That's great for employees of LMC, but you're overlooking two things:
(1) LMC was able to negotiate that kind of blanket coverage with their insurance provider because, well, they're Large. Smaller business don't have that kind of leverage.
(2) There's absolutely nothing to stop the insurance provider from telling LMC, "Right now you're paying $x million per year for blanket coverage. We can offer you the same coverage for 0.9$x million per year [which will actually cost us 50%, not 90%, of what it does now, although we're not going to mention that] if you accept our suggestions about which types of employees you might want to ease out the door." Nor is there anything to stop LMC's management from thinking this offer is a really good idea.
If you think there's a way to solve either of these problems without serious government regulation, please feel free to make a suggestion.
Well, it has been suggested. Read Matt Miller (a liberal political commentator) and his book The Two Percent Solution.
In response to your points, in Pt 1, my response to that is that issues like this are precisely why Barack Obama's plan to force companies to provide health care to their employees is biased in favor of big business. A company with 100,000 employees can negotiate far better insurance terms and rates than a company with 10,000, or 1,000, or 100. In fact, my "ideal" solution to universal health care (and the one championed in "The Two Percent Solution") would be to offer a mandatory tax rebate/tax credit which must be used to buy health insurance. As a condition of receiving this tax rebate, insurance companies must cover anyone for the same rate and offer the same exact policy.
This works for the insurance companies because they get to spread out their risk over 300 million rather than over 1 individual. It vastly multiplies the advantage that Large Multinational Corporation has in terms of buying insurance, and distributes that advantage over the entire country instead of one company. It works for the populace, because they now not only get insurance, but because any insurance company can cover you, the insurance companies must compete on coverage. This last point is precisely why single payer socialized health care will be a net negative for health care in this country. A government run organization has no impetus for innovation, whereas multiple companies competing in the same field do.
As far as pt 2, that issue is moot under Matt Miller's plan. Ignoring that, that's walking a fine line towards employment discrimination, and I'm sure the Large Multinational Corporation's lawyers would have something to say if management were inclined to accept such an offer.