Which State Would Be Most Affected if SCOTUS Rules Against Obamacare?

Kaiser Family Foundation newsletter: “Using 2015 enrollment data released today, a new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis and interactive map breaks out how residents in each of the 34 states without a state-based exchange would fare” if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the challengers in King v. Burwell.

“The analysis looks at the total number of residents in each state that would lose premium assistance, and the total dollars in subsidies that would be lost in each state, as well as the size of the lost subsidy for the average resident, and the resulting percentage increase in their premiums.”

Screen Shot 2015-06-02 at 9.17.22 PM

“The analysis finds that Florida would be most affected in terms of the number of people losing subsidies (1.3 million), and the total monthly value of those subsidies ($389 million), with Texas ranked second in both categories (832,000 residents losing a total of $206 million per month).”

“When looking at the impact per person, subsidized enrollees in Mississippi fare the worst, with the average enrollee facing an average premium increases of 650 percent if the Court rules for the challengers.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • S1AMER

    If SCOTUS kills the law, I expect the national press will ignore the consequences for millions of Americans because they’ll be too busy finding a way to blame it all on Hillary.

  • emblaze

    So this is basically a population map.

    • grumpy_old__man

      How do you figure that? California and Kentucky are the same color; New Jersey and Utah are the same color; Illinois and Georgia are the same color; Texas and North Carolina are the same color. On a population map, you would not see those pairings.

      • Rhodent

        States that are grey have state exchanges and thus won’t be affected by the decision, but when you look at the other states it does track population pretty well. It’s not perfect (in particular, North Carolina is in the darkest shade but has a smaller population than most of the states in the next shade down), but the general trend of the most populated states being darker shades (if they aren’t grey, of course) is clear. It would have been much more useful had they shown the percentage of the population that would be affected rather than sheer numbers.

        • spiritubrianus

          Totally disagree. They showed numbers because each of the people affected will probably vote Democratic. And 1.3 million Floridians guaranteed to vote Democratic just on the health care issue, despite their party registration. will definitely swing the election to Hillary. That is very stark news for the GOP.

          • emblaze

            OTOH, since a lot of people aren’t such, shall we say, deep thinkers, anything that goes wrong with the health care system will be pinned on Obama and the Democrats, even if it’s a result of right-wing maneuvering.

          • spiritubrianus

            That will happen if the liberals don’t come out with every gun blazing if SCOTUS disembowels Obamacare. The decision is likely to be 5-4 in a Republican vs. Democrat appointed judge divide. If the roles were reversed, you can bet the rent money the GOP would do so. Problem is liberals tend to be rational and deliberative. If they are in this case, the Republicans will roll them big time and blame Obama (and get away with it). Liberals are going to have to develop an instinct for the jugular in these troubled times just to survive. Politics has become a kill or be killed activity.

        • embo66

          “It would have been much more useful had they shown the percentage of the population that would be affected rather than sheer numbers.”

          I disagree on this point. For one thing, the color gradations on the map represent far more than just the number of enrollees ($ amount of total subsidies, per-enrollee $ amount, etc.). For another, you would have to know the actual population of each state for that percentage to make any meaningful sense in this context.

          The reason enrollees generally track with overall state populations is because 1) being uninsured is a very broadly shared condition, and 2) so is having an income low enough to qualify for a subsidy. But putting enrollee values as percentages in this situation would mask or even distort the impact no subsidies would have on particular states — and their residents.

          For instance: West Virginia and Iowa are the same color on the map. In 2013 there were 263K uninsured West Virginians, or 14.4 percent of the population. At the same time in Iowa, just 8 percent of the population was uninsured — yet in numbers that meant almost as many uninsured as in WV, 254K.

      • emblaze

        See Rhodent.

  • ralph_wiggam

    So the map starts with all the states with Republican Governors who refused to expand Medicare or implement their own marketplace. All democratic governed states are in gray (I believe).

    Then you look at the number of enrollees that will lose their insurance. Of course, in pure numbers, the most populous states will naturally have the most enrollees that will lose out. That is the measurement being used, number of enrollees.

    So you combine these two factors and you get the darkest colors in TX, FL, IL, PA, NC, GA etc.

    What is more interesting is how many of these states, as a proportion of population, will lose coverage? In a small state like Alaska, 3000 mad voters can make a much bigger impact than 30000 mad voters in FL, for example.

  • spiritubrianus

    This is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party in the making. They better pray SCOTUS leaves Obamacare alone.

Read previous post:
Are Moderate Republicans Vanishing?

Philip Bump: "Allow us to tap out the now-standard drumbeat: Capitol Hill was more polarized in 2014 than it was...