Then you should have had the Repubs. actually fund the ACA for the 3 years that was legislated instead of refusing.
Why?
It was common knowledge that when the ACA came into effect, there would be an overwhelming amount of people who would heavily utilize the insurance they now could obtain...people who had previously put off any medical care, outside emergencies, because they couldn't afford the treatments/MD visits/meds/etc. And these people would tend to be sicker than most, so would initially cost more than the ins. co's wanted to pay out, otherwise these ins. co's profits would be eaten into.
So, just like when the Repubs. passed Bush's Medicare Prescription Act, the govt. was supposed to cover the shortfalls during the initial years, 3 in each case, to mitigate the large amount of outlays the ins. co's would face in paying for all this care.
Seemed to work for the Medicare side...the market for that is healthy, competitive and costs aren't out of hand.
On the other hand, when the ins. co's. tried to get the payment promised by the legislation, the Repubs. who now controlled Congress, refused to pay what was agreed upon.
So what were the ins. co's supposed to do? Their risk had increased dramatically with the issuance of the insurance plans. The promised coverage by the govt. didn't come through as promised.....so their solution was increase premiums, about the only avenue left to them to try to cover the shortfalls they were experiencing, or quit issuing ins.
Both things happened. Now, would premiums have gone up as much as they have if the ACA had been properly funded through its initial phase, when the market was quite expected to have a rocky start before leveling out? Probably not, but we'll never know because the Repubs. refused to fund it properly nor consider amendments to the ACA to help "fix" it.