Dtail
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
But the OP's gamble isn't cost. It's cancellation of the ACA, and with it, his ability to purchase any individual insurance. He'll have a recent cancer, a pre-existing condition that proved problematic for being insurable, before the ACA.
I agree, if the OP's post was just about dates and dollars, a financial plan b to absorb a full cost non-subsidized post-ACA plan would be good, especially since he has COBRA to buffet his first 18months.
But with cancer treatments just now wrapping up, if the ACA were really going away, he'd potentially have 2-3 years being uninsured, and that's not a risk many would want to take, not with recent treatment in the rearview mirror. Subsidy schmubsidy, he has a different concern.
I think most of us believe the ACA will survive the current challenge, and even if it evolves dramatically, pre-existing protection is now expected by most americans. But it could easily drag out through next year (it's not going to get to the SC until at least next summer, if at all).
You are talking about sucking up extra costs for unsubsidized insurance when disappearance of ACA means risk of no available insurance or far higher insurance prices.
I understand both your points. I happen to also have had cancer (Melanoma) and thus would be in the same situation pre-existing wise.
Even though my comments surrounded cost, in the end I don't truly believe there is any chance of pre existing conditions not being covered and only a small chance of high cost coverage for it even with a replacement plan (which would probably mimic the current plan in many ways but would have a different "name".
Thus if I was in the OP's specific situation, I would go for it. For me, retiring early when I realized I could do it was more important than any potential of ACA non survival.