I agree with Puggo to the degree that booting a few million people off health insurance won’t hurt Trump’s re-election chances. However, it could play badly in certain legislative districts, and even flip some state governments (Florida, for example).

What’s interesting to me is that many of the arguments about the ACA (“why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare?”) are actually arguments against the concept of insurance in general and not specific to the ACA or even health insurance. It goes back to John Birch or even further back, when people railed against insurance companies, not only because they’re rich (which they are), but because insurance is an inherently collectivist concept. And worse, it’s an example of a collectivist concept that appears to be the only reasonable solution to a common market problem. And that is a real problem for Birchers/Tea Partiers, etc.

Lack of any insurance whatsoever–health, life, auto, etc–would actually be seen as a real success by this group, a triumph of “freedom” over collectivism. Never underestimate the power of ideology–some people will march right over a cliff if they think freedom’s on the other side, and they’ll keep believing it all the way down.

I’m not sure it will actually help Trump though. I think he’s currently assured to get about 45% of the vote in 2020, and I’m not sure this changes that. The only question is who the other 55% vote for, and where they live.