The devil is in the details. NAIFA Blog describes the bill thusly: “NARAB II, in many cases, would enable consumers to continue to work with agents they trust, no matter where they live in the United States.”
–How do local agents feel about out of state agents handling their accounts? If a business moves to a different state, why shouldn’t they get a new local agent?
–Most states do not require that an agent pass a criminal background check prior to licensure. NARAB II would require that all NARAB members pass a federal criminal background check. Why would states want to cede further authority to the Federal govenrment in this regard? What constitutes “passing” the background check, and what constitutes “failing”?
–Currently, an insurance agent who has clients in more than one state has to obtain licenses in each of those states. The regulatory process varies from state-to-state. Obtaining and maintaining a license is time-consuming. Having to complete the process over and over compounds the difficulty and often proves daunting for agents who are trying to meet the needs of their clients. The NARAB clearinghouse would allow agents to complete the process twice (once for his or her home state and once for NARAB) and be eligible to sell and service policies in all states.
I would argue this is just how the system was designed to work, and it was designed this way for a reason. Every state is different. How likely is this change to result in a general unfamiliarity with state rules/regs and poorer quality of service for policyholders?
–A survey of NAIFA members found that they spend an average of 29 hours per year complying with insurance licensing requirements and an additional 28 hours per year on insurance-specific continuing education courses needed to maintain their licenses.
Again, why is this a bad thing we need to get rid of?
Creating a “voluntary” system whereby national agents can bypass state rules in order to “service” clients that may be a thousand miles away may dilute the value of local independent agents.
Do we really want the Fed involved in any more of our business? Do we need another bureaucratic monitor of our activities? In light of the IRS, EPA and several other departments and agencies activities recently, Big Brother is everywhere. According to the Constitution, whatever is not expressly the responsibility or duty of the Federal Government is left with the states.
Long overdue!
Let’s get behind this one!
The devil is in the details. NAIFA Blog describes the bill thusly: “NARAB II, in many cases, would enable consumers to continue to work with agents they trust, no matter where they live in the United States.”
–How do local agents feel about out of state agents handling their accounts? If a business moves to a different state, why shouldn’t they get a new local agent?
–Most states do not require that an agent pass a criminal background check prior to licensure. NARAB II would require that all NARAB members pass a federal criminal background check. Why would states want to cede further authority to the Federal govenrment in this regard? What constitutes “passing” the background check, and what constitutes “failing”?
–Currently, an insurance agent who has clients in more than one state has to obtain licenses in each of those states. The regulatory process varies from state-to-state. Obtaining and maintaining a license is time-consuming. Having to complete the process over and over compounds the difficulty and often proves daunting for agents who are trying to meet the needs of their clients. The NARAB clearinghouse would allow agents to complete the process twice (once for his or her home state and once for NARAB) and be eligible to sell and service policies in all states.
I would argue this is just how the system was designed to work, and it was designed this way for a reason. Every state is different. How likely is this change to result in a general unfamiliarity with state rules/regs and poorer quality of service for policyholders?
–A survey of NAIFA members found that they spend an average of 29 hours per year complying with insurance licensing requirements and an additional 28 hours per year on insurance-specific continuing education courses needed to maintain their licenses.
Again, why is this a bad thing we need to get rid of?
Creating a “voluntary” system whereby national agents can bypass state rules in order to “service” clients that may be a thousand miles away may dilute the value of local independent agents.
Do we really want the Fed involved in any more of our business? Do we need another bureaucratic monitor of our activities? In light of the IRS, EPA and several other departments and agencies activities recently, Big Brother is everywhere. According to the Constitution, whatever is not expressly the responsibility or duty of the Federal Government is left with the states.