I fail to understand the argument that employers will drop employment-based health insurance because the penalty is cheaper than coverage. There is no penalty under the current law, so any employer that already offers coverage should be expected to continue and some that don't offer currently becuase the cost-benefit calculation was below but within $2000 of breakeven should now offer, given the substantial "penalty" for not offering. The only plausible argument for a reduction in offers is that the exchanges and pre-existing condtion rules will make insurance more available and/or cheaper for employees outside employment and employers and employees will somehow agree on an arrangement of lump sum payments in lieu of insurance. But does anyone think that that convoluted calculus will outweigh the addition of an additional $2000 "penalty" in employer decisions on offering coverage?