One other point to make is WHY some states didn't institute the law, ACA. Did it have to do with the fact the states were funding for the first two to three years by 100% and then the funding would reduce to 80% of federal dollars therefore adding to the burden of the state's budget?
No.
That is a convenient excuse. Why the states didn't implement the ACA is because the TAXES become an issue of re-election.
A couple of things.
The signed pledge to Grover Norquist.
And the most egregious aspect of the states lack of implementation is that the businesses or industries taxed are now cronies to their politics.
So people like Republican Rick Perry or Rick Scott can now call on those being taxed to contribute to their campaigns to end the tax.
People have died in the states that have refused the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These are human rights abuses institutional now through the Robert's Court. Supposedly the US Constitution allows human rights, too.
I never thought anything of the sort about my country's constitution. The problem with the ruling that the states do not have to participate IN A FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM, well funded by taxes; is that the Robert's Court acts in political methodology to favor the Republican agenda. It is not my country's constitution that permits such a thing.
How do I know?
In the reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, constitutional scholars and parliamentarians within the USA government were asked to provide any disputes regarding the law before it was voted on and implemented. All those that sought the constitutionality of the law stated it was sound. It is ONLY when it entered the purview of the Robert's Court did any of it become unconstitutional. Hence, insuring funding for Republican politics that would willingly take up the fight to rid any company of tax.
No.That is a convenient excuse. Why the states didn't implement the ACA is because the TAXES become an issue of re-election.
A couple of things.
The signed pledge to Grover Norquist.
And the most egregious aspect of the states lack of implementation is that the businesses or industries taxed are now cronies to their politics.
So people like Republican Rick Perry or Rick Scott can now call on those being taxed to contribute to their campaigns to end the tax.
People have died in the states that have refused the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These are human rights abuses institutional now through the Robert's Court. Supposedly the US Constitution allows human rights, too.
I never thought anything of the sort about my country's constitution. The problem with the ruling that the states do not have to participate IN A FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM, well funded by taxes; is that the Robert's Court acts in political methodology to favor the Republican agenda. It is not my country's constitution that permits such a thing.
How do I know?
In the reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, constitutional scholars and parliamentarians within the USA government were asked to provide any disputes regarding the law before it was voted on and implemented. All those that sought the constitutionality of the law stated it was sound. It is ONLY when it entered the purview of the Robert's Court did any of it become unconstitutional. Hence, insuring funding for Republican politics that would willingly take up the fight to rid any company of tax.
