"... If the court’s majority were to rule against the government, I would guess that when all this shakes out over the next year, states with (very roughly) half the population would have well-functioning health insurance markets because the working-class citizens in those states would be entitled to federal income tax subsidies enabling them to purchase affordable health insurance. Almost all of the states whose citizens will continue to receive those hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance subsidies will be blue states. In most red states, the dollar amount of the subsidies would be zero, and the private insurance market would collapse. ..." - WarLord

THIS: "... The great irony of a victory for the challengers in King is that federal taxpayers would still receive the subsidies essential for a viable health insurance market, but only if they lived in states that—give or take a few—voted for Obama. That would give a new meaning to the term Obamacare. ..." - WarLord

It's not quite that simple. Kentucky (a mostly red state) has its own exchange. My state, New Jersey (reliably blue) does not have its own exchange because Christie has dragged his feet on implementation wherever he could. I'm sure there are other exceptions out there. - John (bird whisperer)

Also, even in red states, the people hurt the most might not be the ones voting for Republicans. - John (bird whisperer)

I think he makes an interesting observation about King v Burwell but it's been obvious since implementation that Red States have not done anything that would move ACA forward.... - WarLord