Is the next president constitutionally allowed to follow the law as written and not give subsidies to people if their state did not set up an exchange?

While the ACA (AKA: Obama-Care) is profoundly damaging in many ways, the King v Burwell 6/28/2015 case created many new problems.
First, the old problems, the ACA totally destroys the significant role of prices in the medical and insurance markets.  The ACA profoundly increases the number and severity of regulations around health care.  Every regulation is a law that restrict business models, and the ACA is continually ruling almost every health insurance policy people want illegal.  The regulators are forcing or profoundly influencing buyers and sellers to agree to contracts that are less desirable then they have had in the past.  To many, the contracts allowed are so undesirable, people choose to go without. 

This decision went a long way in removing limitations on the executive branch from taking power away from the legislative branch.  Chevron Deference gives the executive branch power to interpret the legislation to the executives liking; however, within limitations of the reasonableness of the language of the law.  In King V Burwell, Roberts increases the executive power to overlook the clear, unambiguous language of the statute and ‘create law’ within the limitations of whether it is reasonable to the purpose of the law.   

This is not just boring legal opinion stuff that never affects people.  This has significant effects of taxing and benefits within the ACA that takes and gives big money through the tax system.   However, with Obama’s history of going way beyond his power (because the other two branches fail to try to stop him), we have a high potential of Obama changing many laws and just claiming his ‘new way’ will accomplish the purpose of the law more efficiently.

These decisions create other significant concerns of over-reach of liberals in the executive branch.
In the EPA, there has been clear language holding back liberals from shutting done free enterprise and replacing with massive government control, which is their solution to many issues.  This decision empowers the EPA to ignore the law and just make things up if they claim it would help the environment. 

In the tax laws, is the IRS empowered to change rates, limit deductions, stop exemptions, expand their scope, increase tax welfare or make a host of other changes if they just claim they are furthering the purpose of the law? 
The list is endless and very troubling.