Economics 101: marginal subsidies decrease the cost to the consumer while increasing the revenue of the producer. This is true regardless of whether the subsidy is on consumption or production. There are ways of spinning this to make it look like the subsidies are causing the prices of your insurance premium to increase, but the real cost will always be lower than it would be without the subsidy (unless the whole of capitalist economic theory is baseless). This is why the decision to halt the subsidies is expected to drive up the cost of health insurance for middle class consumers. If conservatives want to complain about the subsidies creating market inefficiencies, then they’d have a case. The problem is, most voters don’t care about market inefficiencies, especially ones that keep them alive. Subsidies are an easy target, but they’re not the source of market instability. That’s caused by uncertainty about the cost sharing rules (which is a problem with the ACA itself, though one that has been exacerbated by all of the recent political maneuverings around the bill). P.S. It’s not government subsidies that drive up the cost of college tuition. It’s the student loan system.