Posted On: March 31, 2008, 8:17 am CDT

Posted By: CJB

Let's get the debate started now.

Federal vs. State regulation of insurance:
1. State's are better able to respond to the needs within a particular state, and take better care of the citizens, than the feds - especially in a small state without much political pull.
2. State laws vary too much in the application of legal aspects of coverage - especially in the areas of WC and negligence statutes.
3. Why would the citizens of any state want its rates set by the federal goverment? Especially if you are in a low-rate state.
4. I am yet to see how federal insurance regulation is good for smaller regional carriers that do a good job in their niche, but which may be greatly harmed by federal involvement.

Second issue - the evaporation of state's rights. Setting up a federal anything slowly (quickly sometimes) erodes the rights of states to manage their own business.

Lastly, the credit crisis could not have necessarily been prevented by federal oversite. Individuals and mortgage companies lying on applications, greed, and just poor money management skills led to the problem.

I fear heading down this rabbit trail, but the problem stems from our lack of understanding of money and the use of money; our need for instant gratification, which leads to poor planning for the future.

The goverment once again feels like it has to think for us. Maybe they do since we've dumbed down education and upped the "entitlement attitude."

If you can't afford a house, you know it and so does the company lending the money; but that's a problem we can worry about another day. Well today's the day.

Fix the financial education of consumers, stick to good loan underwriting principles and keep the feds out of insurance.