I believe it is to educate everyone about the entire insurance industry. Something comes to mind when we see the Federal Government trying to take over where States rights are involved. We fought a little war back in the 1860’s over States Rights issues as well. I have never know a Fed Program that did not become more intrusive and expensive the longer that it has been around.
It is healthy to question governments expansion. Is it for power and influence over business? or is it for our benefit? If it does not benefit the public and business. We should fight against it as it most certainly would become restrictive upon commerce and our freedom of choice. I think this is to be full of special interest lobbiest against the insurance industry by advising congress on legislation effecting the insurance industry. Lawyers, doctors and hospital lobbiests influencing policy.
Yes I find it hard to believe, but if the true intent is to provide some sort of expertise to the inept in Washington then it may not be a bad thing. We are constantly thrown into the mix with the financial industry and made out to look like the bad guy. If this office is really there to educate those clueless lawmakers (that would be both republican and democrat alike) on the hill then it may be in our best interests. Who knows maybe the insurance industry will have an advocate on the hill? That would be a good thing.
Should be interesting with a Federal Office that is “noninvolved” in state and interstate regulation [how long does tht last?] occassionally looking over the actions of the State Regulators. Do we need new Federal Association for Insurance Regulation to balance off NAIC?
The idiot insurance commissioner in Delaware wants to head up this new outfit in the worst way via her connection to Biden. No insurance experience, no education whatsoever beyond high school, lied about everything to get into office, finally made it on her third try since 2000. Talk about clueless legislators — they could teach the DE commissioner a thing or two since she knows nothing, just how to hire industry people to do the job for her and make her look good at taxpayer’s expense. Guess what’s in it for them and for her.
“The bill now contains specific language that the bill does not establish a supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance and bars the FIO from pre-empting state insurance laws governing rates, premiums, coverage requirements, antitrust laws, underwriting or sales practices.”
It’s not a move towards central socialism or a takeover of the insurance industry, therefore, please learn how to read what is actually written, rather than spouting off ideological nonsense.
Swede,
In washington they take steps that move toward an end result. If what you are saying is true, then why create a Federal Insurance informational office. they have other motives. Like insurance regulation specifically in the area of health insurance. International issues my A*s.
This is classic government tactics. Get your nose in the door, exploit the weaknesses, advise of the benefits more control will have, state textbook process improvements, build a team of non-performers and increase taxes…
Are they going to be “advisors” for P&C or L&H, or both? And I agree with most the posters here that this is a way for the government to get in the door. How soon until they start regulating the insurance? But before I start acting like Chicken Little, does anyone have any examples of the government doing this with another industry?
Your concerns are true. The issue is the peoples are different in the two scenarios. Some prefer to smaller govt with limited power allowing people the freedoms this country was founded on.
Others prefer big govt intrusion because they need a man-made savior. Many of these live off of your and my taxes and enjoy their “plight” in life. Govt took care of their parents and will take care of them. Others in this group see the lack of work, or meaningful productive work with govt help as a way out of their current lot in life (grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence, especially if someone else is watering that grass).
I tend to err on the side of less government. Like with hurricane Katrina. I think those people should have already had a homeowners policy. What did it teach the people that didn’t have homeowners policies that got a check from the government? It taught them “Hey, if something bad happens to me due to me being irresponsible, thats ok, the government will bail me out! I believe that the only thing that the fed gov should be in charge of is national defense and creating currency. Everything else, let the states decide.
At what cost is this going to be to the taxpayers and for what? MI did the same
thing with their so-called “liaison” and now we are facing insurance reform with no insurance scoring, no territorial rating – all to make insurance “affordable” for Detroit.
Look out insurance industry, Uncle Sam is coming after you.
Holy special interests, Bill! You almost hit the nail on the head but you missed the main lobby that worked so hard to obfuscate this issue: the banking and financial services lobby. This started with some chicken little point to AIG and crying, ” insurance companies are ruining our economy!” and they have been making hay ever since. The PCIAA, IIABA, and other insurance industry groups have been testifying on the hill to “educate” congressional leaders about how well regulate and well-reserved the P & C industy is at the state level and decrying the intrusion of federal oversight into P & C but all to no avail; it seems that banking wants to take the heat off of themselves and are all too willing to out and out LIE about WHO needs to be regulated and it is working. this will bode ill for P & C, and I for one hope it drive out companies and drives up premiums for those left holding the bag. the real culprits are the SEC folks who were so enamoured with the likes of Madoff or who went along with the rating agencies to allow underreserved financial “transfers” and derivatives to balloon or who merely wanted to play ball so that when their tenure was up at the SEC that they might land a position with one of the million dollar outfits….NO, insurance doesn’t need additional regulation and I also believe that banking/financial services don’t need more oversight….we had the laws, the tools and the ability….but no one used those tools, no one applied those laws and no one was willing to use their ability to act, because they wanted to play ball. All we need is people with CONVICTION, but all we get is people who should be CONVICTED! Everyone is missing the point because the banking lobby started crying foul for “insurance” to take the heat off of themselves. By not labeling credit default swaps a transfer of risk, they deliberately circumvented market regulation and allowing poorly underwritten home loans to be rated as AAA, they marketed these bundled mortgages to deliberately hide their value, just to walk off with millions in commissions and fees! and how does congress react? well it all depends on WHO is willing to SPEND the most money. I say reverse the 2005 banking services act, and put credit cards and such back into the hands of the bankruptcy courts and let’s see what kinds of INNOVATION the bankers can come up with then…innovation? meaning finding new and more arcane ways to make money and disguise “earnings” so that they can LEGALLY STEAL by avoiding scrutiny. If they want to clean this up for real, forget about a new regulator and just get the old prosecuting attorneys to follow the money. Fraud is fraud but having the guts to go after it is what makes this all laughable….fix insurance? it wasn’t broke and they know it; they also know they are up to their butts in the favors they owe….I mean even DODD and FRANKS got caught doing something wrong, illegal, unethical but got around it because there is a moral hazard and they jump into it with both feet.
ok, i think you all missed out the actual point of this office. it’s not to address any stateside insurance regulations that the states have already done this already. the article was refering to internation insurance. again, it did not want the office to have any supervisory or authority for that type of insurance. basically it’s going to be like a consulting agent. problem is that congress could not find anything unless they create a separate department just to find it. then of course, they have to spend lots of money on hearings (more taxpayer money spent) on frivilous meetings, probably including a lunchbag meal to be provided (LOL!). how many in our industry have a college degree? is it really required to have a job? it’s a nice piece of paper, but i bet you don’t need a degree to become president! i don’t think they put that in the constitution.
I think we all understand what it is saying. TODAY, it won’t have any authority on domestic insurance, but who know about tomorrow. Who says congress doesn’t pass a bill in 2011 stating “That new agency we created in 2009 will now regulate insurance both domstic and abroad” We are just worried that once they get their foot in the door, we won’t be able to stop them. Think about it. Many villians started off with good intentions…
“People” is very broad. Not all of us need, want or desire governmental assistance. Many of us are responsible for our own lives.
You need to read the U.S. Constitution. It will shed light on when and where the Federal government has authority to regulate. Much of the Fed’s activities are unconstitutional, and usurp states’ rights.
Just what we need, another Federal Bureaucracy to regulate, spend our taxpayer dollars. The guy they appointed to be Commissioner is from Illinois. Gee, how surprising!
I believe it is to educate everyone about the entire insurance industry. Something comes to mind when we see the Federal Government trying to take over where States rights are involved. We fought a little war back in the 1860’s over States Rights issues as well. I have never know a Fed Program that did not become more intrusive and expensive the longer that it has been around.
It is healthy to question governments expansion. Is it for power and influence over business? or is it for our benefit? If it does not benefit the public and business. We should fight against it as it most certainly would become restrictive upon commerce and our freedom of choice. I think this is to be full of special interest lobbiest against the insurance industry by advising congress on legislation effecting the insurance industry. Lawyers, doctors and hospital lobbiests influencing policy.
Just another step to regulate your lives through insurance regulation from the feds.
More government. Great! Just what we need.
Just a matter of time before they take over the regulation of the industry. This has been coming for years.
Yes I find it hard to believe, but if the true intent is to provide some sort of expertise to the inept in Washington then it may not be a bad thing. We are constantly thrown into the mix with the financial industry and made out to look like the bad guy. If this office is really there to educate those clueless lawmakers (that would be both republican and democrat alike) on the hill then it may be in our best interests. Who knows maybe the insurance industry will have an advocate on the hill? That would be a good thing.
Should be interesting with a Federal Office that is “noninvolved” in state and interstate regulation [how long does tht last?] occassionally looking over the actions of the State Regulators. Do we need new Federal Association for Insurance Regulation to balance off NAIC?
The idiot insurance commissioner in Delaware wants to head up this new outfit in the worst way via her connection to Biden. No insurance experience, no education whatsoever beyond high school, lied about everything to get into office, finally made it on her third try since 2000. Talk about clueless legislators — they could teach the DE commissioner a thing or two since she knows nothing, just how to hire industry people to do the job for her and make her look good at taxpayer’s expense. Guess what’s in it for them and for her.
“The bill now contains specific language that the bill does not establish a supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance and bars the FIO from pre-empting state insurance laws governing rates, premiums, coverage requirements, antitrust laws, underwriting or sales practices.”
It’s not a move towards central socialism or a takeover of the insurance industry, therefore, please learn how to read what is actually written, rather than spouting off ideological nonsense.
Swede,
In washington they take steps that move toward an end result. If what you are saying is true, then why create a Federal Insurance informational office. they have other motives. Like insurance regulation specifically in the area of health insurance. International issues my A*s.
Weshallsee — Insurance companies might have an advocate on the Hill???? Hello …. Lobbyist. To many of them already
This is classic government tactics. Get your nose in the door, exploit the weaknesses, advise of the benefits more control will have, state textbook process improvements, build a team of non-performers and increase taxes…
Are they going to be “advisors” for P&C or L&H, or both? And I agree with most the posters here that this is a way for the government to get in the door. How soon until they start regulating the insurance? But before I start acting like Chicken Little, does anyone have any examples of the government doing this with another industry?
I don’t get it.
People will always complain when the government sits idle and does do not anything. Always saying: “where is the government when we need it?!”.
But then when the government does do something, or at least tries, they say: “oh no! thats too much government!”.
I am not saying government is perfect, but wow, there are so many conflicted people out there who it appears can’t make up their mind.
Your concerns are true. The issue is the peoples are different in the two scenarios. Some prefer to smaller govt with limited power allowing people the freedoms this country was founded on.
Others prefer big govt intrusion because they need a man-made savior. Many of these live off of your and my taxes and enjoy their “plight” in life. Govt took care of their parents and will take care of them. Others in this group see the lack of work, or meaningful productive work with govt help as a way out of their current lot in life (grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence, especially if someone else is watering that grass).
I tend to err on the side of less government. Like with hurricane Katrina. I think those people should have already had a homeowners policy. What did it teach the people that didn’t have homeowners policies that got a check from the government? It taught them “Hey, if something bad happens to me due to me being irresponsible, thats ok, the government will bail me out! I believe that the only thing that the fed gov should be in charge of is national defense and creating currency. Everything else, let the states decide.
At what cost is this going to be to the taxpayers and for what? MI did the same
thing with their so-called “liaison” and now we are facing insurance reform with no insurance scoring, no territorial rating – all to make insurance “affordable” for Detroit.
Look out insurance industry, Uncle Sam is coming after you.
Holy special interests, Bill! You almost hit the nail on the head but you missed the main lobby that worked so hard to obfuscate this issue: the banking and financial services lobby. This started with some chicken little point to AIG and crying, ” insurance companies are ruining our economy!” and they have been making hay ever since. The PCIAA, IIABA, and other insurance industry groups have been testifying on the hill to “educate” congressional leaders about how well regulate and well-reserved the P & C industy is at the state level and decrying the intrusion of federal oversight into P & C but all to no avail; it seems that banking wants to take the heat off of themselves and are all too willing to out and out LIE about WHO needs to be regulated and it is working. this will bode ill for P & C, and I for one hope it drive out companies and drives up premiums for those left holding the bag. the real culprits are the SEC folks who were so enamoured with the likes of Madoff or who went along with the rating agencies to allow underreserved financial “transfers” and derivatives to balloon or who merely wanted to play ball so that when their tenure was up at the SEC that they might land a position with one of the million dollar outfits….NO, insurance doesn’t need additional regulation and I also believe that banking/financial services don’t need more oversight….we had the laws, the tools and the ability….but no one used those tools, no one applied those laws and no one was willing to use their ability to act, because they wanted to play ball. All we need is people with CONVICTION, but all we get is people who should be CONVICTED! Everyone is missing the point because the banking lobby started crying foul for “insurance” to take the heat off of themselves. By not labeling credit default swaps a transfer of risk, they deliberately circumvented market regulation and allowing poorly underwritten home loans to be rated as AAA, they marketed these bundled mortgages to deliberately hide their value, just to walk off with millions in commissions and fees! and how does congress react? well it all depends on WHO is willing to SPEND the most money. I say reverse the 2005 banking services act, and put credit cards and such back into the hands of the bankruptcy courts and let’s see what kinds of INNOVATION the bankers can come up with then…innovation? meaning finding new and more arcane ways to make money and disguise “earnings” so that they can LEGALLY STEAL by avoiding scrutiny. If they want to clean this up for real, forget about a new regulator and just get the old prosecuting attorneys to follow the money. Fraud is fraud but having the guts to go after it is what makes this all laughable….fix insurance? it wasn’t broke and they know it; they also know they are up to their butts in the favors they owe….I mean even DODD and FRANKS got caught doing something wrong, illegal, unethical but got around it because there is a moral hazard and they jump into it with both feet.
ok, i think you all missed out the actual point of this office. it’s not to address any stateside insurance regulations that the states have already done this already. the article was refering to internation insurance. again, it did not want the office to have any supervisory or authority for that type of insurance. basically it’s going to be like a consulting agent. problem is that congress could not find anything unless they create a separate department just to find it. then of course, they have to spend lots of money on hearings (more taxpayer money spent) on frivilous meetings, probably including a lunchbag meal to be provided (LOL!). how many in our industry have a college degree? is it really required to have a job? it’s a nice piece of paper, but i bet you don’t need a degree to become president! i don’t think they put that in the constitution.
I think we all understand what it is saying. TODAY, it won’t have any authority on domestic insurance, but who know about tomorrow. Who says congress doesn’t pass a bill in 2011 stating “That new agency we created in 2009 will now regulate insurance both domstic and abroad” We are just worried that once they get their foot in the door, we won’t be able to stop them. Think about it. Many villians started off with good intentions…
LG,
“People” is very broad. Not all of us need, want or desire governmental assistance. Many of us are responsible for our own lives.
You need to read the U.S. Constitution. It will shed light on when and where the Federal government has authority to regulate. Much of the Fed’s activities are unconstitutional, and usurp states’ rights.
Just what we need, another Federal Bureaucracy to regulate, spend our taxpayer dollars. The guy they appointed to be Commissioner is from Illinois. Gee, how surprising!