Can you actually provide anything to backup your claim though? If it's clear then you should be able to direct me to some type of document that unambiguously explains why there is no means testing. Why did they limit the eligibility strictly to income and completely ignore assets? Surely it's not an oversight and there are reasons. I genuinely don't know, and I haven't read through the text of the actual law, let alone all the supporting documentation like hearing transcripts, debates, etc related to the laws. But I also suspect that people telling me what the true spirit of the law is also haven't read through all of that, so I'm not sure exactly how they are forming their opinion.
For what it's worth, my first job out of college was to read the ACA as well as Federal regulation and guidance to see how it applied to the company that hired me. I wouldn't consider myself an expert but I'm more familiar with the law than most people you will run across.
The bill itself is very long and very dry. It's close to 1,000 pages, and it endlessly references other bills and laws that it amends or modifies. As you can imagine, crafting a bill is a monstrously complicated process that takes input from hundreds or even thousands of people. There's the President, his HHS secretary, 535 members of congress, academics, and industry experts etc. The question of why or why not, for any specific facet of the bill, is likely a question that would take thousands of hours to untangle.
Thus, the appeal to common sense. To get to "common sense", you can look at a few things. President Obama's rhetoric, obviously. Here's one example of him talking about it. I specifically picked something that wasn't a stump speech, because no politician stumps on helping millionaires. I picked an example of him talking about the bill in a cold and clinical manner.
https://youtu.be/HsW0l139JD0He talks about not getting dropped from coverage, coverage being less expensive (presumably by way of the Medical Loss Ratio rebates) and extending coverage to poor or self-employed people with preEx who have to seek coverage through the marketplace. You can cobble together reasons why a rich, early retiree might fit into some of that, but I don't believe that was the intent.
Then there's the matter of funding. The bill included the individual mandate to incentivize people to buy into the system. One problem with insurance as an approach to healthcare is that there's a huge anti selection issue. Almost everyone will incur large medical costs at some point in their lives, so if you effectively do away with underwriting (no denial for preEx and nationwide open enrollment periods) then you open yourself up to an underfunded system unless you prod people into participating. The individual mandate is gone now, but that used to be one way to get people in the system. Another way that people can jeopardize funding is by say, working only until 40, taking 18 years or so of tax breaks on $3.5K a year in HDHP HSA contributions (while paying low premiums because you're healthy and rich enough to pay a high deductible), then retiring, doing some SEPP magic, having low reported income, and riding out subsidies for 25 years until Medicare.
That is probably pretty rare in the country at large, but common on these forums. So maybe it didn't merit getting addressed vs. all the other facets that had to go into the 1,000 page bill.
Lastly, we can think about the will of the voters. Obama voters rated healthcare either #1, or #2 behind "the economy". Obama won a large victory and brought the House and Senate with him. In 2010, they were charged with delivering on the issue that they were elected on, and that became Obama's signature legislation. How concerned do you think the people who put Obama and Congress in those seats were about healthcare for millionaire early retirees?
The confluence of the above paragraphs leads me to the common sense conclusion that the intent of the ACA was not to help artificially low income millionaires take premium subsidies.
Let me state that I do not care if you or anyone on this forum does that. But I don't think that was the intent of the legislation. The loophole could be closed, but it's probably not worth expending finite political capital to do so.