New blow to the US Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

[Bun-Bun]

From a Wall Street Journal editorial:

Distinguishing between state and federal exchanges was no glitch or drafting error. In 2010 Democrats assumed that the unpopularity of ObamaCare would melt away and all states would run their own exchanges. Conditioning the subsidies was meant to pressure Governors to participate. To evade this language, the Internal Revenue Service simply pumped out a rule in 2012 dispensing the subsidies to all. The taxmen did not elaborate on niceties such as legal justification.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/upholding...1406070280

It appears that these subsidies that violate the letter of the law were issued in an attempt to disguise the increased cost of insurance created by Obamacare.

The way the law was originally crafted did not result from a flub to limit subsidies only to exchanges run by the States. Jonathan Gruber , a paid consultant, responsible for much of the crafting of Obamacare, made that clear on multiple occasions back in 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...exchanges/

I find your contention improbable. First, you should probably check the updates on the links you use; the second link contains the source completely contradicting his original assertions. His current position is that the awkward construction was the result of error.

Second, I'm a firm adherent of the practice of never attributing to malice what can easily result from incompetence. The ACA was the unfortunate result of a first draft being pushed into law by the exigencies of the political process and the death of Sen. Kennedy. Small ambiguities are inevitable. As is common, administrative law was used to smooth over the gaps.

In any case, the clear intent was to make insurance more affordable for more people. Your hypothesis flies in the face of that intent.

For a further discussion, take a look at this New Republic article.