On the one hand it seems clear that the ACA was rushed due to undeniable political opposition, and this oversight is one of the consequences. On the other hand, it seems ridiculous that the court won't rule that the federal government has the authority to 'stand in the place of' the very states who are authorized to dole out the subsidies.
The reality is... ACA has changed the face of health insurance in this country. Good health is no longer a factor. Citizenship status is paramount. Costs are either ridiculously low (due to subsidies) or completely unaffordable. Meanwhile their are a lot of questions (like this one pending before the court).
FACT: If you spent the last 20 years as a drug user, then spent a stint in prison smoking several packs a day...you qualify for health insurance at the SAME RATES as those who have taken care of their health.
FACT: For moderate- and low-income families, if the cost of insurance seems too high they just need more dependents. That way the qualify for more subsidy.
FACT: ACA models are based on INCOME, not ASSETS. So if you are a multimillionaire with multiple homes and a muli-million dollar income, BUT you have solar tax credits that exceed your income... you know qualify for low- or no-cost insurance.
FACT: Immigrant children (born here as citizens) get free coverage through medicaid. Their parents, however, don't qualify for subsidies. So a paid policy for 2 people in their 20s costs $420/mo for bronze (with a $10,000 deductible: 2x $5000) or $490 a month for platinum. Both unaffordable.
What you may not realize is that insurance companies also have new procedures. So insurers who cover mostly healthy people now have to pay the government, which in turn gives the money to insurers who cover sicker people. It's a rather odd gave of chicken where insurers get multi-hundred-million-dollar checks to cover sicker (but not too sick in a costly way) people.
NY Times: what-ending-health-subsidies-means
