[Still Thinking]

What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits--but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

That was one possibility that occurred to me, that it was written that way intentionally to bully states into playing along.

[BlueNgold]

exactly. It was intended as a hammer.

Also, see the Baucus comments in committee, 23 SEP 2009. Posted all over the net including here at FR.

Legislative intent is clear.

Someone forgot to tell CSpan to take the clip down. Oops.

[Hostage]

Actually post #7 explains why the Obama socialist left tried to coerce states. It was because the courts have always shot down federal government attempts to ‘commandeer’ state budgets or items that affect state budgets.

[cynwoody]

That was one possibility that occurred to me, that it was written that way intentionally to bully states into playing along.

That's not just a possibility. It is the reality. The 'Rats bet the law would be so popular by now, that the reluctant red states would find themselves forced politically to implement exchanges. They miscalculated, and now there aren't enough 'Rats in the House to fix it!

But, much as I'd like to see a major mess blamed on that lying snake Gruber, it would nevertheless be a major mess that could not get resolved until 2017. I would prefer to see the law struck down in toto for having been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. Then we'd be back to the old health care system until 2017.