A Huge Hit For Some States If SCOTUS Rules Against Obamacare

The Fiscal Times: “If the Court rules against the administration in the high-stakes case of King v. Burwell, an estimated 9.8 million could become uninsured in states that rely on the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov, says a new study from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).”

“The report estimates that in the event of such a ruling, the 20 states that did not set up their own exchange or expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act would lose an estimated $721 billion in federal funding over the next decade. The study said these 20 states would lose $41 billion in federal spending in 2016 for not expanding Medicaid, and another $21 billion would be lost if the federal subsidies stop flowing.”

“States that have not expanded Medicaid have the most to lose in the King v. Burwell decision if they are not already running their own marketplaces because people with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level would not get any assistance in affording healthcare,’ the study said.”

Screen Shot 2015-05-18 at 11.59.05 AM

7 Comments

  1. The good news is that the SCOTUS is nearing the end of this session and we won’t have to listen to this “what if” stuff much longer. If I were a GOP elected official I would be lighting novena candles right about now and praying that SCOTUS rules against the plaintiffs so that I can continue to rant against Obamacare, and activist judges, while not incurring much of any electoral blow back next year.

    1. Agree, the backlash will be ugly against the GOP in those states. Just might be enough to tip an election.

  2. It’s going to be 6-3 in favor of the government, you can tell by how Roberts was not engaged in the oral argument that he wasn’t going to do anything dramatic like this.

  3. You know the GOP governors desperately wants the federal government to win this one . . . because then they’ll be pressured to expand Medicaid and set up state exchanges so that their states aren’t at a huge disadvantage. They don’t want to have to take any responsibility for Obamacare.

  4. So, basically, if they rule against it, then Republican-run states are stuck between their ideological fixations and the demands of their unhappy constituents. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of Republicans whose response would be to hate the law even more rather than putting any blame on their local representatives (or, heavens forfend, themselves). There’s that guy who deliberately refused to get health insurance, refused to treat his diabetes, refused to stop smoking, and then blamed Obamacare for not providing him with coverage on everyone else’s dime.

Comments are closed.