Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s great for the employers, and all they have to do is astroturf their employees that it’s somehow good for them and they’re getting a great deal and any alternative is worse.
I mean, it's also great for the employee to have access to healthcare. Better to have than to have not. Yet, a society has a huge problem if the best it can do for it's citizens is to deepen the control of employees over vital aspects of their employees lives.
It’s not great if it means the employee gets worse quality care for more cost than anywhere else. Better than the alternative? The problem is in the question, not the choice.