[Menehune56]

My understanding is this was a feature not a bug to incentivize states to set up the exchanges. In other words, it was intentional.

[Political Junkie Too]

This article from the American Spectator from July 9, 2012, shows that they knew all along that the federal government was barred from subsidizing federal exchanges.

The language was clear to all back then. I would be very surprised if the language became suddenly, unexpectedly, unclear today.

Also, from what I've been reading, when SCOTUS upheld Obamacare, they also ruled 7-2 that the federal government violated the 10th amendment when they tried to force the states to run their own exchanges via withholding medicare funding. This allowed the states to reject establishing their own exchanges. This is where it all started.

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that states can opt to not run subsidized exchanges. Is SCOTUS going to now rule that because of their prior rule, the federal government can NOW get subsidies, since it failed to be the incentive that Congress expected it to be?

Has any other law been so unlawfully regarded?

-PJ

[ballplayer]

You are correct sir!
Sort of almost smells like a conspiracy!
I have called the Obama gang The perfect crime administration,this is a perfect example,they control all the power levers,media,executive,judicial,law enforcement,you can’t beat them.
They prey on the ignorance of the American public,these judges twisting themselves into pretzels to defend this Obamanation.
We are a nation of parties not laws

[freespirit2012]

Yes.. that is right, as can be seen in the Jonathan Gruber video, it was intentional to create an incentive for the states to set up exchanges. The problem is for Obama, the states did not take the incentive. So, they are attempting to change the plain meaning of the words.