Agents Tell Treasury Financial Regulation Study Questions Biased

November 15, 2007

  • November 15, 2007 at 11:57 am
    ringo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Because the states are absolutely incapable of adopting uniform regulations (50 state legislatures can never march in lock step), the American public is being forced to pay at least $5 to $10 billion more in insurance premiums than they would have to if insurance companies only had to develop products and computer systems to support one nationwide set of rules. I guess PIA likes it that way, cause their commissions are a percentage of premium.

  • November 15, 2007 at 2:03 am
    Paul DeCotis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It appears that the response from the PIA is one that wants to keep foreign competition out of this country. We’re in a “flat world” and we need to operate that way. If foreign markets can meet with our regulations, etc and be competitive why shouldn’t we use them. NOw for uniform regulation by either the states or the feds, we need to have it. Almost all states have different insurance laws and regs. If they were uniform we would all be better off. Without uniformity it is chaos.

    The gov of Ca recently sued Detroit because he wants lower CO emissions from autos. Should we have different state regs for the auto industry? Well, we hav it for the insurance industry and it doesn’t work well.

  • November 15, 2007 at 3:48 am
    Joe B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I support the PIA’a efforts in fighting this bill. “Federal regulation” smells like “de-regulation” to me. You know, where the law is supposed to open the front for more compitetion, but all it actually does is lead the way to more mega-mergers with even less compitetion. Can we all spell CitiGroup?

    Seems to be a clasic states rights vs federal rule fight setting up. I’m a firm Republicrat and would rather have my own state representatives on the hook for any problems.

    The scariest part of the whole idea however, is the phrase “industry-managed self-regulation”. Can anyone define that one for me?

  • November 15, 2007 at 4:03 am
    Phrase definition says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe “putting the fox in charge of the hen house” would be applicable?

  • November 16, 2007 at 8:56 am
    Joe B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While 50 states, 50 regulations may cause some problems, whose state’s regulations do you use as a guideline? I’m in NY and am old enough to remember when NY had a maximum limit that could be charged a credit card interest. Each state had it’s own limit on the allowable interest rate.

    Delaware did not have any such limit, so credit cards moved their operations. Federalism came in, over-rode the states on banking. How do you now feel about the credit cards with their 27% annual interest, BS fees, and “if the payment isn’t received by 9:00am” scemes.

    If I charged anyone 27% interest for a loan, what would happen to me. I believe the term is usury.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*