I have been forced to pay 32% more for almost the same plan because of ACA. Also, as far as I can remember, it was introduced as a way to ensure more people, not to make the insurance cheaper. The idea was that those who were paying for themselves now contribute to insuring those who don't pay for themselves. I could see a logic of that making the health plans cheaper, if I swallowed some LSD, but not without it. The most natural way to make the health insurance cheaper and more affordable would be to increase competition. However, competition and the private initiative are not what ACA is about.

No, it would not be working. Guaranteeing income without requiring anything useful in return would definitely skew the system of values and decrease the motivation to do anything useful. Why would I work if there are other people who would work for me? That would be a form of a slavery: most of the people who work for living would be forced to contribute to pay for a class of parasites who would not have to work for living. Of course, that would require a significant extension of the government bureaucracy, because someone would have to supervise such a "UBI program". Bureaucrats don't work for free, so people would have to pay for them, too. That would be a real road to serfdom, to quote the book title of a British Nobel-winning economist. And no, it wasn't John Maynard Keynes.