The Supreme Court this June could cut off millions of Americans from affordable Obamacare coverage. The response from the nation’s governors gathering in Washington this week was an assortment of shrugs.

POLITICO interviewed more than a dozen governors, from both parties, this weekend at the National Governors Association winter meeting. Most said they’re in a wait-and-see zone. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week, the decision is likely in late June and no one can foretell how the court will rule on its second major case that could strike at the heart of the president’s signature health law.


For some Republican governors it was a shrug of indifference. They say the onus falls on President Barack Obama and Congress to figure out what to do if the Supreme Court invalidates Affordable Care Act subsidies in their states. And if Obamacare falls apart, well, they say, good riddance.

For others — among them potential 2016 contenders Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio — it’s a shrug of uncertainty. Wisconsin’s own state health program for certain low-income people relies on the federal exchange, and Walker called for the feds to come up with at least a short-term fix. Kasich says he’s working on contingency plans to protect people in his state, but he hasn’t said what that would look like, or how he’d pay for it.

The Obamacare opponents behind King argue that subsidies are illegal in 34 states using HealthCare.gov instead of running their own insurance exchanges. A ruling against the White House could abruptly halt financial assistance to roughly seven million of the people who signed up through the federal exchange this year.

Governors are largely on the sidelines of the subsidy fight — but in the center of the 2016 map. Administration allies doing Obamacare outreach worked hard to sign up millions of people in states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the classic presidential battlegrounds, and homes to some of the likely contenders. If the White House loses in the Supreme Court, the consequences would play out amid the intensity of a presidential election, and in swing states that will host some of 2016’s most competitive Senate and gubernatorial races.

The potential fallout from a decision for the plaintiffs has “been probably the most frequent topic of conversation” among the governors, said Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, who is also chairman of the Republican Governors Association. His assessment was that every governor’s “first hope” is that Washington will solve the problem.

Republican governors in Washington planned to press Obama during a White House meetings on Sunday and Monday. The court case came up when Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell held a closed-door luncheon session with governors Sunday.

Burwell has repeatedly declined to acknowledge or discuss contingency plans, saying over and over in public that the administration is confident it will win in court — a position she maintained during her meeting with governors, Haslam said. And the Republicans who now control both the House and Senate say they are working on a plan to replace Obamacare. Bu they’ve been trying to find a plan that the GOP can agree on for several years. The pressure’s stronger now because of King, but a breakthrough does not seem imminent.

“It’s way too early to respond to a Supreme Court ruling which hasn’t been — in which there has not been a conclusion,” said North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican who faces reelection in 2016. “The nation and the states don’t have a B Plan. … We would like to have a plan. We’re still trying to figure out the current Obamacare details because there’s a lot that changes every day.”

The King plaintiffs argue that the subsidies are illegal through HealthCare.gov, and point to a specific phrase in the law that says the financial assistance flows through the state exchanges. Backers of the law say focusing on just four words ignores the full text of the sprawling law and the intent of the lawmakers who wrote and passed it.

For the most part, governors from affected states depicted themselves as spectators to the court drama.

“We’re not going to speculate on options because the court can surprise you,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican.

“Remember the last time it came before them? They totally came up with a different answer than people anticipated,” Branstad added, referring to the 2012 case that upheld the individual mandate but made the state-based Medicaid expansion optional.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a conservative Republican, said the potential of an abrupt stop to the subsidies is Washington’s doing. It’s not his job to find a solution.

“This is a federal program, it’s a federal problem,” he said at the American Action Forum on Friday.

Yet Florida has 1.6 million people enrolled in Obamacare plans, more than any other state, including California and New York, which run their own exchanges and have governors who back Obamacare. Nine in 10 of those Floridians get subsidies. Scott declined to answer questions about whether he’d share in the blame if the newly covered became uncovered.

Other Republican governors were less willing to leave their citizens’ fate to the feds.

“Obviously, those that are dependent on the subsidy that’s in the exchange, every governor should be concerned about what happens to them,” said Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Arkansas took early steps to create its own exchange under his Democratic predecessor, but at this point, coverage from the state’s individual marketplace wouldn’t be available until 2017. That means there would be a gap if the court rules for King. The outcome of the case, Hutchinson said, “could emphasize the importance of [a state exchange], or it could undermine the whole system. So it all depends on what the court says and what Congress does.”

Wisconsin’s Walker may have the most at stake. He built his own health reform agenda in part by relying on the Obamacare exchange to provide subsidized insurance to tens of thousands of Wisconsinites just above the poverty level. But he’s also ripped the health care law and struck a conservative tone amid early jockeying for national GOP support for 2016.

Walker told reporters Saturday that he intends to push Obama for a “reasonable bridge” for states if the court strikes down subsidies.

“No matter what you believe about Obamacare, if that were to happen there needs to be a reasonable bridge,” he said. “We’re going to talk about it, we’re going to advocate for it. But that responsibility doesn’t fall in the hands of the states or the governors. It falls in the hands of the leaders right here in Washington.”

Only three Republican governors — Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, New Mexico’s Susana Martinez and Idaho’s Butch Otter — established their own exchanges and therefore won’t be subject, directly, to the ruling. Sandoval, frequently mentioned as a potential 2016 vice-presidential candidate, said he’s relieved his constituents aren’t at risk.

“I made a decision early on that we would be a state-based exchange because I felt it was in Nevadans’ best interest to run their own,” Sandoval said, even boasting that twice as many Nevadans enrolled this year over the first round. “I’m just pleased,” he added, “that we don’t have the anxiety of the outcome King v. Burwell.” Nevada’s exchange had so many problems that it does now rely in part on HealthCare.gov, but it’s enough of a hybrid that the subsidies are safe.

Although the issue primarily affects states with Republican governors — Democrat-led states largely built their own insurance exchanges — a handful of Democratic governors with Republican legislatures are also grappling with how to respond. Some would like to build their own exchanges but need to figure out how to pay for it and how to overcome likely Republican opposition.

“I ran on a platform of actually setting up a statewide exchange, so my contingency plan I guess would be to continue to go forward with what I promised I would try to do,” said newly elected Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf as he left the White House after a meeting with Obama and other Democratic governors. How he’d pay for that exchange is “going to be a good question,” Wolf said.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said he’s unsure how he’ll respond if the court strikes subsidies. “We don’t know yet,” he said, adding that his health secretary is putting together a range of options. “I’m obviously open to everything.”

Delaware decided it was too small to sustain its own exchange, and opted for the federal model. But if that’s threatened, Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, wants to simply designate Delaware a “state-run” exchange to keep the subsidies flowing. He noted that Delaware government already runs significant exchange-related functions, so the issue is more a matter of labeling than of substance. But under the current rules and law, switching labels may not be so simple.

Some Republican governors say they’d actually cheer a Supreme Court ruling that strikes Obamacare subsidies, knowing that it’s likely one of their best chances to undermine a law that they hate. In their view, a crisis after a court ruling would create pressure for Obama and the congressional Democrats to accept a conservative alternative, or allow the states to create their own.

“If you go by what the law says, the subsidies will be lost,” said Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a doctor by training. “However, I think there will be changes in the law itself and that’s why we did not create a state-based exchange in Alabama because we knew this was coming.”

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, who also faces reelection in 2016, said he would ask that the Obama administration to send hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to craft their own health care coverage plans.

“Hallelujah! Praise the lord, if that happens,” he said. “I’m prepared to go back to square number one today, if you quite taking the $800 million from Utah taxpayers, we’ll keep the money in Utah. … The sooner we can stop it, the better I’ll like it. Quit taking our money.”



