Sadly, today’s progressives routinely choose vitriolic accusations and easily disproved talking points as the chosen path to try and further their views. That’s why it’s really no surprise that it’s an exercise in futility to try to engage in a reasoned discussion about the two different court rulings about who is eligible for Obamacare subsidies and what the Obamacare law actually says. Washington Examiner writer Philip Klein weighs in.

Those trying to ridicule the challengers, who received a favorable ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit and an adverse ruling before the Fourth Circuit in July, argue that it’s simply inconceivable that Democrats who were aiming to expand insurance would have prevented subsidies from flowing to federal exchanges as an inducement for states to set up their own.

So, therefore, anybody suggesting otherwise is either a moron or a liar, or some combination of the two.

Josh Barro, who writes for the New York Times and contributes to MSNBC, has risen to prominence in no small part due to his merciless mocking of what he views as conservative dishonesty and stupidity. He recently wrote on Twitter, “The bizarreness of the ‘Halbig was intentional design’ theory is that Obamacare proponents never wanted ‘hammers’ that lead to less coverage.”

Oh really? How about Medicaid? The popular misconception is that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2012 decision, gave states the ability to opt out of expanding Medicaid through Obamacare. In reality, the justices merely made it less costly for states to opt out.

For those who prefer fact and analysis over vitriol and name-calling, I encourage you to follow JLF’s Katherine Restrepo, who offers reasoned Obamacare analysis on a regular basis.