Kudos for NAIC for standing up to the deregulation efforts that like almost all federal deregulation efforts in the past decade have eroded consumer protections, promoted consolidation and fewer choices for consumers and given the largest companies the power they are looking for in the market.
I coudn’t agree with you more. It is amazing how some agents have come here and praised people like Elliot Spitzer, little do they know how much better a free competitive market works then some over regulated market that forces insurance companies to pull out of these markets.
You can take California Commissioner John Garamendi as an example. His first term, he overregulated that forced a huge amount of companies out of the California market. He lost re-election to a republican. He eventually got himself elected again and he is the current commissioner for California. This term, he learned and has not crossed the line, he learned how distructive overregulation can be!
I can understand why the state insurance commissioners support state regulation – it’s their livelihood. However, for anyone else it seems to me to a clear issue of simplification and increase in efficiency by having a single regulator.
State regulation is the cause of most of the problems in the insurance marketplace. The problems are too numerous to go through them all, but here are a couple. First, how many Louisiana insurance commissioners have gone to jail? You think it makes sense to have corrupt local officials in charge of this area? Second, the insurance commissioner in 12 states is an elective office. Tell me why it makes sense to elect the insurance commissioner. Might just as well elect the bank examiner.
State regulation does little good and considerable harm in terms of a less efficient marketplace. The sooner it’s done away with the better off most of us will be.
Kudos for NAIC for standing up to the deregulation efforts that like almost all federal deregulation efforts in the past decade have eroded consumer protections, promoted consolidation and fewer choices for consumers and given the largest companies the power they are looking for in the market.
I coudn’t agree with you more. It is amazing how some agents have come here and praised people like Elliot Spitzer, little do they know how much better a free competitive market works then some over regulated market that forces insurance companies to pull out of these markets.
You can take California Commissioner John Garamendi as an example. His first term, he overregulated that forced a huge amount of companies out of the California market. He lost re-election to a republican. He eventually got himself elected again and he is the current commissioner for California. This term, he learned and has not crossed the line, he learned how distructive overregulation can be!
PS. Do not forget to take stab at my grammar!!!
I can understand why the state insurance commissioners support state regulation – it’s their livelihood. However, for anyone else it seems to me to a clear issue of simplification and increase in efficiency by having a single regulator.
State regulation is the cause of most of the problems in the insurance marketplace. The problems are too numerous to go through them all, but here are a couple. First, how many Louisiana insurance commissioners have gone to jail? You think it makes sense to have corrupt local officials in charge of this area? Second, the insurance commissioner in 12 states is an elective office. Tell me why it makes sense to elect the insurance commissioner. Might just as well elect the bank examiner.
State regulation does little good and considerable harm in terms of a less efficient marketplace. The sooner it’s done away with the better off most of us will be.