This month the Supreme Court will be ruling on yet another attack against the law. The law states that members who apply through state-run exchanges are eligible to receive money from the Federal Gov't in the form of a tax credit to help reduce the cost of their health insurance premium. When the law was passed, it stated that all states must establish an exchange or the Federal Government would do it for them. Well, about 30 states or more said "you do it". Several states (Including Illinois) agreed to do a Partnership Exchange with the state and Federal gov't working together; the intention is that at some point the state will run it's own exchange.
Those who feel the subsidies should remain will argue semantics here, saying the intent of the law is to give tax credits to people in EVERY state, regardless of whether they have a state-run or federally-run exchange. Let's face it, not everything in the law was enacted with the exact literal interpretation! So why change now? The majority of people polled agreed that the subsidies to federally run exchanges (about 37 in total counting partnership arrangements), should not be taken away. While the majority of Democrats and independents agree that subsidies should not be taken away, it is not unanimous by any means. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/public-to-supreme-court-dont-gut-obamacare/ .
The interesting dichotomy is that while the majority of people polled agree that subsidies should not be taken away from Federal Exchanges, the numbers of people who actually support the law hit an all-time low! In a recent ABC News/WashingPost poll, just 39 percent support the law, down 10 percentage points in a little more than a year, and according to the article, this matches the all-time low from 3 years ago when the Constitutionality of the law was argued by the Supreme Court.