Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Stop assuming that the 2009 Democrat-run Congress had kindhearted motives when they wrote and passed Obamacare. The Dims meant what they said when they wrote that only purchases made through State exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.
Why did they do this? Well, the Dims wanted States that did not implement Obamacare by creating State exchange ...[text shortened]... le days ago, MSNBC admitted that the Obama admin was not forthcoming on Gruber's Obamacare role)
The "hidden conspiracy" theory.
I suggest you read the decision. Chief Justice Roberts ridicules the idea that the Congress would have made everyone eligible for the subsidies but made the applicable subsidy amounts for individuals in the States without a State established exchange "$0":
Finally, the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that
tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges. Section
36B(a) initially provides that
tax credits “shall be allowed”
for any “applicable taxpayer.” Section 36B(c)(1) then
defines an “applicable taxpayer” as someone who (among
other things) has a household income between 100 percent
and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Together,
these two provisions appear to make anyone in the speci
fied income range eligible
to receive a tax credit.
According to petitioners, however, those provisions are
an empty promise in States with a Federal Exchange. In
their view, an applicable taxpayer in such a State would
for a tax credit—but the
of that tax
credit would always be zero.
And that is because—diving
several layers down into th
e Tax Code—Section 36B says
that the amount of the tax credits shall be “an amount
equal to the premium assistance credit amount,” §36B(a);
and then says that the term “premium assistance credit
amount” means “the sum of the premium assistance
amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to
all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the
taxable year,” §36B(b)(1); and then says that the term
“premium assistance amount” is tied to the amount of the
monthly premium for insurance purchased on “an Ex
change established by the State under [42 U. S. C.
§18031],” §36B(b)(2); and then says that the term “cover
age month” means any month in which the taxpayer has
insurance through “an Exchange established by the State
under [42 U. S. C. §18031],” §36B(c)(2)(A)(i).
We have held that Congress “does not alter the funda
mental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or
, 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001). But in petitioners’
view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable
Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-
sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what
Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax
credits to State Exchanges, it
likely would have done so in
the definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other
prominent manner. It would not have used such a wind
ing path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit.
pp. 19-20 of the majority opinion