Because each clause is distinct, providing specifics for each category spelled out. And on that note, please provide for me one, just one example of an individual that offers group or individual health insurance coverage? For your logic to be sound, legislators would have to be providing for them and write a law that provides for them on the same level as corporations and collectives. Who are these philanthropists? I know of none.
In rare cases people who are entrepreneurs owning their own businesses do self insure one or two employees.
This whole argument is based on a subsection of a clause in a US Code. I really think you’re taking it out of context. The comma usage in the section of the code you refer to is simply using commas to separate the elements in a series.
I believe the legislature was simply ensuring all possible/potential entity types are covered regardless of whether they currently exist or not.
To argue that simply because I can’t (based on your assumption) point out a single individual that offers/issues health insurance that somehow wins the debate for you is a pretty thin logic. It doesn’t matter if I can point one out or not. Based on your past responses that still wouldn’t settle it for you and you’d find another angle to attack from.
You’re quite obviously too invested in your opinion here, and no amount of debate will apparently change your mind. As stated by another poster: believe whatever you want to believe if it makes you happy.
I’ll just agree to disagree.