If the pure free market model existed (a zero regulation environment), almost no one except perfectly healthy 20 years could afford health insurance.
An assumption about a straw man - talk about two wrongs not making a right.
Did I say 'pure'? Or 'zero regulation environment'? When I was a young buck, all I wanted (or needed) was catastrophic coverage for the SMOD or unexpected incapacitating illness, a thing called Major Medical back in the day. And I could buy it, at an affordable cost, because a market existed for it, even though 'regulated'. The demand side of that market didn't go away, but the supply side was inexorably 'regulated' out of existence. The 'regulatory ratchet' is a thing. Suppliers can meet the need/demand only if allowed to. Regulatory requirements as to reserves and re-insurance, aimed at minimizing the risk of insolvency, are good things, but they should stop pretty much there.
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama...
Instead of opposing anything and everything related to the ACA as a way to get back at Obama in an effort to prevent or mitigate the damage that Obamacare would inevitably do... (known once we had a chance to read it, after it was passed).
FIFY again. I consider undoing a 'wrong' a 'right'.