The penalties would still exist in those states, but quite a few people on the exchanges would be able to claim a hardship exemption for lack of affordability. They would then be able to buy catastrophic insurance. Many of the people that are paying a penalty for not having insurance, will not have too. Take the case of Illinois. They have ~300K on exchanges and another ~600K or so that are eligible for subsidies but are going without. Somebody that makes too much for a subsidy would still have to pay the penalty if they went without coverage. I am no expert on it, but that is the way I read it..
If SC rules against federally run state exchanges I think it likely Boehner and the boys will rush in to save the day..
Yes, that is correct. I should have been more specific since it is the EMPLORER mandate that would be eliminated (in the 36 “federal exchange” states) along with the subsidies if the SC rules for the plaintiffs.
And most (but likely not all) individual penalties would be eliminated in those states.