Large majorities of people disapproved of this law from 2010 to 2016, Dems cannot just ignore the problems that this law created. The government does not have a responsibility to provide health care. That is government overreach, if you think it was a good law, why, also answer why you think that government should interfere in the business of corporations
This is an incredibly facile argument for several reasons, and others have already started on one of the other points.
All major reforms of institutions generally aren't popular since people are naturally sceptical of change but generally over time that changes after people realise its benefits and it becomes the status quo - and the ACA has followed this trend. Besides I don't see why popularity of something in 2016 should really matter in 2019!
The thing has issues (and certainly a lot of us would go down a very different road to fix them) but the main issue with the law is the repeal of the individual mandate which is an integral part of the thing and designed to prevent a death spiral. That happened... under the current administration. So what has happened is that rather than address the issues with the current law the US government has driven a lorry into the bits that are working instead.
The remaining bits are contentious philosophical arguments stated like they are facts which is something that shouldn't happen. Besides the governments job is to "interfere" in things: one of the key responsibilities of any government is to pass laws to regulate the economy to ensure that people aren't taken advantage of by either other people or companies. In my eyes if we allow the state to correctly intervene in the lives of ordinary people then companies shouldn't be seen as this scary thing that the state shouldn't touch. As has been said the state regulates businesses on things like child labour, product safety standards and with consumer protection laws and when it comes to other types of insurance the state regulates them to make sure that the products available aren't rip-offs that don't provide the coverage they claim to and to ensure general access to them (since you can't mandate car insurance if insurers can deny people coverage) so I don't see why health insurance is at all special - indeed its actually more important.
And there's also what isn't mentioned: like for example people like me who live in America with a long term medical condition (asthma in my case: usually mild but I get a big attack every few years and they could potentially be fatal if I don't have drugs to treat it; plus not having my inhaler would be very harmful to my quality of life and make it harder for me to do things) possibly being denied healthcare insurance that covers that long term medical need, which denies healthcare coverage to all but the wealthiest people like that. Now I'm not American and the National Health Service makes sure that I'm all good personally; but that doesn't mean that I can't be concerned about people like me who live in America and as far as I'm concerned making sure that those people are covered is more important than stupid philosophical arguments about "the size of government" or whatever because I value the lives of people and don't think that we should be in the position of allowing avoidable deaths just because of political principle.
