My aunt on FB. Dammit. De-bunk help?

[Igel]

15. That's not quite right.

There's a fine on employers, but already a lot of employers are looking at the fine and thinking it's cheaper than what they're paying. They couldn't link it to actual cost of insurance for a lot of reasons. Just the bookkeeping of associating employer/employee would probably kill the thing. People like the idea of being their employer's boss, it's a nice power trip, but it's not going to happen. Some *bureaucrat* will be your employer's boss and that's not the same thing at all.

Then there's Romer's little gem: Employer insurance over a certain cost is subject to a surcharge to make it less preferable to more "equal" insurance levels; old news. It's not indexed to inflation. Entailed: All employer insurance will eventually rise to that "certain cost" and be increasingly subject to a surcharge. Corollary: All employer health insurance will eventually cost the employer significantly more than equivalent coverage on the exchange. Therefore all employer-provided health insurance will go away, leaving a universal fine on companies that don't provide insurance. This she deemed a good thing because the connection between employer and health insurance is bad and health care and government should be thought of as deeply connected.