Hobbs - Awesome. Glad to hear it. I know you'd been concerned about the issue for months. With that said, I'll comment on a few of your experiences.
I signed up for the ACA last Monday, got my first bill in the mail yesterday. It's suspiciously low for some reason, my bill should be about ~$230 but the first bill is only ~$20. What's up with that? (I'm not complaining, just confused)
I believe my way back first impression that you would receive subsidies in the form of a tax credit turned out to be incorrect. People will get subsidized in their actual bill.
With that said, let me tell you why, IMO, that was a political ploy but not a good one. It was a political ploy because everyone's happier that way!

Everyone would prefer a smaller upfront bill rather than a tax credit, right? But, but... how do we know what your income is going to be for the rest of the year?
If you wind up with a much higher paying job for the last 6 months of the year, you should probably get a lower subsidy, right? If someone with a high paying job right now gets laid off, they should get a bigger subsidy than what the website would calculate right now, yes?
So, the easiest (not saying better, just easiest) way is to true it up when you pay your taxes. Take your whole year into account. Not your fluctuating income. Then determine your subsidy. I'm actually glad it worked it out this way. It's just not the best way to calculate the subsidy, mathematically speaking. And us mathematicians are hard-assed by-the-numbers peoples. Not known for our empathy, us mathbots. But I'm glad that empathy won out in this case.
Actually, you had to click through a link to check on which doctors were in-network, and which drugs were covered, but all other comparisons were done on healthcare.gov and even the links to those other pages were on healthcare.gov, I didn't have to go digging.
That's good to hear, but honestly, I hate that you were surprised by this. Everyone's doctor is still in network from the plans they were shopping before all this. The same drugs are covered.
What are we, stupid?

Of course we (the insurance companies) designed the plans that we chose to offer on The Exchange to reflect the same plans we are currently offering pre-Exchange. Same doctors as our current plans. Same drugs. We're businesses. Our competitors are also on The Exchange! What kind of idiots would we be to design an Exchange Plan that didn't have the same doctors as the plans you could sign up for right now, off The Exchange? This is a big artificial issue with a giant DUH sign on it.
Some of the plans we used to offer can't be offered on The Exchange. Because they sucked. Becase they had $10,000 or $15,000 deductibles. But "because Dr. Smith was on our network?!? Nuh-uh. He's out! We hate him." No. That's stupid. All our plans (FWIW, I'm just ranting on my company's behalf) have our same networks as before. Our same doctors. Our same drugs. Just sometimes better benefits.
So A++ for service, I was seriously blown away. ...
Now that's good to hear, & out of our control. We submit the plans we offer & hope The Exchange works.
Most of the Bronze plans sucked donkey balls - lowish premiums but absurd deductibles and most of them would pay *NOTHING* until you hit your deductible limit.
Aye. The minimum we can offer is a plan with a $6350 Out-Of Pocket maximum. For cheap, but kinda crappy benefits. Some people want bare minimum plans. We offer some crappy plans because some people want bare minimum crappy plans for low costs. Just saying. Win-win* there - some people want catastrophic plans for cheap.
...finding a plan in the Bronze level that offered $15 dollar doctor visits and $15 dollar prescriptions even before you hit your deductible.
Outside of HSA plans (which 1] I can go explain if anyone wants & 2] is what I have), most plans Bronze+ should have visits to your doctor & most prescriptions as a copay. The level varies, of course, but what you found *should* be the norm.
The rest of your post I'll let stand on its own. It's really a win-win*. Us insurance companies love it - more members! - but it's much better coverage for many people. Or even "good coverage for people who had none". And it doesn't affect the vast majority of people who already had coverage through their employer!
So, the uninsured get health insurance. People with poor health insurance get better, cheaper coverage. Also, we drink all your milkshakes! More like *win-win-win IMO.