I seriously doubt *most* folks paying attention to the EU crisis are wondering what this means for the US. There are a lot more Europeans than there are Americans, remember. And a lot more people in the rest of the world than there are Americans.

But you did nail a problem, that most Americans only see the world through American lenses. Including very educated Americans.

How interesting.

>Several restaurants received waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2011, but these waivers will not continue into 2014, once the Act is fully phased in.

Isn’t clear whether it would apply to McDonald’s: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/mcdonalds-story-puts-spotlight-on-mini-med-health-plans.html

But..

>If Congress leaves these incentives in place, the reduction in full-time employment would be costly to the economy.

This is wrong, if you define economic health as “low unemployment rate and high share of national income going to labor”. If you define it as GDP, then yes, working less would be “costly” to the economy.

Guaranteed issue has not been very popular in states that once had it, with many ending up abandoning the requirement since it raised premiums too much. As they say, the ACA will make less sense if the individual mandate is removed… although this could be somewhat fixed by changing how pre-existing conditions are paid for with a 1-year phase-in and 1-year phase-out period when entering or leaving coverage, combined with making tax incentives more available to individuals who don’t get their coverage from an employer (the Republican party has mentioned doing this).

Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/

I think you’re also not providing a complete answer: if the ACA “bends the curve”, then in the net aggregate, cost of health insurance will decrease.

If companies aren’t currently providing insurance to their employees, then their costs may increase but that’s because, essentially, of an externality where we’re all covering their employees’ health insurance through hospitals providing pro bono care to the uninsured.

Finally, the deciding voice on this, I would have thought, would have been the comment from an automaker five or six years ago to the extent that they would rather build and employee in Canada because health care costs there were lower and more predictable.