The federal government has proven beyond any doubt how inept they are at about anything the beaurecrats touch!!!
The States have done a very adequate job and do not need to be overseen or suplemented by any inept federal agency.
The government has its nose in everything where it does not belong . . . . let’s leave them out of insurance!!!!!
The long-promised licensing uniformity the NAIC has been singing about has yet to come to fruition. Agencies like our spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on licensing alone for a handful of brokers.
I definitely agree with you that anything the feds touch turns to poo. But the states get so wrapped up in doing things their own special way that it creates a problem for companies trying to do business in more than one state.
Perhaps an overhaul of the state system? Then again, that’s exactly what the NAIC says it’s been trying to do for X-number of years…
Either way, I’m prepared to remain frustrated with the state of things for years to come. LOL
I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in the regulation of insurance because of the differences among the states and the varying needs of their constituencies. Federal agencies seem to prmote the “one size fits all” aproach which is at odds with those needs. To me, the idea of federal regulation is but another effort by the federal government to usurp powers left to the states by our Constitution, not to mention creation of another costly bureaucracy. Although insurance companies seem to like the idea because they believe it will be easier to deal with one, rather than 50, regulators, I think they will regret the day if it ever comes to pass. Besides, “who is likely to be more responsive to local needs – the federal or state government” is the redundant question I would ask. Moreover, if, after trying a federal charter, many insurers find they want to return to state regulation, what will happen to the federal insrance agency? Will it be dismantled or reduced in size as insurers leave for state chartering again? Not likely because these “empires” take on a life of their own.
Rather, I think the federal government ought to direct its resources to solving other pressing problems like Social Security about which we’ve heard little of lately and leave insurance regualtions to the states where they belong. That said, I would also call on the NAIC and state legislator associations to continue and step up efforts to assist states in streamlining current regulations so that artificial blocks and redundancies are removed from the current system.
I think it is a bad idea to have the federal government regulate insurance. The insurance industry is alot better served by being regulated by the states instead of the federal government.
We all seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, keep the federal government out of it. At the same time I think almost everyone in the industry would agree that there needs to be some uniformity how the states regulate the industry. The question is how?
Secondly and one thing that I haven’t seen any comment about here is how this proposed bill would work. If I read this right, a carrier could elect to fall under the Federal regulations which would provide some exemptions from the individual state regulations. In theory this would allow both state and federally licensed carriers to operate within the same state.
? How long before the states cry foul and require the federally regulated carriers to also comply with all the state regulations?
? How long before carriers cry foul becuase one or the other form of regulation provides an unfair advantage?
? How long before the consumers cry foul…
I guess to make it short, it has to be one or the other. I don’t think that you can have both state and federal regulation of the industry… at least not that works.
I’m with all of you, no need to create another bureaucracy if the current bureacracies can’t do the job. That’s using the problem as the solution…but one thing that bothers me is that BANKS will lobby for this, to protect their own interests, not necessarily anyone else’s. Given the state of banking today, can you really expect the insurance market to perform better in the same environment? good for whom?
The federal government has proven beyond any doubt how inept they are at about anything the beaurecrats touch!!!
The States have done a very adequate job and do not need to be overseen or suplemented by any inept federal agency.
The government has its nose in everything where it does not belong . . . . let’s leave them out of insurance!!!!!
For some of us, neither option is a good one.
The long-promised licensing uniformity the NAIC has been singing about has yet to come to fruition. Agencies like our spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on licensing alone for a handful of brokers.
I definitely agree with you that anything the feds touch turns to poo. But the states get so wrapped up in doing things their own special way that it creates a problem for companies trying to do business in more than one state.
Perhaps an overhaul of the state system? Then again, that’s exactly what the NAIC says it’s been trying to do for X-number of years…
Either way, I’m prepared to remain frustrated with the state of things for years to come. LOL
I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in the regulation of insurance because of the differences among the states and the varying needs of their constituencies. Federal agencies seem to prmote the “one size fits all” aproach which is at odds with those needs. To me, the idea of federal regulation is but another effort by the federal government to usurp powers left to the states by our Constitution, not to mention creation of another costly bureaucracy. Although insurance companies seem to like the idea because they believe it will be easier to deal with one, rather than 50, regulators, I think they will regret the day if it ever comes to pass. Besides, “who is likely to be more responsive to local needs – the federal or state government” is the redundant question I would ask. Moreover, if, after trying a federal charter, many insurers find they want to return to state regulation, what will happen to the federal insrance agency? Will it be dismantled or reduced in size as insurers leave for state chartering again? Not likely because these “empires” take on a life of their own.
Rather, I think the federal government ought to direct its resources to solving other pressing problems like Social Security about which we’ve heard little of lately and leave insurance regualtions to the states where they belong. That said, I would also call on the NAIC and state legislator associations to continue and step up efforts to assist states in streamlining current regulations so that artificial blocks and redundancies are removed from the current system.
I think it is a bad idea to have the federal government regulate insurance. The insurance industry is alot better served by being regulated by the states instead of the federal government.
We all seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, keep the federal government out of it. At the same time I think almost everyone in the industry would agree that there needs to be some uniformity how the states regulate the industry. The question is how?
Secondly and one thing that I haven’t seen any comment about here is how this proposed bill would work. If I read this right, a carrier could elect to fall under the Federal regulations which would provide some exemptions from the individual state regulations. In theory this would allow both state and federally licensed carriers to operate within the same state.
? How long before the states cry foul and require the federally regulated carriers to also comply with all the state regulations?
? How long before carriers cry foul becuase one or the other form of regulation provides an unfair advantage?
? How long before the consumers cry foul…
I guess to make it short, it has to be one or the other. I don’t think that you can have both state and federal regulation of the industry… at least not that works.
I’m with all of you, no need to create another bureaucracy if the current bureacracies can’t do the job. That’s using the problem as the solution…but one thing that bothers me is that BANKS will lobby for this, to protect their own interests, not necessarily anyone else’s. Given the state of banking today, can you really expect the insurance market to perform better in the same environment? good for whom?