The GOP is backing away from using the phrase “repeal and replace” when it comes to Obamacare. It’s a strategic decision, that may or may not be really useful, though.
The primary problem with the terminology currently used apparently is that “repeal” implies that Republicans want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo. In light of the massive problems — radical price increases, dropped policies, broken promises about keeping doctors, etc. — maybe that isn’t really a terrible thing.
However, giving the party leadership the benefit of the doubt, they could be right about not suggesting a return of the bad old days.
The real problem with the whole “repeal and replace” narrative isn’t completely about the first part. In order to suggest that there will be a replacement, the party would need to come up with one. Yes, there have been many options presented, but they have all gotten lost in the shuffle, since a majority of Republicans have never really picked a single choice.
That might be because they’ve all been making it far too complicated, just like the hated Obamacare. It remains to be seen if the GOP can marshal the political troops behind something simplistic - even taking the generally acceptable parts of Obamacare for their new solution.
Maybe if they chose to campaign on keeping the broken promises of Obamacare, allowing kids to remain on parents’ policies until age 26, and no refusals of insurance based on pre-existing conditions, for a start. Add on the idea of removing the “minimum coverage requirements”, and mandatory coverage for all, since those are the two primary issues that are annoying voters.