Adverse Supreme Court Decision – The Dark Side

If Republicans offer no workable alternative to ObamaCare, which the New York Times editorial board assumes the GOP does not , even though both the House and Senate have presented plans, here’s what the Times editorial board says ending subsidies would mean.

7.5 million people lose subsidies this year , and 9 million would be unable to get subsidies in 2016.

Younger, healthier and
less costly people to insure would go without insurance.

Insurers would raise premiums for sicker and requiring more health care.

Premiums would increase as high as 47 percent on average of those who pay for insurance, and they would have narrower choices of plans and networks of doctors and hospitals.

Hospitals that hired health care workers to pay for those with subsidies would have to lay workers off.

Insurers that set their rates on assumption of high volume might have to leave the market.


State economies would forego huge federal subsidies that help insure people; state governments would see reduced tax revenues when health care providers and insurers lose business. The two hardest-hit states would be Florida, where the subsidies bring in about $400 million a month, and Texas, which rakes in about $200 million a month,

In all 34 states combined, the Urban Institute estimates, health care spending in 2016 on behalf of those losing coverage would plummet from a projected $27.1 billion to $17.4 billion, leading to a loss of $112 billion over 10 years.


Uninsured patients tend to seek help only when the disease is advanced and treatment is ineffective and costly, would die by the thousands. A study by the American Public Health Association warned the court that ending the subsidies would result in more than 9,800 additional deaths a year.

This dark picture assumes that no alternative plan is forthcoming, that even if is was. that there would be no time frame for transition to that plan, and that the plan would would not be credible or effective. So much for the dark blue side.