Senate Banking Committee Urged to Back Federal Insurance Regulation
National News • July 30, 2008
The U.S. regulatory structure for the insurance industry puts companies at a disadvantage overseas and stifles innovation and competition for consumers, the industry told U.S. lawmakers ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: The more I learn about this...
Posted On: July 30, 2008, 1:06 pm CDT
Posted By: CBC
Comment:
In my view there are 3 separate subject matters to consider regarding federal involvement in the insurance industry at large:
1. I don't think there would be much debate from folks who study the industry closely (ie. The Brookings Institute) that the complex web of state regulations has stifled insurance product innovation and uniformity that would provide greater clarity to consumers regarding the products they purchase from the industry. Federal chartering would be a welcome solution to this problem if done properly. If an insurance related law is good for consumers why should it be different for any consumer no matter their state of residence?
2. The economic environment in which American businesses and individuals now live and work within is becoming more and more globally integrated necessitating the need for broader global insurance solutions and accessiblity. The current state regulatory regime most definitely presents a substantial road block to the development and accessiblity of global insurance solutions both imported and exported. A federal charter would provide a solution to this issue as well if administered properly.
3. The last issue is one of insurance capital at play in various problematic markets such as Florida among others. Federal regulation should facilitate a more equitable allocation of capital among markets both at home and abroad also providing greater risk diversification opportunties for insurers both at home and abroad. Having said that, my view is also that if the feds have regulatory authority in the states then they also must have monetary skin in the game and provide a federal catastrophe fund for problematic regions such as Florida.
In summary, I am only in favor of a federal charter under the above circumstances and with the above specifications.
Subject: RE: The more I learn about this...
1. I don't think there would be much debate from folks who study the industry closely (ie. The Brookings Institute) that the complex web of state regulations has stifled insurance product innovation and uniformity that would provide greater clarity to consumers regarding the products they purchase from the industry. Federal chartering would be a welcome solution to this problem if done properly. If an insurance related law is good for consumers why should it be different for any consumer no matter their state of residence?
2. The economic environment in which American businesses and individuals now live and work within is becoming more and more globally integrated necessitating the need for broader global insurance solutions and accessiblity. The current state regulatory regime most definitely presents a substantial road block to the development and accessiblity of global insurance solutions both imported and exported. A federal charter would provide a solution to this issue as well if administered properly.
3. The last issue is one of insurance capital at play in various problematic markets such as Florida among others. Federal regulation should facilitate a more equitable allocation of capital among markets both at home and abroad also providing greater risk diversification opportunties for insurers both at home and abroad. Having said that, my view is also that if the feds have regulatory authority in the states then they also must have monetary skin in the game and provide a federal catastrophe fund for problematic regions such as Florida.
In summary, I am only in favor of a federal charter under the above circumstances and with the above specifications.