ObamaCare’s broken promises and deliberate lies are not news, not after three years of relentless repetition and reiteration. [Link fixed]
But stories of individuals shafted by the “Affordable” (ha!) “Care” (ha-ha!) [Lewd] Act never get old:
ObamaCare has hit people like me the hardest. I left a desk job at The Post to dedicate my time to teaching yoga and developing a career in health and wellness (the irony of sacrificing my health insurance for this is not lost on me).
I’m teaching on a freelance basis. My husband is also a full-time freelancer, or a “perma-lance,” if you will. Our household income puts us just barely in the lower-middle-class bracket.
And we will end up paying top dollar to have any type of insurance.
So we’ve decided we’re just going to pay the Affordable Care Act’s individual-mandate penalty: 2 percent of household income or $325 per person, whichever is more (of course).
Paying this and paying cash individually for whatever services we require is still far cheaper than buying a health-insurance plan.
Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or, eh, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance, or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk but not [be] job-locked because a child has asthma or someone in the family is bipolar. You name it. Any condition is job-blocking.
Is our yoga instructor bipolar? No? How about an asthmatic kid? Too bad.
We don’t have to imagine such an “economy”, Nancy—we’ve got it, good and hard:
I explained all this to the kind and concerned doctor, and worried that he would judge me for making such a careless decision.
Instead, with an air of frustrated resignation, he responded, “I wish I could record your story and play it for people who think that ObamaCare is the answer.”
He knows that many people like me are, for lack of a better word, getting screwed, and he’s been forced to watch the landscape change, powerless against the burdensome new rules and regulations driving his patients away from health insurance.
Some people will read this and say I’ve gotten into this situation because I chose to live this way, and I left my full-time corporate job when I didn’t really need to. I wasn’t fired or laid off.
But that misses the point. I’m unwilling to sacrifice my passion for a benefits package.
I refuse to let the government stand between myself and my goals. Ideally, they’d support my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness — instead of penalizing me for it, which is what they’re doing instead.
Poetry. Pure poetry. Thanks for sharing. I only want to ask if she and her husband voted of Obama—but as she’s a freelance yoga instructor living in Brooklyn, I think I have my answer.
PS: If you’ll permit me, here’s the latest ObamaCare lie:
They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”
But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.
How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why?
Some described the words as “inadvertent,” “inartful” or “a drafting error.”
“I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.
“It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.” The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language,” adding, “I don’t know how else to explain it.”
Former Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said there may have been “some sloppiness in the drafting” of the bill. Mr. Bingaman, who was a member of both committees that developed the measure, said he was surprised that the lawsuit had reached the Supreme Court because the words in dispute appeared to be a “drafting error.”
“As far as I know, it escaped everyone’s attention, or it would have been deleted, because it clearly contradicted the main purpose of the legislation,” Mr. Bingaman said. He added, “In all the discussion in the committees and on the floor, I didn’t ever hear anybody suggest that this kind of distinction between federal and state exchanges was in the bill.”
Was I living in an alternate reality when multiple videos surfaced of ObamaCare architect Jon Gruber arguing several years ago that, in fact, the drafters always intended to limit subsidies to state-exchange consumers? Gruber, a guy who’s boasted about having helped to write ObamaCare, was himself under the impression that federal exchange consumers wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies by design, in order to put pressure on holdout states to build their own exchanges.
There are lies, damned lies, and ObamaCare. And there’s a sucker born in Brooklyn every minute.