Health insurance for the asset rich?

[rob in cal]

    First off, for definition clarity I'm counting someone a millionaire if their family assets including equity in their primary residence is equal to one million dollars or more.  One of the quirks of Obamacare was that to qualify for subsidized insurance, income, but not assets, were the criteria, unlike I believe, programs such as food stamps, college aid, etc.
In looking at Mr money mustache for instance, (a site for thrifty, young retirees who live off their accumulated investment capital and thus have fairly low annual income but lots of assets) there were countless cases of people with a million dollars or more in total assets but had low enough annual income to qualify for subsidized coverage.
     In my personal case while we aren't millionaries yet, its been a nice experience to have a big subsidy in spite of our fairly sizable personal assets.  We are rewarded for homeownership, in that the 375k in equity that we have in our paid off house doesn't count as income, even though because of it we don't have to make extra money to pay rent.  Also, having unrealized capital gains is another big chunk of our true income, and yet that grows and grows most years, without any impact on our subsidy. (until we sell some stocks and realize some capital gains).  
    So personally I can't say I'm against the idea of asset millionaires getting subsidized insurance, but I wouldn't think it bad if future reforms took at least some consideration of a households overall financial situation instead of just annual income in determining subsidy eligibility.

[Ebowed]

Everybody should have access to public healthcare.  That's the purpose of a universal entitlement.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What many people might not know is that Medicaid can attempt to recover Medicaid costs from the last 10 years (provided they were over 55) on their death from their estate.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Just like government shouldn't use one time money to fund ongoing expenses, people should not be expected to sell their assets to have affordable health coverage.  If your assets afford you a comfortable income, then no subsidies... otherwise it should be based on income.  

[Indy Texas]

You seem to be suggesting it's okay for the government to tell people they have to choose between the roof over their head and not dying from lack of health insurance.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Everybody should have access to public healthcare.  That's the purpose of a universal entitlement.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because of the way the PPHCA was structured, with its mandate enforced by a tax and its subsidies as a refundable tax credit that could be paid in advance, it would be impossible to have had it consider assets in determining the tax.  While a tax on capital gains is a tax on income and thus is easy to implement thanks to the 16th amendment, a tax which took into account a person's unsold assets would be a direct tax and thus have to be apportioned among the States in accordance with their Representation in the House.

[7,052,770]

Do you begrudge rich people driving on public roads, having public fire protection, etc.?

[pbrower2a]

The super-rich are entitled to drive the same roads, use the same airports, get the mail from the same letter carriers, enjoy the same protection of property and person... they can be taxed more.

Asset rich? Some people have nominal assets that they could never sell. Fur coats, pearls, and dream houses are horrible investments. Someone who used to have a high income and no longer has might have a ten-year-old Mercedes Benz, BMW, or other once-expensive car that is really hard to sell. (Old high-end cars are not very marketable; they are costly to repair, and their durability is often suspect).

Add to that, housing might have a high nominal value even if it has no marketability. Thus Youngstown, Ohio or Detroit, Michigan. 

Some rich people are certifiably crazy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Asset rich, cash poor is something worth considering as a challenge. In San Francisco, we are close to the point where owning a home out of debt ipso facto makes you a millionaire by the definition in the topic post. The thing is, if you are a long-time resident, you may not actually have all that much money on hand.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Everybody should have access to public healthcare.  That's the purpose of a universal entitlement.

I'd favor public healthcare if it weren't redistributionary. If a millionaire wants to buy private insurance, more power to then (encourage it actually) but they can't be denied access to the hospital because of their wealth and talent.

I think a national sales tax could cover this. Tourists, illegals, criminals, tax cheats, etc can't get around paying it. Accompanying defense cuts would also go a good way to help fund my envisioned Sanchez-care.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everybody should have access to public healthcare.  That's the purpose of a universal entitlement.

Quite so. And this is very desirable: Richard Titmuss liked to observe that 'a service for the poor will always be a poor service.'