No, Obamacare is an example of social Darwinism.
The Democrats' interpretation goes like this. Obamacare is to be enforced by the state. This means using force against anyone who doesn't agree; otherwise it would be voluntary. Using force means you will send armed agents to arrest people and lock them in a cage if they don't submit and obey. If they resist, it means shooting them.
So obviously this is a case of the stronger using force to take from the weaker. The only possible way it could be morally justified is by thinking "might makes right", which is social Darwinism. That's what the supporters of Obamacare stand for: "I have a right to shoot you so I can take your property off you and do whatever I want with it".
On the other hand, repealing Obamacare, does not and cannot constitute social Darwinism. The argument that it does, mistakes what is causing medical care to be unaffordable. The single biggest factor is government, because by regulating and taxing medical services - again based on force - government *forcibly* makes the prices higher - medical registration, medical school registration, pharmaceutical registration, compulsory standards, income taxes, stamp duties, you name it. Everything the state does, makes medical care more expensive, which is what causes the problem in the first place.
On the other hand, it is simply untrue that capitalism makes medical services unaffordable. If you study history and economics, you will understand that the living standards of the working classes, and the poorest of the poor, has risen to the highest levels in the history of the world under capitalism.
The claims of government to make goods available for "free" are simply false; and so is their claim to make goods cheaper.
The solution is to stop doing what's causing the problem - the social Darwinism of the big-government interventionists.
"Man, Economy and State" by Murray Rothbard