Those are all admirable goals. But it's difficult to imagine a repeal and replace that accomplishes these. Why? It's all about the pre-existing conditions.

If insurance companies have to take all comers, that makes the system easy to game: don't get insurance until you're sick, and then jump onto the system. This would essentially destroy insurance markets.

What's the obvious solution? Mandate everyone sign up for insurance, at risk of facing penalty fees. Then you're always paying into the insurance industry, and insurance companies can survive and provide value to the healthy and the sick.

But this is tough: not everyone can afford health insurance. So, you provide subsidies to those who can't.

So, if you start from the 2008 status quo and want to add protections for pre-existing conditions, that game plan is pretty much set in stone. But the issue is that that essentially is the ACA. There are other aspects, but that's the core mechanic.

It's pretty much impossible to build a system from 2008 to cover pre-existing conditions without re-implementing the ACA. You can play with how high fees should be and how high subsidies should be, but that's pretty much it. And most of the Republican "alternatives" (insofar as they exist at all) work by putting a ton of loopholes in the pre-existing conditions protections, a strategy widely regarded as revolting and that only works because people are being bamboozled about what protections they would actually receive.

The reason why ACA was passed in the first place, was that it didn't attack the insurance industry. ACA was about access, not cost. Maintaining the insurance industry will limit the possibility of reducing costs, but the industry is too powerful to simply give up without a fight.

Perhaps if the mechanisms by which these goals would be achieved were made clear to us, people would be for it. The fact that any details can't be shared(because they don't exist) is illustrative of the fact that there is no real plan to fix these issues while maintaining coverage of pre-existing conditions.

I think the chance that Trumpcare will protect people with pre-existing conditions is close to zero. Maybe there will be a lip-service clause which prohibits outright refusals to cover, but allows the coverage to be offered at any rate. There's no financial incentive to do so from the perspective of an individual corporation, and I find it impossible to imagine a law engineered by the current legislature will put the public good above corporate bottom lines in any way.