If she has some $$, it sounds to me like her potential inheritors want the public to subsidise that inheritance vs paying for the OOP expenses from her $$.
It’s always a little strange when you do a quick search on someone. The opposition to the law for the sex abuse that passed unanimous in Senate and 406-3 in house is an odd choice, especially after listening to the stories from the athletes. I remember them advocating, I didn’t remember her opposition.
I’m wondering if the “doesn’t have insurance” comment is more accurately that she doesn’t have insurance that covers her current condition. (Note that I’m not sure exactly what condition she’s suffering from; just heard about her situation on the radio this morning.)
Also, her “net worth” might not be all that liquid. In fact, it might be more along the lines that she’s that wealthy on paper, not in spending capacity.
You can’t borrow against assets or sell them? I mean seriously, if we lost my wife’s healthcare plan, we’d find a way to pay for health insurance even if it meant liquidating some assets. I realize not everyone can do that but MLR could have.
As for condition, it sounds like complications from a form of pneumonia.
Having assets doesn’t preclude a person from looking at the cost of buying health insurance without government or employer subsidy (how much is a good individual health policy in the US these days?), and naïvely reacting, “that’s outrageously expensive; I’m in decent health and will probably be better off paying out of pocket if an expense arises”.
Then you actually develop an expensive health condition and discover just how inflated list prices for care can be at hospitals.
I mean, if you have the wealth to do so, and the wherewithal to negotiate prices, there are probably some people among the one percent for whom it would make some sense to self-pay rather than seek conventional health insurance, especially if they do so through some service or program that provides deluxe concierge-like routine care. Maybe that service/program could also be paired with an excess/very high deductible health plan.
However, I don’t work in health. I seem to remember that ACA when passed had provisions that would have discouraged/taxed that sort of thing, but I have no clue how such constraints may have been eroded/ignored with subsequent court rulings and policy decisions.
As someone in her general age range, health insurance availability and affordability until I reach Medicare age was a key consideration when considering retirement.
However, I agree with earlier comments that her reasoning may not have been great whether due to politics or innumeracy. Could also be straight up grifting by the family, which is how you truly MAGA.