>>In a sense, yes. They should have left ACA untouched so it would carry out the only inevitable result. They should have left no doubt that the Dems and Obama needed to own this mess.
Half of me says that for the villagers, it doesn't matter which faction dropped the bomb that destroyed the village.
The other half says that while insurers exiting or sky-high premiums can collapse the scheme, the ACA includes wide-ranging laws that only can be repealed.
If the exchanges fail, you're looking at 12.2m fellow citizens scrabbling to find cover in a traditionally adverse individual market that doesn't even yet know whether it's back to the good old days pre-ACA or whether some provisions will survive. Meanwhile I'm just waiting for you to compare 12.2m enrollees in 2017 to predicted numbers or numbers in previous years - or to previous premiums - as signs of the ACA's trajectory long before the GOP got there. ;-)
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
