My point is that we should be working to decrease (or eliminate) the number of people without reasonable access to health care, which really means access to health insurance. If that means more ACA, or single-payer, or a new system that is neither of those things, doesn’t necessarily concern me.
The AHCA /BCRA / whatever it’s called now does the opposite — it will greatly increase the number of people without insurance, going back to pre-ACA levels or worse. As I laid out, the costs of potentially life-saving treatment — and her treatment had that potential, though in the end the cancer was too aggressive — are too much for all but ultra-rich to be able to afford on their own. Far too much.
My family is actually very well off, comparatively speaking; we were able to absorb those low five figure costs without having to set up a fundraising campaign. It wasn’t easy, but we did it. But there is no way in any known world that we could have borne the costs of trying to keep our daughter alive. Some of the treatments she got would not have been available to us without going deep, deep into debt.
We’d have done it without hesitation, but my point is that insurance meant we didn’t need to. So anything that increases the availability of that backstop is a net good. Anything that reduces that availability is a net harm.