A new poll out by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) shows that setting up state-run Obamacare exchanges is deeply unpopular with voters.
That choice — whether to set up a state-run exchange — will only become more important this summer, when the Supreme Court decides in King vs. Burwell whether enrollees in a state without a state exchange can still constitutionally receive federal Obamacare subsidies.
Currently, Arkansas legislators are postponing a final decision about whether to set up a state exchange until King vs. Burwell is decided.
If Arkansas legislators decide to set up a state-run exchange after the Burwell decision, it would be at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of voters, according to the FGA poll.
Given that voters don’t blame states for the outcome in the King v. Burwell case, it is no surprise that they do not want states to clean up any potential problems caused by the ruling. If the Supreme Court rules subsidies can only be issued in states that establish ObamaCare exchanges, just 22 percent of voters want states to establish those exchanges. Instead, the vast majority of voters want Congress to make changes to ObamaCare.
The vast majority of Republican and split-ticket voters want states to either do nothing or ask Congress to make changes to ObamaCare. Just six percent of Republican voters and 19 percent of split-ticket voters want states to set up exchanges if the plaintiffs win the King v. Burwell case.
Even voters who know close friends or family members who purchased health insurance plans from the ObamaCare exchange would rather see Congress make changes than states set up exchanges.
These feelings remain stable across all regions of the United States. The vast majority of voters in each region want states to do nothing or ask Congress to fix the law, while only a small minority want states to set up exchanges in response to the King v. Burwell decision.
You can read the rest of the polling data here.
According to the poll, the biggest reason for voters’ opposition to having their state set up an exchange (instead of having the federal government run it) is that state taxpayers would be on the hook for the operating costs of a state exchange.
At a time when Arkansas and other states are facing budget crunches, why voluntarily create a state exchange — and thereby subject state taxpayers to another expensive undertaking?