As I read the story, she had no health insurance before and she has none now.
It sounds as if she thought that insurance under the ACA would be affordable to her, but it wasn't.
She doesn't say how much she can afford to pay.

Are you sad because the woman has never had enough money to be able to buy health insurance?

True, she didn't have insurance before. But your characterization ("she didn't have it before and has none now"...."it sounds like she thought insurance would be affordable") misses the key point and sequence of events - she was quoted a number on the state exchange, wrote a letter to the President (who paraded and celebrated the letter at the national level) and then learned that because of a series of calculation errors, the number is now higher than what she can afford.

For a few years, there were strong concerns about calculation errors (and the recent "fix" that might lead to more) - I will not be surprised to learn of many more in the coming months.

And I will not drop the context that those who love to say, "anecdote does not equal information" have not said a single word about the president using the initial letter as validation of his goal. I maintain that "anecdote does not equal information" is nothing but a slogan/weapon selectively directed at specific people based on prior disputes.

I'm sure there are other pieces of information in the case of this woman, but this is just another instance of either confusion, and upheaval to the lives of millions. Middle and lower-middle class Americans have been kicked in the stomach too many times this year. First by the increase in the payroll tax and now this.

What I find inconsistent is the # of people who are intolerant of glitches far less egregious (e.g. the amount of complaining when a minor feature is changed in a website that might cause someone a few extra mouse-clicks to re-define their default), and yet are willing to give this entire mess a pass.