As one who fought the battle to keep insurance and banking seperate till we lost in 1996. My concern is that a Federally regulated insurance industry will some day be pressured to provide coverage guaranteed by the government,for uninsurable risks that only represent political subsidy. Our curren problem is the result of govenment pressure to provide loans as political rewards.
if you think the folks that run the IRS and FEMA are doing a good job of customer service, then you should support this stupid idea.
insurance is well regulated by the individual states. the complaint from agents and companies is the lack of ease of multi state licensing. that could easily be solved by the individual states if enough incentive was there to do so. (the NAIC doesn’t seem to be cutting the mustard)
Conceptually Federal Regulation sounds wonderful… develop a single set of rules which applies across the board. Make everything consistent, which should reduce costs and increase competition… The only problem is that the government has never figured out how to make things simple or consistent. And as someone has already said, ultimately I see this leading to government guarantees that insurance will be available to everyone, everywhere for everything at a price that will not adequately reflect the exposure.
“The meltdown of insurance giant AIG and the broad crisis in the nation’s financial system serve as proof of the vital need”
AIG failed because it placed humongous bets on the housing market. Their insurance operations were and are fine.
Hillary said “never waste a good crisis” or something along those lines…. looks like they think the (non insurance-related) failure of AIG will provide a good crisis for them to implement “voluntary” federal regulation.
How many federal programs do you know of that were voluntary and stayed that way? That is only the first step.
Those two mental midgets have once again excelled at missing the target. Starting a new agency to regulate the insurance industry because of a fault in the financial market harkens to another analogy: If you get diarrhea from eating to much Ice Cream, go kill the cow.
The American electorate needs to wakeup from their complacency and take back control of all government/bureaucracies. Citizens communicating and cooperating for the common good with each other will cure our ills. We do not need another level of government to point at as culpible for not solving our problems.
I would guess that Melissa Bean and Ed Royce have never spoken to a state regulator or analyst that reviews the products for approval at the state level. Insurance contracts are full of coverage exclusions that violate the laws of each state that were put in place by the legislator to protect the insurance consumer. If it were not for state regulation, the insurance carriers would be able to include these exclusions in the policies because no one would be reviewing their contracts. They would have an open door, no regulation policy!
And you are correct, this is exactly what the NAIC and the Insurance Companies want to accomplish. Do not be fooled, there are state commissioners that will tell you state regulation is good and should remain in place however they are working behind the scenes to support federal regulation. I feel if the federal government can clean up the financial industry, this should be enough to keep them busy for sometime. Stay out of the insurance business. Agent’s, go the PIA, IIAO and your state senator’s and start complaining now! If you do not, nothing will stop this group!
What are you talking about? This is a stupid and uninformed a letter as I have seen since I left the line about Obama and the G20 2 minutes ago. Where do you come up with this baloney? What laws and what exclusions in what states? State one or two facts to support this garbage. Do you work for Robert Hunter or just live in Florida?
Unless I’m mistaken, I thought the insurance part of AIG was fine, it was the financial part that got them into so much trouble? If so, why are they using AIG as an example for needing federal regulation for insurers? It seems as though, at the State level the insurance companies need approval before “changing” rates, yet at the federal level it would make it much easier for them. Rates are already being “adjusted” too often with “models” created to justify increases i.e., credit history, own vs rent, length of time with current insurer, number of vehicles owned, etc., (the list goes on and on). The “matching price to risk” seems to be getting carried on a little too far with these so-called “models” that as far as I know have yet to be actually proven. Regulation at the federal level seems like it’s going to make rate “adjustments” much eaiser for the insurance companies with each state not having a say.
CEO of American
Comment:
the insurance giants’s near collapse, ….RE: Smoke …who is the Screen-insurance .give this money to the state,s not CEO of insurance.
create a federal regulator for insurance. WOW WE DO NOT HAVE ONE SO GREED TOOK OVER.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more.
federal regulator for insurance dose not work.
No, the question is, why does this same idiot ramble on about State Farm and Ed Rust over and over and over. He or she posts under no name like yourself or under multiple names. I have a problem with serial hate posters who actually have nothing new to say and keep saying it.
What a great idea. Let’s put it in the hands of the folks who brought us the SEC and FEMA. Brilliant!
As one who fought the battle to keep insurance and banking seperate till we lost in 1996. My concern is that a Federally regulated insurance industry will some day be pressured to provide coverage guaranteed by the government,for uninsurable risks that only represent political subsidy. Our curren problem is the result of govenment pressure to provide loans as political rewards.
if you think the folks that run the IRS and FEMA are doing a good job of customer service, then you should support this stupid idea.
insurance is well regulated by the individual states. the complaint from agents and companies is the lack of ease of multi state licensing. that could easily be solved by the individual states if enough incentive was there to do so. (the NAIC doesn’t seem to be cutting the mustard)
Hey, Congress! Take a biology lesson– this extreme mix of inbreeding and crossbreeding won’t work.
You gotta love the specific wording used in the headline and the announcement and the ever-present need to mention AIG.
First, a “Consumer PROTECTION Act”? Come on, it only makes the Feds stronger and I can assure you will do nothing for the consumer.
The comparison of a “robust” federal system versus the “antiquated” state system.
Great choice of wording.
Last, AIG is exactly the proof that the Feds can’t do anything right. Only the state-regulated insurance side is strong enough to stand on its own.
Leave the system alone, local governments take care of their own. The Fed takes care of it’s own – and it isn’t the people.
Seriously. The Fed couldn’t regulate their own… anything. AIG had nothing to do with insurance.
Conceptually Federal Regulation sounds wonderful… develop a single set of rules which applies across the board. Make everything consistent, which should reduce costs and increase competition… The only problem is that the government has never figured out how to make things simple or consistent. And as someone has already said, ultimately I see this leading to government guarantees that insurance will be available to everyone, everywhere for everything at a price that will not adequately reflect the exposure.
DWT, how is what you’ve outlined any different than what has happened under state regulation in FL or CA?
“The meltdown of insurance giant AIG and the broad crisis in the nation’s financial system serve as proof of the vital need”
AIG failed because it placed humongous bets on the housing market. Their insurance operations were and are fine.
Hillary said “never waste a good crisis” or something along those lines…. looks like they think the (non insurance-related) failure of AIG will provide a good crisis for them to implement “voluntary” federal regulation.
How many federal programs do you know of that were voluntary and stayed that way? That is only the first step.
Those two mental midgets have once again excelled at missing the target. Starting a new agency to regulate the insurance industry because of a fault in the financial market harkens to another analogy: If you get diarrhea from eating to much Ice Cream, go kill the cow.
The American electorate needs to wakeup from their complacency and take back control of all government/bureaucracies. Citizens communicating and cooperating for the common good with each other will cure our ills. We do not need another level of government to point at as culpible for not solving our problems.
I would guess that Melissa Bean and Ed Royce have never spoken to a state regulator or analyst that reviews the products for approval at the state level. Insurance contracts are full of coverage exclusions that violate the laws of each state that were put in place by the legislator to protect the insurance consumer. If it were not for state regulation, the insurance carriers would be able to include these exclusions in the policies because no one would be reviewing their contracts. They would have an open door, no regulation policy!
And you are correct, this is exactly what the NAIC and the Insurance Companies want to accomplish. Do not be fooled, there are state commissioners that will tell you state regulation is good and should remain in place however they are working behind the scenes to support federal regulation. I feel if the federal government can clean up the financial industry, this should be enough to keep them busy for sometime. Stay out of the insurance business. Agent’s, go the PIA, IIAO and your state senator’s and start complaining now! If you do not, nothing will stop this group!
What are you talking about? This is a stupid and uninformed a letter as I have seen since I left the line about Obama and the G20 2 minutes ago. Where do you come up with this baloney? What laws and what exclusions in what states? State one or two facts to support this garbage. Do you work for Robert Hunter or just live in Florida?
Unless I’m mistaken, I thought the insurance part of AIG was fine, it was the financial part that got them into so much trouble? If so, why are they using AIG as an example for needing federal regulation for insurers? It seems as though, at the State level the insurance companies need approval before “changing” rates, yet at the federal level it would make it much easier for them. Rates are already being “adjusted” too often with “models” created to justify increases i.e., credit history, own vs rent, length of time with current insurer, number of vehicles owned, etc., (the list goes on and on). The “matching price to risk” seems to be getting carried on a little too far with these so-called “models” that as far as I know have yet to be actually proven. Regulation at the federal level seems like it’s going to make rate “adjustments” much eaiser for the insurance companies with each state not having a say.
Penny wise, Pound foolish…
CEO of American
Comment:
the insurance giants’s near collapse, ….RE: Smoke …who is the Screen-insurance .give this money to the state,s not CEO of insurance.
create a federal regulator for insurance. WOW WE DO NOT HAVE ONE SO GREED TOOK OVER.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more.
federal regulator for insurance dose not work.
nobody important what our you talking about?
If it,s possible, Mr. mulitiple name is becoming more nonsensical and ineloquent. Did Ed Rust run over your dog?
No, the question is, why does this same idiot ramble on about State Farm and Ed Rust over and over and over. He or she posts under no name like yourself or under multiple names. I have a problem with serial hate posters who actually have nothing new to say and keep saying it.
Consumer Protection Act,. run not by the federal regulators but by Consumer.