What I see there is a list of entities, of which; all are subjected to the clause that follows (IOW it applies specifically to those entities - even if they are an individual; that offer insurance.
The clause that follows being: “offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”
That’s my nickel on it. I’m not A-one at punctuation, but the way you explain it in the several responses you have posted since doesn’t track with my understanding of how that section should be read and understood.
From what I see, you are in the minority in your understanding of the clause that you are quoting here. I’m not saying this means you’re incorrect here, but I’ll take my chances with the people that agree with my interpretation of it for the time being.
Also note the last portion of the sentence “and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”
Why would they restrict the Fed gov’s ability to fine issuers of insurance alone if it was meant to protect individuals buying insurance (not issuers)?
I’m pretty sure that issurers participate in the exchange, and individuals purchase insurance from the exchange or through other means as they see fit - this doesn’t apply to the individual mandate to have a minimum federally approved level of coverage to avoid the individual mandate penalty/tax.
So you are a consensus type? Global Warming must be big with you.
As for the structuring I presented, try your logic with the 2nd Amendment and see if you do not change your thinking to how I have demonstrated:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Your logic suggests that the right of the people is anchored upon the militia. SCOTUS and I disagree. Now look at how it was originally approved by TJ:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Notice the lack of a couple of commas? These folks were very smart and understood that commas separate clauses which is why it was ratified with the additional commas. 42 U.S. Code § 18115 also contains clauses, all separated by commas. My logic is sound. You, yourself admit to not being A-one on punctuation but weigh in for 'consensus'?