National News
Viewing comments for:
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 | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| my "retort" | Stat Guy | Nov 7, 2007, 9:01 am |
| Federal Regulation | Vlad | Nov 1, 2007, 4:31 pm |
| Of course you may | Observer | Nov 1, 2007, 3:49 pm |
| Observer, May I Retort? | Vlad | Nov 1, 2007, 3:13 pm |
| Response | observer | Nov 1, 2007, 2:36 pm |
| to observer | Stat Guy | Nov 1, 2007, 11:32 am |
| RE: In need of Reform? | Stat Guy | Nov 1, 2007, 11:22 am |
| To Observer: | Vlad | Nov 1, 2007, 9:19 am |
| State Regulation Needs to go | Observer | Nov 1, 2007, 6:23 am |
| Vlad | concerned agent | Oct 31, 2007, 3:11 pm |
| In need of Reform? | Vlad | Oct 31, 2007, 1:54 pm |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: Federal Regulation
1) Federal regulation came about because there were virtually no banks that crossed state lines. Not true with insurance companies. Even with the current dual system, banks are currently bogged down with state regulations.
2) It is not either or with banks, but Federal Laws and regulations supercede state laws. Just as they would in any other type regulation or law i.e. commerce or even criminal law.
You can read http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflseptember2006_230a.pdf
to see just how well your dual system is working for the banking industry.
My whole start to this was a very simple suggestion. Why couldn't NAIC develop a standard from for all states and all companies to adhere to and the problem of filings and duplications is solved, and I won't have that federal bureacracy?