Though progressives are attacking Halbig v. Burwell as "shamefully dishonest", ObamaCare opponents have an unusual and unintentional ally - the architect of the law itself.

It's been a rough couple of months for Congressional members from Oregon who rammed the massive health care bill down our throats. You see, the Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 have this signature legislation that is colloquially referred to as Obamacare.

While I don't believe that ObamaCare, soon after it finally launches next January, will quickly implode in the policy equivalent of a vast mushroom cloud, I do think its troubles will be acute, and its (slow-motion) collapse inevitable. 

There are times where it doesn't feel good to be right, and this is one of them. 

Now that Barack Obama has been sworn in for a second term, the focus will again turn to Obamacare and health care exchanges. A key component of Obamacare, health care exchanges are to be set up by the states giving consumers a limited amount of options to purchase health care in their state. Those that traditionally cannot afford to purchase health care will be given tax credits. Additionally, the federal government will also help cover co-pays and deductibles that aren’t covered by insurance.

Idaho is among the reddest of red states, and would seem to be an obvious frontrunner among the states resisting ObamaCare's health care exchanges.  Indeed, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter has long been a vocal opponent of ObamaCare, and even signed an executive order banning his state's employees from enforcing ObamaCare.

In his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, President Barack Obama stated that “we must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.” With regard to health care, all indications are that the price of health insurance will increase as a result of ObamaCare, with the federal government attempting to pass along these costs to the states by asking them to implement state-run health insurance exchanges.

With 23 states (so far) refusing to set up health care exchanges to implement ObamaCare, the federal government is being forced to implement its own exchanges in these states instead.  Since the ObamaCare law did not provide any funding to do this, observers have been wondering - "how are they going to pay for these exchanges?"Unsurprisingly, the answer is - wait for it - another new tax!

Some good news today, as Michigan and Arizona have both made decisions that they will not be setting up a health care exchange under ObamaCare.In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer declared yesterday that she will not direct the state government to set up an exchange.