The Struggle Getting U.S. Regulators to Understand Insurance

By | January 15, 2016

  • January 18, 2016 at 6:57 am
    Roland says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 6

    “Do you think the federal government is interested in further expanding its regulatory oversight of insurers?”
    Ha! Do you really have to ask? Substitute just about anything for the word “insurers” in that sentence and the answer is the same: a resounding yes. These creeps will not stop until they have regulations on the books for every conceivable human activity. It is their livelihood. It is what they do. If people ever wise up to how useless these clowns are, they will have to get real jobs where they produce stuff that people will voluntarily spend their own money on.
    The headline of the article gets to the root of the problem with central planning. No matter how smart they are or how good their intentions, there is no way central planners can know everything they need to know to make insurance – or any other business – better. It is stupid to look to any government entity, least of all one a thousand miles or more away from you and your customers, for enlightened oversight that will make life better for any of us.
    NAMIC and everyone in the insurance industry should oppose this nonsense root and branch.

  • January 19, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Rylee William says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    Yes. I agree with Ronald

  • January 21, 2016 at 10:53 am
    Wanda Benton says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 2

    The auto insurance industry needs more regulation. When the insurance industry looked for ways to recoup losses FICO helped by creating a BOGUS report stating CONSUMERS WITH BAD CREDIT FILED MORE CLAIMS VERSUS THOSE WITH GOOD CREDIT. The study was accepted due to the fact this was the first and only study ever CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. I read the entire study and it is the one of the MOST racist bias reports ever created. At the end it STATES TWO GROUPS OF CONSUMERS THAT WILL BE EFFECTED BY THIS AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS. Now to add insult to injury the insurance industry not only determines your premiums by your CREDIT SCORE THEY HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO ADD ZIP CODE’S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT EFFECTS THE POOR, AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS THAT DON’T HAVE THE PLEASURE OF LIVING IN GATED UPPER MIDDLE CLASS COMMUNITIES. I recently rode through a neighborhood in Greenville SC 99% of the residents are Hispanic. I made a list and took pictures of all the automobiles the ACV of all the vehicles combined did not equal the average cost of a new car. If you happen to live in this undesirable ZIP code you will be charged more for your car insurance than the consumer 6+ blocks away going towards downtown. The ACV of the vehicles 6+ blocks away out weighed the ACV of every vehicle in the neighborhood 6 blocks away going towards Laurens road. ACV Actual Cash Value, GAP Insurance make the whole credit and zip code thing obsolete. Simply because the insurance companies no longer pay off loan. The ACV is used because the insurance industry decided “why should we payoff loans for consumers that have bad credit and higher interest rates. If the loan balance is $15,739.38 the ACV will be considerably lower due to the depreciation of the vehicle, and if its a new vehicle and a new loan the insurance company does rapid depreciation to pay less. If the consumer did not purchase Gap insurance they are left with a deficiency balance. Insurance companies can decide to drop you because you filed claims or raise your rates to a ridiculous amount for filing one claim WHY DO CONSUMERS PAY PREMIUMS? I have not filed a claim in 20+ years but every time I ask my insurance company why are you raising my rates NUMBER ONE RESPONSE – STATE RATE HIKES – First and foremost my credit rating has NOTHING to do with the rate of claims I may or may not file. If I lived in a ZIP code that is deemed more likely to have more claims [LIKLEY DUE TO THE FACT LOWER MIDDLE CLASS or poor consumers live in there — MORE THIEFS MORE VANDILISIM,– Poor people with bad credit should be punished even more by paying higher insurance premiums.] The average consumer that lives below the poverty line does not have access to their credit reports, they may or may not have a computer in the home and even more to the point is not an EDUCATED CONSUMER. The elderly fall into those categories so many times due to fixed incomes and medical cost, higher utilities in the peak winter and summer months that have to make hard choices when it comes to finances. The family that went bankrupt due to CANCER invading the family on so many levels. The consumer that becomes unemployed and their score drops. The insurance companies are double dipping, you are having your cake and eating it all the way to the bank. I review accounts everyday vehicles that are STOLEN [NOT OUR OF LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS] TOTAL LOSS DUE TO ACCIDENTS ARE DUI’S THE FUNNY THING ABOUT THIS IS WHEN I LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE LOAN THE SCORES ARE 681 & ABOVE. I VERY RARELY SEE SCORES ON HUNDREDS OF ACCOUNTS I REVIEW ON A WEEKLY BASIS THE SCORES ARE LOWER. I see more stolen & recovered vehicles that risk factors are not the credit scores or where the consumer lives. It’s due to other risk factors that have nothing to do with INCOME, CREDIT SCORES OR THE NEIGHBOORHOOD. I am in the process of completing a study to BLOW THE ONE FICO CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES TO ROB CONSUMERS ON EVERY LEVEL THAT SCREAMS DISCRIMINATION… I am even more shocked at the states that allow this practice and the Federal agency that accepted the study based on the fact they did not have a study to dispute or challenge the one FICO created. My question is why didn’t the Federal agency PAY to have their own study completed. All FICO had to do was find consumers with BAD CREDIT RATINGS — find consumers with BETTER CREDIT RATINGS THAT HAD NOT FILED CLAIMS MORE OF THE GOOD THAT DID NOT FILE VERSUS SO MANY MORE OF THE BAD CREDIT RATINGS THAT DID. It’s elementary my 6 year old granddaughter could figure that out. I will see you in DC when I sit in front of the same committee — hoping this will cause every consumer that was discriminated against to file A LAW SUIT.

    • January 21, 2016 at 11:56 am
      Roland says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Wanda, you wrote, “The auto insurance industry needs more regulation.”
      I assume you mean more government regulation. But for how long has the insurance industry been regulated by government? A long, long time. Yet look at the complaints you have. Why have the compassionate “experts” in government not fixed these by now? I’ll tell you why: They are pathetic failures with no economic incentive to look out for your interests.
      Government regulation of business is a farce. Without it, companies that treated their customers badly or sold shoddy products would be dealt with severely. Consumers would stop buying from them and they would be out of business in a heartbeat. But with government regulation, the big players always gain control of the regulatory apparatus, and then can influence the regulations to put their smaller competitors at a disadvantage and even keep new sellers out of the market entirely. This is called regulatory capture, and it always happens when government tries to regulate business. You will never change it.
      Stop trusting politicians and career government paper-pushers to save you. They don’t give a hoot about you except when they need your vote. Then they’ll blabber incessantly about how they are going to punish those evil capitalists. It’s a scam.

  • March 30, 2016 at 1:06 pm
    Michael Karlis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “The designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution by the Financial Stability Oversight Council is a done deal.” Thankfully, it is not a done deal.

Add a Comment

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