TIME White House

Obama’s Approval Rating Cracks 50%

President Obama Joins Mourners At Funeral Of Rev. Clementa Pinckney
Joe Raedle—Getty Images President Barack Obama delivers the eulogy for South Carolina state senator and Rev. Clementa Pinckney during Pinckney's funeral service on June 26, 2015 in Charleston, S.C.

After he sang 'Amazing Grace' on television and had a big week in the Supreme Court

President Barack Obama’s approval rating cracked 50% following a week of dramatic news events, marking the highest ratings for his presidency since 2013.

A CNN/ORC poll found that 50% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the presidency, after a week that included Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act, as well as several statements on race and an emotional eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was killed in the Charleston shooting. Obama rounded out the week by singing “Amazing Grace” on national television at Rev. Pinckney’s funeral Friday.

The poll shows a significant jump since Obama’s 45% approval rating in May, and a dip in his disapproval rating, to 47%. This is the first time his approval rating has hit 50% since May 2013, and the second time his disapproval rating has fallen below 50% in that stretch of time.

The breakdown on specific issues is also going Obama’s way. 52% said they approve of how Obama is handling the economy, which is the first time that particular metric has exceeded 50% in six years of CNN/ORC polling. 55% said they approve of how Obama is handling race relations, up from 50% in May.

Yet there are still persistent challenges for Obama, especially on race. 74% of Americans say racial discrimination against black people is a serious problem in America, up from 47% five years ago– among African-American respondents, that number has jumped from 42% to 80%. And 42% of Americans think that race relations have gotten worse under Obama, compared to 20% who think they’ve gotten better.

[CNN]

TIME Uber

Why the Obamacare Decision Is Great for Uber

Berlin's Taxis As German Court Considers Uber Technologies Inc. Ban
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images A passenger holds a HTC Corp. smartphone displaying the Uber Technologies Inc. car service application (app) as they sit in a taxi in this arranged photograph in Berlin, Germany, on Monday, Nov. 24, 2014.

The gig economy should be celebrating this week

Uber may have publicly praised Supreme Court’s Friday decision clearing the way for nationwide same-sex marriage, but a decision that came a day earlier promises a bigger impact on the ride-hailing company.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision preserving federal tax credits tied to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The ACA is an essential ingredient in the success of the so-called “gig economy,” wherein workers serve as independent contractors on a flexible schedule for on-demand service companies like Uber, Postmates, Instacart and more.

Because Uber and many companies like it consider their workers independent contractors instead of employees, they’re not required to provide those workers with health insurance, as the ACA only mandates that employers extend coverage to full-time employees. That loophole saves the companies a tremendous amount of money. Obamacare’s subsidies for individual insurance buyers, meanwhile, make it easier for Uber drivers and similar workers to get affordable coverage, making the work more attractive.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick reportedly said at a November dinner that Obamacare is “huge” for his company because it frees up more workers to come drive cars for Uber when they might otherwise be tethered to a job that offers health benefits. “The democratization of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make a living,” Kalanick said at the dinner. “They don’t have to be working for ‘the man.'” (An Uber spokeswoman confirmed Kalanick’s comments, but declined to elaborate further.)

Indeed, when Uber recently surveyed its drivers about whether they would prefer a “9-to-5 job with some benefits and a set salary” or one where they could make their own schedule, 73% said they would forgo the benefits package in favor of freedom, according to a report the company released in January. And Uber is making efforts to help its drivers get insured, announcing late last year a partnership with Stride Health to guide workers in choosing a plan on the government insurance exchanges.

It’s unclear, however, how much Uber is actually spending, if anything, on this ancillary benefit: Stride’s services are already available for free to anyone. A spokeswoman for Uber says drivers who use Stride through Uber’s “customized” app would “save time” because their personal information would already be “pre-populated” into tool.

Still, how much longer Uber might capitalize on a combination of Obamacare and employment status rules remains up in the air. A California labor board recently found that a single Uber driver was more accurately characterized as an employee, not an independent contractor. While that decision is non-binding, it has called into question Uber’s policies regarding health insurance and other benefits. On-demand grocery service Instacart, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, recently announced that it is experimenting with turning some of its workers into part-time employees in what could be the first step in a broader trend across gig economy companies.

For now, however, Uber is safe to celebrate. Had the Court gone the other way Thursday, it may have found its business model in serious jeopardy.

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com.

MONEY Health Care

Obamacare Still Has 5 Key Hurdles to Clear

150626_FF_ObamacareHurdles
Peter Dazeley—Getty Images

Despite the Supreme Court ruling upholding it, the Affordable Care Act still has a rocky road ahead.

In its first five years, the Affordable Care Act has survived technical meltdowns, a presidential election, two Supreme Court challenges — including one resolved Thursday — and dozens of repeal efforts in Congress. But its long-term future still isn’t ensured. Here are five of the biggest hurdles remaining:Spacer

1. Medicaid Expansion. About 4 million more Americans would gain coverage if all states expand the state-federal Medicaid programs to cover people with incomes at or slightly above the poverty line. Twenty-one states with Republican governors or GOP-controlled legislatures, including Texas and Florida, have balked, citing ideological objections, their own budget pressures, as well as skepticism about Washington’s long-term commitment to pay for most of the costs.

2. Anemic Enrollment. Eighteen million Americans who are eligible to buy insurance in federal and state marketplaces haven’t purchased it. Those marketplaces have had particular trouble enrolling Hispanics, young adults and people who object to being told to buy insurance. Federal funding used by state marketplaces to enroll people and advertise is drying up. Many state marketplaces haven’t figured out how to be self-sustaining. Vermont, Hawaii, Colorado and Rhode Island are among those states searching for more money. The penalty for going without coverage rises next year to $695 per adult or 2.5% of family income—whichever is larger.Spacer

3. Market Stability. Nationally, premiums haven’t gone up too much on average in the first two years of the marketplaces, but that could change. The federal government has been protecting insurers from unexpectedly high medical bills, but that cushion disappears after next year. At the same time, insurers finally have enough experience with their initial customers to figure out if their premiums are sufficient to cover medical costs. If they’re not, expect increases.Spacer

4. Affordability. People who get their insurance through their employer have mostly been spared jolts from the health law. But the federal government begins taxing expensive health plans in 2018. The “Cadillac tax,” created by the health law, will pressure employers to offer skimpier health coverage or pass the taxes’ cost on to their employees. Also, individuals buying their insurance on the health law marketplaces continue to risk large out-of-pocket costs if they need lots of care. Their maximum financial obligations for next year are $6,850 for individuals and $13,700 for families. Those who choose to go out of their insurance network may have no ceiling on how much they may have to pay.

5. Political Resistance. Thursday’s ruling did little to diminish the GOP’s zeal to repeal the health law. Republicans on both sides of the Capitol pledged to continue their efforts to kill the ACA. Alawsuit filed by House Republicans last year alleges the president overstepped his authority when implementing the health law. The topic remains grist for the 2016 presidential campaign, with several Republican presidential candidates – including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — reiterating their desire to repeal the law. If the Republicans capture both the White House and Congress in 2016, all bets are off over whether the law survives intact.

Kaiser Health News writers Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, Phil Galewitz and Jordan Rau contributed to this report.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit national health policy news service.

TIME Supreme Court

The Two Harshest Words Antonin Scalia Used Against Obamacare

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the The Legal Services Corporation's 40th anniversary conference luncheon September 15, 2014 in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the The Legal Services Corporation's 40th anniversary conference luncheon September 15, 2014 in Washington, DC.

"I dissent."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is known for his colorful language, using phrases like “argle-bargle” and “jiggery-pokery” in his dissents.

But the two harshest words he uses to signal his dissatisfaction with the court’s majority are actually pretty plain: “I dissent.”

Within the cloistered world of the nation’s highest court, it’s the little things that get noticed. Among them is the phrase that a Justice on the losing side of a case chooses to end their dissent with.

On the more polite end, there are a couple variations: “I respectfully dissent.” “With respect, I dissent.” “We respectfully dissent.” There’s a more neutral option, simply ending the piece without a sign-off or ending by noting “I would affirm/reverse the decision of the lower court.”

Scalia usually chooses to simply end his decision without a sign-off, but in a select few cases he has gone further and added “I dissent” just to underline the point. That’s how he ended his dissent Thursday from the 6-3 majority opinion in King v. Burwell that allowed subsidies on state-based insurance marketplaces set up through the Affordable Care Act to continue.

The court’s two decisions on Obamacare “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites,” he wrote. “I dissent.”

Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet, author of a book on Supreme Court dissents called I Dissent, said that’s no accident.

“I don’t know of any systematic studies, but it’s clear to me that the Justices know the difference between the two formulations and make deliberate choices about which to use,” he told TIME in an email.

The cases in which Scalia chooses to end with “I dissent” are interesting.

In 2003, he dissented from the 6-3 majority in Lawrence v. Texas striking down anti-sodomy laws.

“The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a ‘fundamental right’ (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws,” he wrote. “I dissent.”

In 2011, he dissented in part from a 5-3 decision in Arizona v. United States that upheld a lower court ruling overturning an Arizona law that denied bail to illegal immigrants charged with some felonies.

“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State,” Scalia wrote. “I dissent.”

And in 2012, he used the phrase in a dissent from a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor that overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

“The Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better,” he wrote. “I dissent.”

Scalia’s liberal colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recently said in an interview at the American Constitution Society that she stopped writing simply “I dissent” after liberals overreacted to her use of it in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, even putting it on T-shirts. She now simply notes that she would uphold or overturn the lower court decision.

Still, Ginsburg said the “respectfully” line seems like a silly fiction.

“I think of my colleagues who have just criticized the court’s opinion as being ‘profoundly misguided’ — that’s one from (former Justice) John Paul Stevens — or from Scalia ‘this opinion is not to be taken seriously’ and then after saying that, then you end it (with ‘I respectfully dissent’ when) you’ve show no respect at all,” she said.

TIME society

Obamacare Victory Shows Failure of Scalia’s Conservative Revolution

Justice Antonin Scalia at the "Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor" evening program at the Library of Congress on Nov. 6, 2014.
Kevin Wolf—AP Justice Antonin Scalia at the "Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor" evening program at the Library of Congress on Nov. 6, 2014.

This is clearly not the Scalia Court

By upholding a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in King v Burwell, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated that while the conservative revolution led by Justice Antonin Scalia may have had a strong impact on the court (and on the nation), it has not succeeded in winning over Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts. Thus, while Justice Scalia has won many battles, he has not won the war. And in today’s King v Burwell decision he lost a major battle.

Justice Scalia has fought tirelessly both to limit the court’s focus in interpreting statutes (in other words, to look only at the letter of the law and not at the broader purpose of the legislation) and to limit the power of the national government.

King v Burwell seemed tailor-made to vindicate both goals.

The basic question in King v Burwell was whether the phrase an “exchange established by the state” included health care exchanges established by the federal government in states that refused to create their own. The plaintiffs in King v Burwell argued that “established by the state” means that health insurance subsidies could not be offered in states that had chosen to use the federal health insurance market instead of their own. This is, indeed, a very strict interpretation.

For Justice Scalia, the answer was easy: “established by the state” could not possibly mean “established by the state or the federal government.” Had Justice Scalia’s textualism prevailed, the decision would have gutted the ACA. Six million people in the 34 states where the federal government runs the insurance marketplace could have lost subsidies, and premiums could have skyrocketed.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an otherwise unremarkable opinion that invoked traditional principles of statutory interpretation and examined the meaning of the phrase “established by the state” in context.

The chief justice looked beyond the plain language of the clause at issue. He insisted that a court should interpret the language of the law in light of the overall legislative purpose. As the chief justice wrote:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

And a contrary interpretation would have defeated the central purpose of the statute. In this approach, the court acts as Congress’s partner, not its censor.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia was clearly furious that Chief Justice Roberts refused to endorse his revolutionary approach to statutory interpretation.

From Justice Scalia’s perspective, Chief Justice Roberts’ heresy was magnified by the fact that the chief justice cast the deciding vote to validate the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v Sebelius in 2012, in which the legality of the individual mandate was upheld.

When Justice Scalia gets mad, he does not hold back. He has often adopted fairly sharp language in his dissents, but even by that standard, his dissent in King v Burwell is extraordinary in tone:

Normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present court: the Affordable Care Act must be saved.

His vituperation reaches a crescendo in the conclusion where he snipes, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

One can debate the appropriate moniker for the ACA, and one can debate whether we should call this the Roberts Court or the Kennedy Court, but what is beyond debate is that this is not the Scalia Court.

This article originally appeared on The ConversationThe Conversation

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

MONEY Health Care

What is Obamacare?

140603_FF_QA_Obamacare_illo_1
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Here's how President Obama's health insurance reform law actually works

Today, there’s been a lot of talk about the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. But while the law signed by President Obama in 2010 made huge changes to the health insurance system, most people under 65 still get their coverage the way they always did: from their employer. Unless you bought a health insurance plan on a government-run marketplace, you might not be familiar with how the ACA provides coverage. Here are answers to some common questions:

How does the law help people get insurance?

The law set up insurance “exchanges” that offer consumers and small businesses a choice of standardized and heavily regulated health plans. For the most part, this marketplaces serve people who aren’t offered insurance by a large employer.

And how is that different from the way people bought their own insurance before?

On the exchanges, insurers are not able to turn anyone down because of a pre-existing condition; from pregnancy to heart disease, they’re all covered. The law also restricts or blocks annual and lifetime limits on what insurers, including in employer plans, will pay.

Rates aren’t tied to your health, although smokers may have to pay up to 50% more. The oldest people in a plan will pay no more than three times the rate paid by the youngest. In short, policies you buy yourself will be a lot more like the group plans you get at work.

What does coverage cost?

The insurance on the exchanges isn’t free—a family of four could well face annual premiums of $10,000 a year. But many of those using the exchanges will also receive federal subsidies—technically, tax credits—to help them buy. Those subsidies reach deep into the middle class: For families earning up to four times the poverty line—about $95,000 for a couple with two kids—the tax credits will be set so that they pay no more than about 9.5% of their income for a fairly basic health plan. (That cap is designed to rise gradually should premiums grow faster than incomes.)

People with lower incomes pay even smaller percentages. Some pay almost nothing.

The law was also meant to allows millions of the near poor to join Medicaid through the exchanges, although a Supreme Court decision left it up to individual states whether to participate in the expansion. Currently, 21 states are opting out.

What kind of coverage can I get?

All the plans must provide at least a standard menu of essential benefits. They come in four basic types: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Although plans can compete by mixing different premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, you’ll know the average level of out-of-pocket costs you can expect in each type. For example, the silver plans ask you to pay about 30% of your costs out of pocket. (Subsidies are based on the cost of the silver plans.) The more expensive platinum plans, which would be most similar to a large employer’s coverage, would have out-of-pocket costs of just 10%.

How is all this paid for?

In a number of ways, but the most direct one is that high earners got a payroll tax hike. Starting in 2013, couples have paid additional taxes on earnings above $250,000 ($200,000, if you’re single)—0.9% on earned income and 3.8% on investment income.

Why are some people fined for not buying coverage?

By 2016 you’ll be dunned $695 a year or 2.5% of your income, whichever is higher, if you don’t have health insurance. However, there’s an exemption if premiums top 8% of your income. Insurers fought for this provision. Even with subsidies, some people may decide that coverage is too expensive. They’ll tend to be healthier than average—that’s why they’d be willing to take the risk. But that poses a problem in a system where insurers have to take all comers. If healthy people drop out, the pool of people paying in will typically be sicker and more expensive to treat. That causes premiums to rise, which causes more healthy people to drop out, which means higher premiums, and so on. To prevent this “death spiral,” the law pushes people to buy.

Adapted from “The Truth About Health Care Reform,” which appeared in the May 2010 issue of MONEY.

TIME Supreme Court

Obama Says More Work to Be Done on Expanding Health Insurance

“The Affordable Care Act is here to stay."

President Obama took a brief victory lap over the Affordable Care Act before saying it was time to get back to work.

Speaking from the Rose Garden a little over an hour after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping in place subsidies that make insurance affordable, the President declared victory for his signature health law.

“The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” Obama said. “Today is a victory for hard working Americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law.”

After five years, over 50 Congressional votes for its repeal and two Supreme Court decisions, Obama said the law is now “woven into the fabric of America” and won’t be unraveled.

Under the Affordable Care Act, over 16 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. The uninsured rate has dropped dramatically and millions have access to subsidies that makes their new insurance plans more affordable.

‘This is not an abstract thing any more. This is not a set of political talking points. This is reality,” Obama said.

Still, the political debate over the Affordable Care Act has loomed large of the last three election cycles, and there are signs it may continue in 2016. Republican lawmakers and presidential contenders have vowed to make replacing the law their top priority once Obama leaves office. A number of Republican states have yet to expand Medicaid coverage under the law.

But in the Rose Garden, Obama vowed to “keep working” to get more Americans covered.

“With this case behind us, let’s be clear, we’ve got work to do to make health care in America even better,” he said.

TIME Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules That a Typo Should Not Undo Obamacare

Justices ruled by a margin of 6 to 3 that the intent of Congress was clear enough to override contradictory language in law itself.

In the end, an apparent legislative typo did not bring down Obamacare.

President Obama’s signature health care law survived a second challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, with the Justices ruling by a margin of 6 to 3 that the intent of Congress was clear enough to override contradictory language in law itself.

The decision was a major win for Democrats and the President, who would have faced the difficult task of negotiating a fix to the law with Republicans had the court decided that a specific clause in the law invalidated tax subsidies for millions of Americans. That negotiation could have resulted in either a collapse of the health insurance reforms in a majority of states, or a significant paring back of their reach.

At issue was a clause in the law that stated that federal tax subsidies for health insurance purchases were only available in insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, that had been set up by states. The court had been asked to decide whether the plain meaning of that clause invalidated subsidies for the 34 states, and about 6.4 million Americans, who received subsidies after buying healthcare through an insurance marketplace operated by the federal government. Democrats argued that the clause was little more than a typo made in the rush to enact the law.

The court ruled that the full context of the law made clear that Congress had not intended to bar subsidies for insurance purchased on the federal exchanges. “It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate” as challengers of the law had argued, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his decision.

“The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people,” Roberts continued. “Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a questions of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would done so expressly.”

In an aside, the Chief Justice chided Congress for sloppiness in writing the law. “The Affordable Care Act … contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” Roberts wrote.

The three most conservative Justices on the court, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote a bristling dissent to Roberts, suggesting that the court majority could not read the plain language before them. “You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it,” Scalia wrote.

They argued that by deciding to give more weight to the context of the entire law than the plain language of a specific section, the Supreme Court was effectively rewriting the law. “Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state exchanges,” Scalia wrote, citing the specific passage. “More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.”

Scalia also added a rhetorical flourish to his dissent typical of his more animated opinions. Using an acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States, he suggested taking the President’s name out of the common vernacular for his signature law. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote.

But such jibes were not enough to sway a strong majority of the court. “In a democracy, the power to make law rests with those chosen by the people,” Roberts concluded in his opinion. “Our role is more confined—’to say what the law is.’ That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. ”

 

TIME Supreme Court

The 7 Best Lines from Justice Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act won the battle of opinions at the Supreme Court Thursday, but critics may win the battle of words.

The 6-3 majority opinion in King v. Burwell upholds subsidies to millions of Americans buying health insurance through Obamacare, but it does so in relatively bloodless language about deferring to congressional intent.

But the fiery dissent from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia — joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — features a number of zingers, applause lines and harshly worded criticism.

Here’s a look at seven of his best lines:

Scalia starts by bashing the majority opinion:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

Then he shows how depressed the case makes him:

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”

Then he questions his colleagues’ motivation:

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

Then he uses a word from the 19th century to criticize their logic:

The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.

Then he uses a euphemism for what he thinks of their logic your grandma might have used:

Pure applesauce.

Then he suggests an alternate name for Obamacare:

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Then instead of ending with the typical “I respectfully dissent,” he writes this:

I dissent.

TIME 2016 Election

What 2016 Republicans Would Do Next on Obamacare

For Republican presidential candidates, a possible Supreme Court decision overturning some Obamacare subsidies is a tricky subject.

No one in the GOP field wants to be seen as supportive of the Affordable Care Act, which was viewed unfavorably by 69 percent of Republicans in a June poll. But if the court rules against the Obama Administration, subsidies that make insurance affordable for 6.4 million Americans would be in jeopardy.

Four candidates are governors of states that would be directly affected by a court ruling because they do not have their own insurance marketplace: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Another four are sitting U.S. senators who could be forced to vote on any legislative fixes: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. (Of those, only Paul’s state would not be directly affected, as Kentucky runs its own marketplace, called Kynect.)

The candidates who are not in office currently—former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and businessman Donald Trump—have more flexibility to respond.

Here’s what the candidates have said should happen if the court strikes down subsidies in 34 states that don’t run their own marketplaces, in order of how major their plan would be:

Mike Huckabee: Wait and see

He has not yet taken a position.

Rick Santorum: Wait and see

He has not yet taken a position.

John Kasich: Ohio should fix it

“I’ve got good people working on this. We’ve chatted about this,” he told NewsMax. “If the court makes a decision that these exchanges get shut down, then we’re gonna have to figure something out in Ohio.”

Scott Walker: Congress should fix it

“This is a problem created by this president and the previous Congress,” he told Bloomberg News. “It’s something that requires a solution at the federal level. States didn’t create this problem, the federal government did. And they should fix it.”

Chris Christie: Congress should fix it

“If Congress messed up the statute, the Congress and the President created the statute; they should fix it,” he said during a trip to New Hampshire. “If they’re saying it’s not what they intended, then go back and fix it.”

Carly Fiorina: Congress should fix it

“I know that we certainly cannot leave people hanging and I have confidence that they are working on a plan in Congress now,” she told reporters. “I’m not sure if it is the plan that I would put forward, but I’m confident that they’re working on a plan.”

Marco Rubio: Pass a short-term fix, then replace the law

“Credible conservative plans have already emerged from Senator Ben Sasse, Congressman Paul Ryan and others,” he wrote on Fox News. “The goal is to provide an off-ramp for our people to escape this law without losing their insurance.”

Lindsey Graham: Pass a short-term fix, then replace the law

“I don’t think we should terminate (the subsidies) until we have a plan,” he told Politico.

Rick Perry: Pass a short-term fix, then replace the law

“You don’t turn around a huge ship just overnight. It takes a transition period,” he told RealClearPolitics. “I think most Americans, whether they’re strict conservatives economically, would find that to be out of the realm of appropriate.”

Ted Cruz: Let states opt out of Obamacare

“In a perfect world, we would take that opportunity to repeal Obamacare. At a minimum, we should allow states to opt out,” he told Politico. He later said he would push for a six-month transition to a full-blown repeal.

Rand Paul: Pass a conservative replacement now

“I would like to legalize inexpensive insurance policies, give more choice, let people choose their doctor, expand health savings accounts, help people save for their insurance,” he told Politico.

Jeb Bush: Pass a conservative replacement now

“Give broad discretion to states to create exchanges that would look more like a Republican vision of how you expand access to health care insurance,” he told the Des Moines Register. “The president’s likely to veto that. You don’t know until you get it there, though.”

Bobby Jindal: Do nothing

“Congress might be tempted to pass language extending the subsidies to the federally-run exchange, allowing Obamacare to comply with the court ruling,” he wrote in National Review. “That’s a ‘solution’ in search of a problem.”

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com