3 ms·
I've thought about this, and a large component of the importance of continued employment is of course money, but more important is the insurance provided. If a
by pureliquidhw 7y ago
I've thought about this, and a large component of the importance of continued employment is of course money, but more important is the insurance provided. If a public option came to be, the "safety" of those left jobless would be intact while they searched for another position. Ask any employer, there is a massive talent shortage. Anyone competent should be able to find a job.
Also, health insurance companies could pivot to "fast-lane" service offered through independent providers as an actual benefit, no need to just die.
The insurance industry's crumbling would not happen immediately, and there would be years of legal hearings at the state and federal level. Humana/BCBS would not go down quietly due to legislation. Employees would have plenty of time to slowly leave, and these large employers should have the foresight to not replace 1:1 as they're under the legeslative gun.
Obviously losing "job slots" is a big deal, and I'm sure you'll see people on both sides of the aisle cry foul as this anti-insurance sentiment gains traction, but it's not as big of a crisis as the jobs in jeopardy from global warming and automation. But we can keep an unnecessary institution afloat much easier than we can change global environmental and economic policy, so I expect insurance jobs will be safe for a good long while.