You are about 75% right about all this.
But the 25% you didn’t mention is a killer.
1) Yes, it is anathema to the GOP to wind up supporting subsidies.
2) Yes, the states without exchanges could create them and solve the problem, but as the article mentions, this would hurt the lower tier GOP at the state level.
3) The big kicker for the 25% is this is not just about polling and people wanting free stuff. This is also a major Constitutional issue re: equal protection. States who DID create exchanges will get subsidies to their voters. States without will not and this is not going to be allowed. An instant lawsuit under the equal protection law will certainly pass all levels of courts.
This is somewhat the GOP’s way out. They will be forced Constitutionally to restore subsidies. The state level would be best. Or squirm around it by saying the Constitution requires equal protection so the subsidies will be extended to all states temporarily.
The Constitutional requirement is how they will avoid the wrath of the right wing.
Are you insane?
++++
“My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that excluding people who buy from the federal exchange from getting subsidies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.” ******************************************************************************************************
You do realize that there exist NUMEROUS federal statutes that provide subsidies and benefits to a state’s residents IF the state takes certain action - and precludes those benefits if the state does NOT take the specified action. These statutes and rules have existed for decades without equal protection being effectively raised as an issue.
The incentives in the Affordable Care Act to “incentivize” the states to set up their own exchanges are just one more of this type of statute.
++++
This sounds correct to me. What say you?