I live in a place with zillions of pipelines needed to refine oil that everyone else needs, seems to reason that one pipeline isn't the end all that everyone is making it out to be.

Here is a map of pipelines in North America, one more, one less, not going to really make a difference.  

Both projects face strong opposition from environmentalists and from tribes whose lands the pipelines would cross. Although the proposed pipelines are much shorter than the ones heading east, "they are both pretty problematic due to the political situation," says Eric Lee, an oil analyst at Citigroup (C)

Canadian companies backing the Keystone XL - touted as enhancing US energy security with a big new surge of imported Canadian oil - actually expect it to supply more lucrative Gulf Coast export markets as well as raise Midwest oil prices by reducing "oversupply" in that region.
...
So, would TransCanada support US legislation requiring Canadian oil and products refined from it, such as diesel, to be sold only in the United States, asked Rep. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts, "so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company and others have promised?"

"No, I can't do that," Mr. Pourbaix said.
...
Most analysts agree that more Canadian oil flowing south would help reduce imports from other regions. Less obvious, however, is the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is not actually needed to bring all that new Canadian oil to the US - a flow now projected to rise to 1.7 million barrels per day by 2030, according to the same DOE study. Often characterized by proponents as validating the need for the pipeline, that study actually found that Canadian oil import growth will go on at "almost identical" levels through 2030 using existing and new pipeline capacity as well as rail shipments - whether or not Keystone XL is built. link

One of my problems with the ACA was always that the goal seemed to be for everyone to have insurance - which isn't the same goal as everyone having access to affordable care.

I would have to say that, given that not everyone is insured, and there is still a problem of access to affordable care, those goals have not been met.

Should we be adding some kind of time frame - is there a time frame?  

Will everyone eventually have coverage and access to care they can afford?  I don't know, but I'm inclined to think not.  There's that ninth circle of hell where one can have coverage, but not be able to afford the co-pays, deductibles and other add-ons and surprises.

If you're asking whether the legislation as written is the vehicle by which these assorted goals are best attained, I'd probably say "no," because I still believe that, coverage for a set of mandated services notwithstanding, the ACA is built on the same dysfunctional foundation that was breaking down in the first place.  

In any event, I think it's way too early to be able to answer many of these questions - and we haven't even considered the likelihood of some serious fiddling and futzing with it by assorted "lawmakers" and a possible Supreme Court sh!tshow that could undo a lot of it.

I answered snarky, because to me it's disingenuous to ask if insurance improves lives.  This bill is providing people with insurance, it's not a new concept, not rare for people to be insured, people who have the chance to get it at their employers discounted price, generally take it, and I would imagine you, yourself, have it, including your family.

So it's not about the insurance, that is something people positively like, and there isn't much question that it improves people's lives, most likely extending them, so it's about a bill that provides, in excess of 10M people, that product.

I don't see how that is confusing.  Same companies, more or less same coverage, with many added benefits like no more per-existing condition rates.  It's provides people access to a product they like, want, and need, that didn't have access before.  

It's insurance, if it were car insurance, I could positively say that it has in no way improved my life as I have never had an accident or filed a claim.  But that could change tomorrow, which is the entire point of insurance, managing unknown risk.  It's why I continue to pay premiums.

Asking people if health insurance has improved their lives over a one year period is disingenuous as well.  It will be skewed, depending on age, and the answer to that question will move from no to yes as time increases.  And unless they are murdered, eventually everyone will be a yes, with the sliver of a fraction of people who manage to die naturally and never incur real medical expenses.

But there is nothing I wrote you don't know, and that is why the snark, your comments seem very disingenuous.  I would be less so if it was providing a new product or actually treating people or something other than providing people access to to something.

You never answered:

...has it(insurance) improved your life, your kids, your wife, your parents ?

  Even applying your implied standard of "whether it met its stated goals," begs the question of whether the stated goals were the wrong goals or the right goals.

  Beyond that, even with universal agreement the stated goals were the right goals, it is a virtual certainty that not all of the stated goals will be fully achieved and quite likely that the projected costs at the time of enacted will eventually prove to have been understated. So, unless this a historical anomaly it will do less and cost more than "advertised."

  By that measure, though, no large scale government program has ever been a success. That suggests to me, therefore, that is not a fair measure.

  Another thing that will rightfully lead to endless debate is whether comparing outcomes under the ACA to the prior outcomes is a particularly valid measure. By that measure, any program that results in marginal improvement, even at tremendous cost, could be deemed a "success."

2008-10 Subsidies by Industry in millions

Financial 37,454
Utilities, gas and electric  31,217
Telecommunications 30,713
Oil, gas & pipelines 24,182
Aerospace & defense 12,880
Industrial Machinery 11,362
Retail & wholesale trade 10,697
Miscellaneous services  9,853
Pharmaceuticals & medical products 9,711
Information Technology Services 9,153
Food & beverages & tobacco 8,693

The top four account for 55.5% of all subsidies.

Data from pdf HERE.

That is in millions, so $37 billion for the financial industry that has been fined billions for doing bad deeds.  HERE  HERE  HERE  And that is just the big fines in the past year.

These are banks fined billions for ripping off people.

You mentioned 10's of millions, exactly how much, and why isn't that same logic applicable to companies who turn massive profits who continuously get caught cheating consumers ?  I am curious as to why you picked a drop in the bucket and neglected the overflowing barrel right next to it.  A real conundrum.

Unlike contracted products or services where the government actually receives something of value...