This is a follow-up to a previous argument. Two district courts have split on the issue. The language of the legislation itself is specific that only exchanges set up by individual states are eligible for federal subsidy. The ObamaCare defenders claim differently.
Everyone with common sense should work to insure ObamaCare collapses – because it’s a total fraud and getting worse. 
To use the administrations’ own figures initially the goal was to create healthcare for 30 million “uninsured”.  According to the feds own figures they have registered 1.2 million people on the federal exchanges.   According to the same stats 70% of those registrations are qualifying for Medicaid (a state program).  That means only 300k are paying for some form of coverage, or actual health insurance.  
So a program sold to benefit 30 million is only benefiting 300k   And to benefit 3 million they are destroying the coverage of 300 million.  Think about it.
This was never about “Healthcare”, this was always about “CONTROL”.  

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a legal challenge to a key part of the Obamacare health law that, if successful, would limit the availability of federal health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans.
In a one-sentence order, the court said it would decide a case brought by conservative challengers of the law. The plaintiffs have appealed a July ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the subsidies. The nine justices will issue a ruling by the end of June.
The legal battle is over whether subsidies that are key to the implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, should be available in all 50 states or only in some. The case before the Supreme Court is King v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-114. (read more)

PREVIOUSLY  – The latest revelations in the ObamaCare debacle revolve around Obama architect Jonathan Gruber. On at least seven occasions, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber indicated states had to set up exchanges or subsidies would stop flowing, threatening the law’s effective existence.

This is a position Gruber himself now ridicules, and insists nobody actually intended for states to have to set up the exchanges to get access and subsequent subsidy. But he has spoken about it so extensively the video’s are, well, devastating.

You might remember back in 2010 during the fight over ObamaCare mandates ‘we the people’ were told the mandate was a penalty and not a tax. However, when ObamaCare challenges ultimately reached the courtroom the administration argument was exactly the opposite. The government argued the mandate was a tax not a penalty; only as a tax could the construct survive legal scrutiny. This latest Gruber development similarly pretzellian but infinite degrees worse.
The construct of ObamaCare execution relied upon a network of state exchanges to enroll people in the plans. The problem for the administration was the volume of political opposition to the entire plan itself. Consequently the Obama administration had to set up a “stick” or punitive punishment if any state failed to comply with setting up the exchange.
The stick they settled upon was a simple premise – financial blackmail. Any state who did not construct an exchange for their state citizens to enroll in ObamaCare would face a punishment of not being allowed to receive a federal subsidy for their premium. In essence the goal was to force states to set up exchanges. To force compliance the carrot was the federal premium subsidy, the stick was financial punishment if they didn’t.
Jonathan Gruber was one of the key architects of this approach. He repeatedly warned audiences that if their state did not set up a compliant exchange then the enrollees would not get the federal subsidy to lower their individual insurance premium.
Then came the problem.
In July 2013 a federal court ruled in the legal ObamaCare challenge case Halbig V Sebellius that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. (link)

The outcome of the court ruling is devastating to the financial viability within the construction of ObamaCare itself because 39 states did not set up exchanges and instead chose to rely upon the federal government to create the exchange.

Here’s the beautifully ironic kicker. The reason that most states did not set up the exchange was not because of their unwillingness to do so, but rather because the federal government was continually changing the parameters for the exchange construction itself.

States couldn’t get straight answers about implementation dates, qualifications and other qualifying parameters needed for the exchange – so almost every state gave up in frustration.

The reason for the feds not giving the definitions, was simple. Politically ObamaCare was toxic and subsequently Obama was continually changing the rules, dates, definitions etc. It was simply impossible for most states to create the exchanges.

However, now in the face of a court ruling affirming the original intent of the construction, and accepting the “stick” as it was outlined, the law has lost it’s financial foundation.
Facing the court ruling, all of a sudden Jonathan Gruber and the ObamaCare supporters are trying to claim the “stick” was not intended, and in fact they are arguing the ‘stick” never existed. But there’s a problem – Audio and Video exists of them proclaiming the construction of the stick itself.
Here’s an example of Gruber trying to say he didn’t intend to say what he is known to have said:

But the brutal reality is indeed the formation of a “state exchange” was/is legally mandatory to enrollees gaining federal subsidy for their insurance premiums.
Reason.Com has more on the issue HERE and HERE.
Breitbart has another outline including audio/video HERE.
Despite Jonathan Gruber claiming NOW, in 2014, that he did not say what he is cited as saying in 2011 – 2012 the truth presents a stark contrast. It simply is what it is.
Now whether, like the aforementioned “tax” vs. “penalty” issue, this is enough to derail the framework is a subject yet to be determined. Just like the original ObamaCare legal challenge this one is similiarly expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Will they follow the letter of the law as it is written ? Or, like the previous example, will the Supreme Court interpret the intentions of the law as it was written ?

Ultimately how the Supreme Court decides to approach the law will determine what outcome wins.