King v. Burwell: 10 facts to understand the big Obamacare lawsuit

10 Cards

EDITED BY Adrianna McIntyre

2015-06-12 09:37:00 -0400

  1. King v. Burwell could have gutted Obamacare in 34 states
  2. 6.4 million Americans’ health coverage was at stake
  3. Republicans spent years not taking this lawsuit seriously
  4. The case revolved around just four words in Obamacare
  5. The White House’s Obamacare defense hinged on two key legal theories
  6. Legislators are unanimous: they wanted Obamacare subsidies in all states
  7. The lawsuit went back to the messy way Obamacare was drafted
  8. Some lower courts thought the Obamacare challengers were right
  9. If the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare, it would have thrown the law into chaos
  10. You didn't answer my question!

  1. Card 1 of 10

    King v. Burwell could have gutted Obamacare in 34 states

    King v. Burwell was arguably the Affordable Care Act's greatest existential threat since the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012. The lawsuit, had it succeeded, would have ripped the subsidies out of 34 of the law's state insurance exchanges — effectively destroying much of Obamacare in those states.

    worst case

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March, and ruled on June 25.

    Related Feature: The accidental case against ObamacarInterview: Meet the man who could bring down Obamacare

    Without subsidies, private insurance would have become unaffordable for many of the 6.4 million Americans currently using federal subsidies to help pay for their coverage. Healthy people would likely have dropped their coverage, and only the people who were very sick — and therefore very expensive to insure — would keep their plans.

    This would set up the classic insurance "death spiral." By putting coverage out of financial reach for so many people, it would have undermined the entire purpose of the Affordable Care Act.

    If the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare, most observers say there would have been no quick fix. The White House wouldn't have the legal authority to dole out the insurance subsidies. Congress would need to pass new legislation to allow the financial help to start flowing again, but it's unlikely the president and Republicans would settle on an Obamacare plan they both liked.

    States could have decided to build their own marketplaces, but doing so for the next open enrollment period (which begins in November) would be a logistical challenge. And, politically, many Republican governors — particularly those who oppose Medicaid expansion — would be unlikely to help implement a major Obamacare program.

    With no clear solution in sight, a ruling against Obamacare in King v. Burwell would have meant a ruling where millions of Americans lost health insurance coverage.

  2. Card 2 of 10

    6.4 million Americans’ health coverage was at stake

  3. Card 3 of 10

    Republicans spent years not taking this lawsuit seriously

  4. Card 4 of 10

    The case revolved around just four words in Obamacare

  5. Card 5 of 10

    The White House’s Obamacare defense hinged on two key legal theories

  6. Card 6 of 10

    Legislators are unanimous: they wanted Obamacare subsidies in all states

  7. Card 7 of 10

    The lawsuit went back to the messy way Obamacare was drafted

  8. Card 8 of 10

    Some lower courts thought the Obamacare challengers were right

  9. Card 9 of 10

    If the Supreme Court ruled against Obamacare, it would have thrown the law into chaos

  10. Card 10 of 10

    You didn't answer my question!