Liberals are gleeful that they believe the six states challenging Obamacare subsidies lied before the Supreme Court in laying out their attacks over the legality of the federal exchange to offer subsidies to health care recipients. Admittedly, it is logical to believe that the subsidies would be offered to anyone qualified to receive them without regard to the exchange they are required to use. However, it was never intended to operate in that manner.
The Affordable Care Act, written with intentional deceptions (lies) and a lack of transparency in order to minimize public opposition, was designed to be managed by the states via their health care exchanges. For constitutional reasons, states had to be offered the option out of the state-run exchange. Those opting to do that would have their residents lose access to vital subsidies required to make the insurance premiums affordable.
The Obama administration did not expect that the overwhelming number of states would opt out of the state run exchanges. This led to the subsidies being offered to citizens regardless of the exchange. While the Left may seek to arbitrarily justify the federal exchange subsidies using an “ends justify the means” approach, it doesn’t change the fact the ACA explicitly stated the credits were in the state-run exchanges.
MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare architect, admitted that the subsidies were exclusively for state run health care exchanges. All things considered, it is unclear how the High Court will rule in the case. If they side with the plaintiffs, Obamacare would suffer a huge blow and become unaffordable to 13 million people. However, it is the rule of law which must prevail and not emotional sentiment over the impact of conformity to the law.