re: #590 BryanS

Sure. A number of companies have run the numbers—and for many of them it will be cheaper to drop coverage and pay the “penalty” knowing that their employees will then be covered by the exchange.

The alternative is to meet the requirements of covering insurance expenses up to the point where no more than 9% of income goes into paying health insurance expenses. So the legislation mandates higher coverages and employers have the option of paying a less expensive penalty to bail.

Also, this site has a great way to look at all the changes:
kff.org

You can see what the final legislation is by selecting that version of proposed changes. There’s quite a bit of information there, but it is the single best clear summary of what the bill contains that I have seen anywhere on the web.