"And so, maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on, maybe they should invest it in their own health care. "
The quote is from a Republican, but I've heard the same argument many times, always from a Democrat. I was a deadbeat in Massachusetts before Romneycare because my principle option for health insurance was COBRA at several hundred dollars per month out-of-pocket (I lost my job, hence my employer's contribution to insurance, due to illness.)
Of course, the argument is always the fact that people who choose not to purchase insurance (at a level that is obviously not even possible) are very inconsiderately raising the premiums on middle-class folks by a few dollars a month.
Savings are the main issue, especially when considering a bronze plan with $6500 deductible (in many cases a silver plan is less expensive, assuming a certain degree of health care needs.) Even without an iphone (and really, the comparison is more in the contract than the device--I have all the minutes I need on a 7-year old flip phone for $16 per month,) without cable TV, without ever dining out (essentially no social life), keeping the thermostat set at 50, etc. etc. consider this difference:
For someone with means, $8000 in savings is an emergency expense, equivalent to a deductible on a family policy.
For someone with limited means, $8000 in savings is always in the back of your mind because the car could go kaput at any moment, and then there's no job and no income. Getting health care is not an option.
ACA has certainly turned the middle class against the poor, which is just how the upper-class likes it. You may remember that before ACA, we kept hearing about people who had to decide each month whether to pay health care bills or utility bills. Now there are people who have to decide whether of not to pay health care bills or health "insurance" bills.