[akramachamarei]

> You can force insurers to cover folks they wouldn't want to otherwise by bringing more customers (employees) to the table.

The word you're looking for is "convince," not "force." This whole discussion is replete with misuses of words like "free" and "force," and it's a little worrying.

[ajross]

Arguments about words are a little woke for my taste. Fine fine, pretend I said "convince" and then reply to that. Thanks.

[akramachamarei]

I'm beginning to think you don't understand the words "argument" or "woke" either.... But anyway, I'm merely pointing out for the sake of readers that insurance companies are engaging willingly (and very gainfully) in this arrangement, so as to not oversell the power of the collective bargaining enabled by uniting coemployed health insurance buyers. I guess I would just question whether this collective bargaining is working quite well for us employees (the self-employed have it better.) I may be in a collective, but I don't seem to have any influence within my collective whatsoever over which insurance company I have. This is like a union with no voting. No bueno.

I'm also curious (since this is closely related) whether you favor the tax break to employer health insurance. You wanna talk about my woke focus on words, well well, take "externality." I'm not familiar with these bad externalities of the institution of employer provided insurance of itself, but I can see negatives from the tax break. Namely, by subsidizing my employer's health plan, my private health insurance purchasing power is effectively nerfed. Bit of a stretch to call that external.