Congressional Hearing Again Targets Regulatory Reform
National News • October 31, 2007
No one argues the need to revamp the regulatory structure of the insurance industry, but just how to reform regulation remains the big question for legislators considering the issue. Some in the ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: To Observer:
Posted On: November 1, 2007, 9:19 am CDT
Posted By: Vlad
Comment:
I too disagree with your points.
1) 50 masters? What about a regional company that is in one state, or two or ten. Aren't the needs of a California different than the needs of an Indiana? Who best to determine? I would choose the governmental body closest to its constituents.
2) Large Carrier burden? A national carrier can choose which ever state they want to compete in. If they find the state (i.e. a Florida) difficult to compete in, then they can pull out. They can also shield themselves by setting up several entities. Are you saying an AIG is going to conslidate all their companies into one, just because they can have one filing?
3) Work Comp issue. I agree it can be difficult to insure a multi-state risk, especially WC, however, there are a number of companies that can and do provide the coverage. If you want to throw out the baby with the bath water, then which state's rate structure and benefit structure do we use?
4) Insolvency and National Issues. Do you really think the Federal government will handle inslovencies better than the State? My answer is absolutely not. You think the red tape is bad at the state level, haven't you heard about the problems with passports? As far as terrorism, slowly it is being addressed. The hold up is not the industry or regulations, but rather congress. I don't know about the other issues to comment.
5) 12 Billion in premium tax. That sounds like alot, however, how much do you think it would cost to run another Federal Bureacracy? I think 12 billion would be cheap.
6) Your characterization of those of us that oppose federal regulation is way off base. I am in Indiana and Illinois and can not imagine our market to be any more competitive than it is today.
One last question, who do you work for and in what capacity?
Look forward to your response, Vlad
Subject: To Observer:
1) 50 masters? What about a regional company that is in one state, or two or ten. Aren't the needs of a California different than the needs of an Indiana? Who best to determine? I would choose the governmental body closest to its constituents.
2) Large Carrier burden? A national carrier can choose which ever state they want to compete in. If they find the state (i.e. a Florida) difficult to compete in, then they can pull out. They can also shield themselves by setting up several entities. Are you saying an AIG is going to conslidate all their companies into one, just because they can have one filing?
3) Work Comp issue. I agree it can be difficult to insure a multi-state risk, especially WC, however, there are a number of companies that can and do provide the coverage. If you want to throw out the baby with the bath water, then which state's rate structure and benefit structure do we use?
4) Insolvency and National Issues. Do you really think the Federal government will handle inslovencies better than the State? My answer is absolutely not. You think the red tape is bad at the state level, haven't you heard about the problems with passports? As far as terrorism, slowly it is being addressed. The hold up is not the industry or regulations, but rather congress. I don't know about the other issues to comment.
5) 12 Billion in premium tax. That sounds like alot, however, how much do you think it would cost to run another Federal Bureacracy? I think 12 billion would be cheap.
6) Your characterization of those of us that oppose federal regulation is way off base. I am in Indiana and Illinois and can not imagine our market to be any more competitive than it is today.
One last question, who do you work for and in what capacity?
Look forward to your response, Vlad