No, I’m not saying I weigh in on consensus alone, in fact I am not a proponent of it necessarily. What I did say is that the rest of the statement in the clause does not track with what you are asserting and that there are a number of people here that would tend to disagree with you. I also conceded that I am not A-one with grammar, but I did think that the evidence and the majority opinion tended to lean in the direction I was asserting - that the clause applies to only those who issue insurance, not those that purchase a policy (the individual non issuing entity).
Why would the clause elucidate what it does directly afterward if it weren’t intended specifically for that which is stated (issuers of a policy)?
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.