obama_laughingThe Obama administration has exhibited a “discomfiting pattern of behavior” in changing congressionally approved laws to meet political needs, including its offer of subsidies to people who buy through the federal exchange, contrary to the Affordable Care Act, a court filing claims.  Faced with “a statute that yielded politically unpopular results,” the president at one point suspended the individual mandate for millions, “waived ‘minimum essential coverage’ requirements in 2014″ and expanded the scope of hardship exemptions in a manner “entirely inconsistent with Congress’ design.” That’s according to a new brief submitted by the Cato Institute in the King v. Burwell case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case argues the plain language of the Obamacare law says only those who sign up through state exchanges will be eligible for subsidies. But the Obama administration is giving them to people who sign up through federal exchanges as well. The subsidies were expanded for political reasons, the brief charges. “As with the individual and employer mandates, the administration was faced with another key provision that yielded politically unpopular results. Section 36B was a third pillar propping up the ACA. It authorized subsidies, in the form of refundable tax credits, for health insurance bought through a state-established exchange. The ‘credit’ ‘shall be allowed’ based on the number of months the ‘taxpayer … is covered by a qualified health plan … enrolled in through an exchange established by the state,’” the brief argues. More