Not entirely true because of the timing issue. Was against ACA from the start. Once ACA got going, as an individual, there was no market source from which to purchase individual coverage, insurance companies did not provide it. Individuals who purchased their own coverage were trapped, and moreso if any pre-existing conditions. This has not changed. Repeal of ACA only makes matters worse unless there is concurrent roll-out of adequate replacements that are actually available. What took a couple of years for the ACA to destroy, would not logically be rebuilt without the risk of gaps in coverage, unless there is some adequate replacement ready to roll out.
Yes, nothing was done to reduce the costs of actual medical care. And, nothing was done to reduce the costs of actual medical insurance either. ACA provided an avenue for millions of people to obtain insurance who otherwise could not obtain coverage, while creating several new taxes. Millions more insureds translated to billions more $$ for both health insurers and health care providers. And, instead of achieving cost savings by reducing the role of insurers, ACA added a government layer of overhead while insurers prospered with additional direct and indirect government subsidies and mandates. Rolling this back would place tens of millions of insureds at risk. All of which presents an argument for nationalization of health insurance (not health care) in order to get the cost and insurance overhead situation under control, create the possibility of a dominate price bargaining position for insurers with the health care industry, and minimize the negative (financial and care) impact on current insureds.
We need to be looking at the situation from where we are now, not from where we were prior to ACA.
