Opinion: If Obamacare critics win high court case, effects will be wildly disparate

March 12, 2015

–

Sign along the railroad tracks at the Tennessee-Kentucky state line in Jellico, Tenn. (Brian Stansberry/Wikicommons)

Former CIGNA executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter is writing about the health care industry and the ongoing battle for health reform for the Center for Public Integrity.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, nowhere will the effect be more stark than along the 400-mile border between two states my family has called home, Tennessee and Kentucky.

In the state where I grew up, Tennessee, thousands of people would in all likelihood be forced back into the ranks of the uninsured. That’s because the cost of coverage would quickly skyrocket for the 230,000 Tennesseans enrolled in a health plan this year through the insurance exchange that’s operating there.

In Kentucky, where we lived when I worked for Humana Inc., it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court does. No one there is facing the threat of suddenly finding their coverage unaffordable.

See the complete story at CT News Junkie.

Comments

3 responses to “Opinion: If Obamacare critics win high court case, effects will be wildly disparate”

John Hamlin

March 12, 2015

And the voters in Tennessee will get what they voted for by electing politicians that opted not to have state exchanges. If they want subsidies, they can elect Democrats. No big deal.

Log in to Reply
Paul Lanning

March 12, 2015

If the Supremes rule in favor of the plaintiffs, 8 million citizens will immediately lose their insurance, causing insurers to lose business and therefore raise premiums, which in turn will force a few million more citizens to drop their coverage, which will generate further rate increases…

Technically, meanwhile, 3 of the 4 plaintiffs are in no way harmed by the ACA and therefore don’t even have the legal right to sue.

Log in to Reply
Martin Tagliaferro

March 18, 2015

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution.

That’s sort of their job – isn’t it?

Log in to Reply