As stated, the two plans other than the value plan would have to be arbitrated. And according to the company proposal, any outcome would have to be cost-neutral to us (in other words, if we have to pay higher premiums, we would have to be compensated for that somehow).

It's a big IF because the GOP doesn't need to repeal Obamacare to get rid of the tax. They can just amend the law or strip it of funding. And whoever gets into office in 2016 will still have to face Congress, which will likely remain in GOP control until they anger enough voters. Experience shows this flip-flop happens every 6-8 years. So right around 2020 we'll probably see the Congress go back to the Dems.

There's already a legitimate challenge to the law in the form of the Supreme Court case that's hearing the issue regarding how the law was written. From what I've gathered and read, they did a really poor job writing the law and stipulated specifically that state exchanges can receive federal subsidies, but there's no specific spending authorization for subsidies for the federal exchange.

If you go strictly by the law (and precedent), then that means most Americans will lose their subsidies because the law does not specifically authorize that funding. The administration (and the Dems) contend that "the law implies it", but having been a budget authority in the military, if the law doesn't specifically authorize funds, it cannot be funded just because "we meant it but didn't write it in there". The legally correct way is to amend the law to authorize the appropriation of funds for federal subsidies...but do you really think the GOP will pass such legislation? I think not.

Hence why a lot of people feel Obamacare is in trouble regardless of whether Clinton takes office or not.