Well looky there, the Supreme Court ruled that subsidies to the state for the ACA are fine. It’s amazing:
Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits.
So, sure, the overall bill overwhelmingly implies that people should be able to get subsidies even if their state doesn’t set up their own exchange, but:
The challenge devised by die-hard opponents of the law relied on four words — ‘‘established by the state’’ — in the more than 900-page law.
So one mention perhaps implies that states without exchanges won’t get the subsidies and multiple mentions that they will (reinforced by the recollection of everyone who worked on the bill and all the states that worked with the federal government) leads Republicans to conclude the former. They must have been great students–sure I mentioned 20 times that a topic was going to be on the test, but once I forgot so it’s unfair that it was on the test.