>>>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insurers exiting or sky-high premiums can collapse the scheme, the ACA includes wide-ranging laws that only can be repealed.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. ;-)

In my GI days, I met an older fella from Kentucky whose earthy wisdom has helped me see things clearly over the years.
The more time passes, the more I cherish the time I was privileged to spend with him.
One of his favorites aphorisms was "Don't believe your own BS."

John.. do you know how many people's lives were saved by the ACA?
Do you know how many people will die if it is repealed?
Not - markets ...premiums.. pre-existing conditions ....blah blah blah.
What was the effect of ACA on mortality and what will repeal mean to that number?