raised premiums then I'd be happy to agree with you, seeing as how I do not like the ACA and think it does extremely little to try to lower costs.

Can you say Wealth Redistribution. Obama promised the average american approx. $2,500.00 savings in premiums. ---Didn't Happen --- not going to happen. Where I stand WR is not a good thing. Premiums are going UP for the middle class. There is a shortage of doctors, ERs are NOT less crowded and you still pay $10.00 for an aspirin when your in a hospital bed.

We have been over wealth redistribution as a concept and I don't feel like going back down that rabbit hole again with you.

George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion.

Barack Obama - The debt grew the most dollar-wise during President Obama's term. He added $6.167 trillion,

That right there is you admitting your initial post was a lie.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

You will notice that almost every president has added more debt than every president before him. Singling out Obama for that really doesn't make much sense if you are trying to make a claim about him as an individual as opposed to our government's overall (bipartisan) issue with spending.

I have pointed to two major factors in which Obama is clearly worse.

No, you haven't. You have provided the claim that Obama added a very small amount (in context) to the debt more than Bush, and you have pointed out one health-care bill that neither of us like. By comparison, I could start talking about how the Patriot Act and the expansion of Executive Powers under Bush was far more damaging to the country than the ACA. I could also point out that for all the time people like to pin Benghazi on Obama, 9/11 happened under Bush. Or I could point out his actions in taking us into the overwhelming failure that was Iraq.

But let's have some more specific fun:

Bush's foreign policy was miserable, from pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, to pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, he flipped from isolationism to interventionist invasions that increased the rate of Islamic radicalism according to the National Intelligence Estimate, to sending our troops out with horrible quality gear that led to a scandal that involved a large number of unnecessary injuries, to pulling out of ratifying the International Criminal Court Treaty.

His domestic policy was terrible, from massively expanding the federal bureaucracy in the form of the Center for Homeland Security, to the expansion of the war on drugs, to the expansion of executive power and violation of federal law and the United States Constitution via his surveillance program, to having his administration personally attack a whistle-blower in an illegal manner, to a 26.1% increase in poverty despite coming into office during a period of economic stability, to the absolute failure that was the New Orleans flooding and the response to it and took the most vacation time of any president.

And that is leaving out things that are over-all considered negative marks on his presidency that, for whatever reason, you continue to support, such as torture, GitMo, his horrible environmental record, his addition of "Judicial Activists" (not sure if you support this one specifically), cut taxes during a period of heavily increased government spending massively increasing the deficit, etc.

Mind you I do not like Obama. I do not think he is a good president. But Bush was certainly worse.

I did not ask for a manufactured opinion, I asked for a legitimate one. You provided claims without absolutely no specificity or evidence, which is not debating in any way.

It seems that, based on your posts, you joined this website to declare your opinions. You'll notice this is a "debate" website, which means saying "Do your own research" when someone questions your claims is antithetical to the entire concept of the website you are on.

So are you able to provide anything more than rhetoric or not? If not, why are you here?

Isn't debating supposed to be the sharing of manufactured opinions? Choosing a side is just voting.