State Insurance Regulators Lend Conditional Support to Federal Office

June 13, 2008

  • June 13, 2008 at 12:46 pm
    Craig Chamberlain says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bottom line is the states want to protect the bureaucratic empires they have created. The reason states are fighting so hard to keep their individual insurance departments is to matintin control of “their” power and our money. It is impractical and unrealistic to think an elected insurance commissioner will provide objective oversight. Most use the position as a high profile stepping stone to higher public office. The consumer, insurance companies and agents all suffer from very slow response from state insurance departments unless the issue is a “headline grabber”. The states claim to be concerned about insurer solvency yet their own state run insurance programs (Citizen’s for example) would not be approved to do business in their own states due to insufficient capital and surplus. I suppose the states know they can simply levy a tax to cover their inevitable insurance losses.

    Businesses are benefiting from technological advancements and borders are being broken down creating truly a global economy. Why would anyone support the continuation of such a fractured and inefficient system? I would prefer to have one roll of red tape to deal with in D.C. as opposed to the 50 different colored rolls of tape that we deal with now. What do you think?

  • June 13, 2008 at 1:04 am
    Someone Else says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So you’re willing to trade state bureaucracy for federal. I’m not. The state system is not broken. It may be annoying in some respects, but it has been very successful.

    Insurance requires regulation. If you give that power to the Feds, regulation will be inadequate under Republican administrations, and oppressive under Democratic ones.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • June 13, 2008 at 1:09 am
    Gary Wolcott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No to Congressional management of insurance. They’re too busy mismanaging the things they’re responsible for now to take on something new.

  • June 13, 2008 at 2:10 am
    DL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The federal government has enough on its plate that it cannot handle. Sure, state regulation is not perfect but it’s been around for a long time and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners does a good job of promoting uniformity among our states.
    The federal government oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and look where that is – broke because either the govt lacks understanding of insurance pricing or is too afraid to tell people that they need to pay a higher premium to cover their flood exposures. The govt has not been charging rates that match up to the overall flood loss exposure. In addition, they’ve been subsidizing rates for certain properties which further reduces the level of funds needed to pay flood claims. I don’t understand why any property should have subsidized flood insurance rates. If one can’t afford to live in a flood zone, move. Because who ends up paying the bill…taxpayers. As a result, most taxpayers end up paying insurance premiums to cover their own loss exposures in addition to paying part of the losses of the National Flood Program in the form of debt forgiveness.
    Federal oversight of insurance is a bad idea. Contrary to what the media reports, our insurance industry is not broken; it just needs a little tweaking. We would be moving back to square one if we allowed federal oversight in place of state. The insurance industry would need to school the feds to help them get up to speed.

  • June 13, 2008 at 2:42 am
    Becky says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It sounds like you are from Texas or Florida. Take a look at how an effective state insurance department operates (Ohio, for example), and you may change your mind.

  • June 16, 2008 at 9:46 am
    Cliff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Federal, ie congressional oversight would be awful.

    That idiot who got caught with the hooker proved that there is money in insurance.

    How long before our elected overseers decide to Nationalize Insurance like they’re trying to do with the oil industry?

  • June 16, 2008 at 11:51 am
    stc says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Isn’t this just the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent. Government regulation never decreases……..bad move

  • June 16, 2008 at 12:44 pm
    Texan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Texas Department of Insurance is one of the most effective regulatory bodies in the world. It’s unfortunate that a small state like Ohio, with its minimal domestic insurance industry and a small department with unsophisticated staff, can’t understand that.



Add a Comment

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

*