The latest attack on Obamacare is a Supreme Court case where plaintiffs allege Americans can only get subsidies on the Exchanges if they are run by the States. This being due to purposeful drafting to pressure states to set up exchanges; or was it just a drafting misstep that should be understood in the context of the overall purpose of the law. At least 4 justices agreed to take this case so we must take it seriously. Even though there was no public debate on this topic during the consideration of the bill. No one knew of the threat. Even the group suing didn't believe it until they thought their straight-forward "enforce the law" wouldn't work. So they're trying to make a plausible argument that Congress meant to deny people in states not forming exchanges. Also some still cling to the written words.
The fact is the Supreme Court should leave it to Congress if this is not what they intended.
If there's any plausible case that this is what Congress intended, it should be left alone.
and for those arguing to go by the plain words, what about the plain words from the Constitution:
Congress's shall make no law....abridging free speech....right to peaceably assemble...and to petition Government for a redress of grievances
I could list thousands of examples that would betray this because there's no written "time and manner" exceptions; so the Supreme Court had to use common sense in interpreting it