In Synergy's post the claim is made "that Congress demanded that they and their staffs be exempted", when in fact they were not.<quoted text>
I would say that's great except that it makes one wonder why you reacted so strongly to Synergy's post about the exemption in the first place. In your words:
"What it tells me is that Right Wing Wackos believe ever (sic) unsubstantiated rumor that comes down the pipe, read it and weep...."
So I'm not "seeing what I want" - I'm going with what you posted. So no "unsubstantiated rumor" on the part of the Right, just the facts.
How about answering the following question. What does it tell you about Obamacare knowing that Congress demanded that they and their staffs be exempted?
Now you claim that pointing out the difference between a subsidy and an exemption is a strong reaction on my part, when in fact you're just making another pathetic attempt to bolster your sense of outrage.
The Right has chosen to describe this as an exemption because it sounds worse than describing it as a subsidy, a subsidy that existed before ACA and a subsidy that was restored after ACA. The Right needs their Outrage de Jour and this subsidy fulfills their hunger.