Glenn Reynolds has interesting post over at the Instapundit stating that “Senate Hearing: Tax Credits are available for State Exchanges Only. Senator Baucus explains how The Affordable Care Act sets conditions where Tax Credits are available for State Exchanges Only.“. I watched the video several times and did not hear where tax credits were available for state exchanges only. That part was muddled. Senator Baucus did make a strong argument that the Affordable Care Act as a form of “cooperative federalism” in which states agree to rewrite state laws to comply with ACA recommendations and implement health insurance exchanges in exchange for tax credits. If he wittingly failed to mention that citizens would get tax credits from federal exchanges then he was deliberately negotiating in bad faith. Then it struck me. For states that refused to set up health insurance exchanges you would have to describe them as unwilling participants. What did these states get in return for rewriting laws and generally given up their prerogative to write health care laws? Do we still have “cooperative federalism” if 34 states are unwilling to cooperate? Do we have “cooperative federalism” if the states who did cooperate get nothing in return for their efforts? The states who opted out thought that they had gotten out of the individual and employer mandate by not establishing health insurance exchanges. Instead they got a deal with the government that looks like it has the same legal standing as a shotgun wedding.