Federal marketplace states on health reform supreme court case plaintiff ruling March 2015

This survey shows the percentage of U.S. adults living in federal or partnership marketplace states based on their perceived impact of the Supreme Court case on health care reform (King v. Burwell) ruling in favor of the plaintiff, as of March 2015. Some 16 percent of these adults believe favoring the plaintiff would have a minor negative impact on their state.

Opinions among U.S. adults in federal marketplace states on ruling in favor of plaintiff in Supreme Court case on health reform as of March 2015

Characteristic	Percentage of respondents
Major negative impact	30%
Minor negative impact	16%
Minor positive impact	13%
Major positive impact	10%
No impact	16%
Don't know/refused	15%

Loading statistic...

Download

Source

Show detailed source information?

Already a member?

Source

Use Ask Statista Research Service

Release date

March 2015

More information

Region

United States

Survey time period

March 6 to 12, 2015

Number of respondents

1,503 respondents

Age group

18 years and older

Method of interview

Computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI)

Supplementary notes

Original question: "Among those living in states with federal/partnership marketplaces: If the Supreme Court rules that financial help to buy health insurance is only available in states with state-run marketplaces, do you think it would have a major impact, a minor impact, or no impact at all on your state. Would that impact be positive or negative?"
The Supreme Court just heard a case about whether the health care law says people in all states can be eligible for financial help from the government to buy health insurance or if financial help is only available to people in states with state-run marketplaces.

Citation formats