[velocitypsycho]

Two words make this difficult. Health Insurance.

[stevenmays]

Not with the ACA... now if you retire and only have income you draw from your investments, you pay a low income based rate even though you may have significant assets.

[ChrisLoer]

Yeah, I think ACA is a huge supporter of this kind of move... although I planned to get an exchange plan, I ended up marrying a member of the US Navy, so I get covered by Tricare. I know, not everyone has that luck (or lots of other luck I enjoyed)...

[toast0]

This is a natural outcome of conflating 'wealthy' with 'high income.' Outside of FAFSA, and estate tax, and maybe FDIC limits, the US government really doesn't have a good view into what assets you may have.

[sandstrom]

Not in most European countries where this is handled at the national level, instead of by each company.

I.e. switching jobs (or having none) doesn't affect whether a hospital will treat you or not.

[Florin_Andrei]

> switching jobs (or having none) doesn't affect whether a hospital will treat you or not

From an american perspective, that sounds like some sort of unattainable utopia.

[Flip-per]

Switching is no problem usually, but if you are able to work but not 'willing' you'll lose your health insurance pretty soon.

[bergie]

Only in the places where healthcare isn't free and provided for every citizen

[yummyfajitas]

Or in the places where a mostly capitalistic system provides it. I did something similar last year in India and the medical system was not a problem. (I did not by any stretch of the imagination get lucky and manage to avoid injury.)

[nolite]

I was thinking: "rent"

[emptybits]

One word makes that easier. Canada.