But unless prices fall dramatically, many low-earners would probably have to downgrade to insurance covering only catastrophes.
After deregulation, such plans might include chilling limitations, such as caps on how much insurance will pay if a person becomes chronically ill.
That would be sickening, especially as most affluent Americans benefit from subsidised health care.
Fully 155m workers get health insurance from their employer without paying tax on this income-in-kind.
The tax exemption cost $268bn (1.4% of GDP) in 2016, enough to pay for Obamacare's subsidies six times over.
Hated by economists, it encourages firms to give their workers more generous health benefits rather than more pay.
One-third of the benefit flows to the top fifth of earners.
Unfortunately, Mr Obama could not shrink the tax-break, having vilified John McCain, his opponent in the 2008 election, for proposing to scrap it.
Instead, he created the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive plans, which is due to come into effect in 2020.
Messrs Price and Ryan would do away with that and instead cap the exemption—a simpler approach.
It would be best to get rid of it completely.
Doing so could fund a universal tax credit of $1,500 without touching Obamacare's means-tested payments, The Economist reckons.
Unfortunately, killing the perk would be very unpopular.
Just ask Mr McCain.
Making premiums affordable is only the first step.
People must also be able to pay their medical bills up to the point where their insurance coverage kicks in.
The ACA limits such payments for low-earners, and reimburses insurers accordingly.
Those reimbursements, though, are currently held up in court after the House sued to stop them in 2014.
On February 21st it filed to delay legal proceedings.
Deciding what to do about the case—in which Mr Price is now the defendant—is yet another headache for the Republicans.