The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts the chooser and it hurts everyone else.

There are many situations where it's best if the societal bargain restricts the options available.

who gets to decide what's best?

Is that a real question? The government, of course. Hopefully an elected one, but no laws of physics force fair representation to happen.

The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility, but it could also usher in a new era of worker exploitation.

The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist behavior within the market region.

Yes, we've removed lots of choices.

Like for example, it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. That's a choice you are not legally allowed to make.

Y'jumped to a lot of conclusions, there. I suggest you try asking some genuine questions, instead.

Do you think people are really walking around thinking "I don't want health insurance because I prefer being destitute in the event of an injury"?

No, but there are people who would rather keep more of their paycheck than spend it on premiums or taxes for socialized medicine and take on that risk. Those folks are usually younger people who are more likely to work at these entry level jobs. On the flipside there are people who will risk life and limb doing something unnecessary (skiing, rock climbing, parachuting, etc.) and maybe some of them even feel safer because they know they are insured. Why should we outlaw one form of risk and not another?

People take risks. Life is all about risk and choices. I will never believe it is moral to take those choices from anyone.