Net effect of Obamacare, subsidies, and clear language in the bill that Obozo argues doesn't mean what it says

As the date approaches for release of the Supreme Court's decision on whether the clear and unambiguous language of the laughably misnamed "Affordable Care Act" means what it says, the beauty of the whole exercise from the Democrat/liberal/"progressive" standpoint is becoming clear.  Watch the chain unfold below:

This stinker of a law--forcing Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine--would never have passed without the explicit provision that low-income folks would have most of their costs reimbursed through "subsidies."

The law clearly states that such subsidies would only be available to people who bought insurance "through an Exchange established by a State."  (If a state didn't establish one, people could buy through the federal government's "exchange.")

Key drafter Jonathan Gruber (whose name has become a synonym for "liar") is on video several times saying this provision was deliberately included because it was an incentive for the states to establish their own health-insurance "exchanges."  The Democrats wanted this because it would spread the blame for any failures.  Angry voters would take their anger out on the states rather than the federal government.

Clever, huh.

But much to the surprise of Dem congresswhores, only a handful of states established their own exchanges.  Meaning residents of those states shouldn't have been eligible to receive subsidies.

Keep reading--we're about to close the loop:

At the order of the emperor, in violation of the clear language of the law, the government paid subsidies to everyone, regardless of whether they signed up on a state exchange or the federal one.

Now, behold the Great Rachet:  If the Supreme Court interprets the language as meaning what it says, the dems and their media army will scream to high heaven that the GOP has snatched money from the mouths of the poor--even though the GOP has zip to do with the Supreme Court and didn't vote for the ACA.

The united scream will cement another two million votes firmly in the Democrat column.

What's happened here is that the Democrats--led by and with full intent of the emperor--voted for taxpayers to give "freebies" to Democrat constituents.  So thereafter, any attempt to revoke the "freebies"--even if done by the Court rather than the GOP, and done to honor the clear language of the law, which itself was a ruse to win it the votes needed to pass it--will be blamed on the GOP.

In other words, it'll never be taken away.  The GOP will do anything to save it.  Which makes them complicit in the unconstitutional power grab.

Which was the intent all along. Along with the power grab, of course.