Well, not exactly. As written, ObozoCare will merely drive up the cost of your taxes.
“But a close reading of the rules makes it clear that those mandates affect only plans sponsored by insurers that are sold to small businesses and individuals, federal officials confirm….Larger employers, generally with more than 50 workers, need cover only preventive services, without a lifetime or annual dollar-value limit.” --Weekly Standard quoting WSJ
So "large" employers have the option of providing NO 'health' coverage--just preventive services such as annual checkups.
That's a relief, eh?
Aside from the obvious conclusion--that "large" employer lobbyists wrote the pertinent language--there's another "DC Mind" (I use the term "mind" very loosely here) conceit in operation:
...Highlighting the Obama administration’s striking naïveté about government-imposed incentives, the Journal adds, “Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.”
A while ago, I had a brief discussion of ObozoCare with a management figure employed by a large national health-insurance carrier. He, too, opined that employers 'will step up and buy' the far more expensive "mandate" programs. After all, 'they want to protect their employees.'
Uh-huh. Now, even the "minds" in DC are fretting. Regulators have figured out that:
...Among employees offered low-benefit plans, sicker workers who need more coverage may be most likely to opt out of employer coverage and join the [Obamacare] exchanges. That could drive up costs in the [government] marketplaces.”