On its face, the King V. Burwell case currently before the Supreme Court is about whether subsidies can be paid by the government toward insurance for millions of people in federally established state health insurance exchanges. However, if the Court rules against such assistance, the lost coverage to individuals could be immense.

Such exchanges would likely be destroyed as half of those currently covered by health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would no longer be able to access it through employer their employers.

At issue is one sentence present in the law, which numbers over 1,700 pages. It suggests that subsidies are to be paid for people subscribed to exchanges that were specifically created by states, not those the federal government established for the states. However, other wording throughout the law contradicts this, signaling that the intent is to pay subsidies on behalf of people in all exchanges.

Also, there is the intent of Congress when it approved the legislation. No member of Congress is on public record saying that they understood that subsidies would be paid to people only if they are enrolled in state-established exchanges. There is an understanding amongst all involved in the bill’s passage that its intent was clear, its purpose unambiguous.

What the subsidies do is make up for what is known as the affordability exception, which states that individuals do not have to purchase insurance when the cost exceeds eight percent of their income. Without such support, an enormous proportion of the population of the Unites States would not have health insurance as virtually no one would be mandated to purchase insurance in states without their own exchanges.