It's a step in a dangerously wrong direction, as Stephen Moore points out:
If ever there was a real-world application for the hackneyed truism that one can't be a little bit pregnant, it's the realm of health care and how to pay for it. Any government money is a pollution of the free market. From the get-go, you're distorting the market value of a particular service. No one can expect anything but chaos to ensue therefrom.
This is why an accurate framing of the issue from the start was necessary - and missing.
And this is not some defense of the way the insurance company has been operating in this arena over the years. In a truly free market, they would not be able to depend on redistribution to allow them to offer products that can't hold their own in the marketplace. As LITD has said before - over and over - they'd basically offer catastrophic-care policies at prices people found appealing, and every other kind of health-related service would be transacted for the way any other economic good is bought and sold.
Don't let the wonks and bleeding hearts get to you, Pubs.
There is still a chance to repair the damage wrought by the "A"CA - but it won't happen by "reaching across the aisle."