system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Businesses that reduce working hours to avoid paying insurance coverage for employees and their spouses under ACA deserve to be vilified in the press and in public opinion CMV

Any company that already pays for insurance but threatens to reduce coverage or eliminate it entirely because of the ACA is gaming the system and deserves to be vilified by everyone that comes in contact with that business.

Businesses that are already mostly part-time should keep their public relation arms silent on the issue. They never intended to cover their employees anyway. By speaking up and demagoguing the issue they expose themselves as tools of the Anti-Obama right and should have no voice in the debate. Their employees will finally have access to affordable health insurance under the ACA. Their opposition to it is deplorable.

If a small business owner has to make larger outlays to provide health insurance, they can pass the cost to their consumers. Everyone in the same boat. Besides the cut-off of 50 employees that requires insurance for full-time workers means that your business is not that small. Its time for a little reciprocal responsibility to your community. Enough of pushing the health needs of your employees to the public welfare system of health care. Man up!
gpt
There's a huge structural problem with the 50 employee limit, though, which is that it's based on something that has nothing to do with the business's ability to pay for the healthcare.

And it means that businesses right around this threshold of size (in employees) have massive incentives, created by the law, to game the system.

A company that helps unemployed people find work as ditchdiggers might have hundreds of employees, but extremely low margins, and might be completely incapable of providing healthcare without going out of business.

On the other hand, a software company with 25 employees might be entirely capable of providing the benefit, but fail to do so purely out of greed by the owner.

If they based the threshold on the profit per employee of the business, then businesses would have an interesting conundrum on their hands. The only way they could reduce their healthcare costs by "avoiding" such a rule would be to be less profitable. Or hire more people. Win/win. 

The way it's actually structured, they win by employing (effectively) fewer people.

The system is gamed entirely because it's *designed* to be gamed.