This is the stupidest argument against the act that I've heard since the "death panel" BS. Currently, most larger employers offer health benefits because as a group they can get a benefit that is worth more to a prospective employee than they have to pay to get it. It is a way of attracting and retaining good people. Why would a company that currently sees a benefit in providing this benefit when there is NO penalty for not providing it, suddenly decide that it would be a good idea to stop doing so when there IS a penalty? Right now, they can drop coverage and it costs them NOTHING, yet they do not do so. Your premise is that once it costs $2,000/employee to do what they could always do for free, it will be an attractive alternative.