King vs Burwell, could this be a bad deal for republicans?

Hell, I am absolutely convinced the Republicans are going to hand this election to Clinton (assuming she remains the presumptive Democrat candidate) through infighting and pure stupidity.

The Affordable Care Act (of which "The" is the only accurate description) was doomed to failure. It was an attempt to create a single payer system without including the single payer provision which is necessary to insure universal coverage. The Republicans would have served their cause far better had they simply sat back and allowed the failure to occur on its own. Sadly, they have contributed just enough snark from the sidelines for the Democrats to transfer blame to them.

Interestingly, the government-run system was the subject of national scholastic debate when I joined my college debate team in my freshman year (1960). I heard many more reasonable suggestions during those debates (none of which found their way into the Democratic plan).

The ACA is a "dividing" issue. It is so wildly unpopular that it should have never become law. That doesn't mean it didn't have some good pieces and some good Intent, but when 50% of the country doesn't want something, it probably shouldn't be forced on them.

Since it was passed, it has had countless lawsuits against it. It has had countless attempts to have it revoked legislatively. Like motorcycle accidents, it's not if, but when. Let's not fool ourselves, the ACA is going away. It's just a matter of time, and both parties will blame each other for it.

Before anyone accuses me of playing party favorites. I don't actually care. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's just "Bad Law." Good Intentions be damned, it was Bad Law. It was doomed to fail. It was unsustainable, as written, and it was going to implode.

I'll happily debate why we should or shouldn't take care of people (no we shouldn't let people die in the streets. And We $#&# don't). I'll happily debate why this does or doesn't make anything more affordable (it depends on which side of the equation you are on). But when it really boils down to it, was this law (as written) sustainable? The answer to that is No. In very simple terms No. It had too many flaws, and if you pulled the wrong thread, it unraveled the entire thing.

King v Burwell just happened to be the most recent thread. It was almost the Individual Payer requirement a few years back. If it isn't King, it will be something else in a couple more years. This law is build on a foundation of sand, and it will crumble, because it's bad law.

As for needing a replacement before getting rid of it? Horsepucky. You should get rid of bad law as soon as you identify it. Don't let it fester. That's how you end up having people relying on bad law. Then it becomes "too big to fail" and we become reliant on broken #%^#%^ machines, much like we're reliant on the broken #%^^#$& Dept of the VA.