AndyB, you are correct that I'd like to debate policy in good faith. However, your labelling of my words as "Republican talking points" leads me to question your own good faith.
You asked what Trump has actually done to set the groundwork for stabilizing ACA premiums. Well, the key reform from my perspective is to encourage the entrance of younger and healthier lives into the Exchanges by permitting employers to subsidize such entry by means of HRAs. The Administration's rules permit the use of HRAs, with protections to ensure non-discrimination. The subsidy provided by the employer's HRA contribution lowers the cost of coverage and provides an incentive to take advantage of the effective price discount. This is vastly better than forcing young folks to purchase coverage they neither need nor can afford, and for which premiums are artificially skewed against them to subsidize less expensive coverage for folks my age.
As for Medicare for All, that would be a disaster with a variety of unintended consequences, including the closure of hospitals, the prospect of doctors leaving the profession or confining their services to cash-only concierge care, the loss of our leadership in drug and medical device innovation, and the loss of consumerism as a check against cost, fraud and abuse.
The trick is to retain what works under our present system, while addressing the very real problem of medical bankruptcy. The reform I favor is to retain the current system but overlay on top of it a national program of stop-loss insurance financed by general tax revenues. Not by the "rich", but by everyone who will benefit from protection against catastrophic medical costs.
Just as companies who self-insure commonly insure themselves against shock claims, a national system of stop loss insurance would take responsibility for every citizen's annual medical costs above an appropriate attachment point - say $75,000. Folks would be responsible for insuring expenses below the attachment point - including by means of self insurance if that is what folks want - and would be covered by the government for costs above the attachment point.
Not only would everyone be protected against financial ruin in the event of medical catastrophe, other important benefits would be immediate - Employers' costs for medical insurance would go down, but incentives for efficient utilization of medical services would remain. Those who purchase individual insurance would also save premium costs, and be able to keep their doctors. States would retain their roles in ensuring quality insurance products. Incentives for medical and drug innovation would continue, and the tough choices that employers now must make whether to cover new drug therapies would be made easier. . Most of all, freedom of choice and broad access to medical services would remain, and not be replaced by a socialized system that would inevitably devolve into rationing.