The law is slightly vague as written. “states” could mean state of Alabama or United States. If the law explicitly had said “None of the 50 states will get federal subsidies if they do not set up an exchange in their respective state”, then Roberts or anyone can only interpret one way.
Don’t give me that stupid, “waaaaaa, we can’t tell if “states” means each of the 50 states, or if it means the one and only singular United States of America” whine (hint, the United States of America is referred to as the Union, the Federal Government, the United States, and rarely, if ever, in this country is it referred to as the State - but if it were, it would be the singular form - bang your forehead and say “DOH!”).
What you say is as foolish as Robert’s twisting and turning. Remember, he not only did it last week, he did it when the ObamaCare mandate came before the court, allowing the penalty to be called a tax, and not a tax, all in the same ruling.
There is ZERO ambiguity in the law for honest, thinking people. If a state does not set up an exchange, that state will not get the federal subsidies (see the clear distinction there?). Think for one short moment - why would the fed set a requirement for it to subsidize itself? Why would the fed set a mandate that it do something in order to be subsidized? - simply write in the law that the fed will set up the exchange and be done with it.
It is VERY clear that the meaning was for the individual states - which is always the meaning in the law when the plural is used. States CANNOT mean the Union, in can only mean the states of the Union. If referring to the Union, the term would be “STATE” singular.