Long before Hannibal Lecter, Anthony Hopkins delivered a stunningly horrifying performance in the movie, "Magic." When asked how he managed to perform a certain card trick, Hopkins used his ventriloquist dummy to point out that it was that very dummy that allowed for the trick to happen. Magic is all about misdirection. As the audience is watching Hopkins to see if his lips move, he could bring an elephant on stage.
Everything that has been written about King V. Burwell, both pro and con, is misdirection. There was never a case for a very simple reason. It has nothing to do with "standing" or "mootness." It has nothing to do with Federalism. It has nothing to do with whether or not Congress intended to "force" the states to establish exchanges.
This is not going to be a long post, so please follow me below the cheese puff.
Let us take a look at the "phrase that pays." The bone of contention talks about, people buying insurance on "Exchanges established by the State." Notice that "State" is singular. In this context, it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to assume that these exchanges are established by government in general. Local, State, and Federal employees are often said to be agents of "The State."
When a public school teacher leads a class in the "Pledge of Allegiance," he or she is an agent of the State, which is why that act created a First Amendment issue when they added the phrase, "under God" in the 1950's. The Supreme Court Justices know this, which is why their decision to hear the case in the first place caused so much consternation.
Logic must have been waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay to bring this case to the Supreme Court. Any Justice on the Supreme Court who voted to hear it is either ignorant ( and, yes, i'm looking at you, Justice Thomas), or too ideological to care. So, Justice I'm-literal-when-it's-convenient-to-be-so Scalia, the phrase "the State" does not actually mean what you want it to mean. It means what it does- the government.
Everything else is misdirection.