A friend told me that Mississippi Edition of Mississippi People’s Public Broadcasting has mentioned a woman named Meredith Stark as an Obamacare success story. Oddly, I could only find one print reference to her name in the new (though, later I found a transcript). Under the headline, “Mississippi Consumers Try And Try Again To Use Healthcare.gov” by Jeffrey Hess of Mississippi Public Broadcasting, we read:
“‘Why keep trying?’ asked Meredith Stark, 29, a hotel desk clerk in the northeast Mississippi town of Blue Springs. ‘Because this is something we need. We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And, I am sorry, but not having health insurance denies life.’ Stark says she has a chronic blood condition and had been skipping medication for three years while uninsured because of its cost… After a week of trying… Stark managed to complete the online process and enroll her husband and herself in a plan that will cost $60 a month. But other Mississippi residents report a very different story.”
Behold the pro-Obamacare revisionist reading of the Declaration of Independence: After being taxed by the British, the American colonists fought a war to get the government to impose Obamacare. As a witness for Obamacare, Stark seems to be anything but neutral (See below). So her interpretation of the Declaration isn’t that surprising.
But then why isn’t the government required to provide food and water? Stark was able to go three years without her medicine. She wouldn’t have made it nearly that long without eating or drinking. So should the government buy food for everyone? It would be interesting to see a plan for them to try. If they tried to enforce the food pyramid on the populace (even more than they already do) then there would be opposition from the no- or low-carb eaters. And what quality of food would the government provide everyone?
The fact that I have a right to life means I have the right to buy my own food and not be restricted from doing so. It doesn’t mean that I am obligated to pay into a governmental system that buys food for everyone in order to “give” me the life to which I have a right. My right to life doesn’t give me a right to kidnap farmers and ranchers to make them feed me at gunpoint.
But that is what we are being told that counts as the government “protecting” our right to life. So Stark rejoices in her cheap (for now) policy. But in the meantime, others are paying for her:
Derrin Ray Smith: Wild… 300% increase in my projected healthcare insurance premium… AWFUL!!!!
David Bartels: It appears to my wife and I that the only way for us to comply with the Affordable Care Act is to legally divorce. Her employer no longer offers family insurance. Because she has employer coverage, myself and the kids cannot get subsidies from the exchange. I’m unemployed and the kids are under 26 yrs old. We cannot afford health insurance. To summarize; in order to comply with the law we believe that we must get a divorce and separate our income in order to qualify for low income substitutes for the three of us who are insured.
Haywood Jablomie: WTF?? I thought Obamacare was supposed to be FREE! I discovered that it will cost me MORE money than my current plan for LESS coverage! I’m disabled and my current plan costs $398 a month. It pays 100% after I pay $1500 a year out of pocket. Obamacare will cost me $759 and I STILL have to pay 80% of all charges…. and I have a lot of charges. This is a complete SCAM!
You can find these and several more such responses at Nick Chase’s American Thinker blog post. What about these people’s right to life—not to mention their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Starks says “we need” Obamacare; but if she were required to speak accurately she would tell us that she needs it and “we need” to pay for it.
That’s what the Declaration of Independence was written for.