As a state insurance department market conduct examiner my only observation to all concerned, Be very careful what you are asking for – it oftens happens you get more than originally thought.
Almost anything would have to be better than the confusing mess we have currently – with 50 different sets of rules & procedures & redtape. It seems to me that no matter how bad a federal bureaucracy might be, at least it would only require dealing with one mess rather than dozens.
One thing you can be sure of is that the insurance industry will make out in the long run with whatever legislation that my senator files. He is very much for business interests….the federal regulations will probably allow for \”cherry picking\” and ways to get around state regulations.. and remember, most states make regulations to protect their residents. NH recently changed their insurance regulations to roll back prior legislation that allowed insurance companies to pick & choose their clients. Many companied dropped health plans due to the triple costs and very few companies saw a savings. The new food & drug labelling issue is similar. The federal rules will override state requirements to list pertinent ingredients, etc. This is also a Senator who touts states rights and local control….check out all the insurance companies who have donated to him. He \”raised\” almost $4mil in 2002 to win the election and has raised under $400K per cycle since then…hmmm…look at those donations.
Perhaps every small business person should read \”Confessions of an Economic Hit Man\”, by John Perkins. This is another case of Banks using political spokespersons to achieve an unannounced agenda. Small businesses can only depend on the State by State maze to keep control away from the people who care not how much money they lose to get control of what they want.
Rick, almost anything would be better may be right. Anything but federal regulation. The insurance industry and state regulation are far from perfect but I can\’t fool myself enough to think that the BIG government is going to be better. On the contrary, it could be a nightmare of catasrophic proportions. No thank you.
… \”NH recently changed their insurance regulations to roll back prior legislation that allowed insurance companies to pick & choose their clients. Many companied dropped health plans due to the triple costs and very few companies saw a savings. \” …
Let\’s not confuse free enterprise insurance run by the private sector (cherry picking if you will) with government run programs like unemployment, medicaid/care, and what NH elected officials want (take all comers at one price regardless). I recall NH has had more than one insurance crisis due to socialist insurance regulations based on taxpayer \”savings\” to the point where no carrier could make a profit — any profit. Either permit a profit to be made or no carrier will do business in the State. \”Live Free or Die\” also applies to the cost of insurance.
50 state regulations cause an unbelieveable administrative load on national carriers — and that load is borne by all customers. Adopting a common regulatory (rates, rules and filings to start) environment won\’t bring roll-backs, but will control out-of-control administrative costs for such things as 50 seperate Market Conduct Study departments (who by the way in some states directly charge all their costs back to the carrier they are currently investigating – so exactly who do they work for?)
A national regulatory system will only benefit and increase competition among big carriers to see how many small guys they can squeeze out. I have to ask who is giving Sununu money for this–not the little guy. This is what has happen with the banks… The only place you can still get good service (creative financing etc. is with someone who can take the time to understand your financial needs and can analyze your risk, and not jam a square peg into a little round hole… hmm where will all the underwriters go!) are local credit unions, unless you have millions. Basically this means the little guy gets screwed… and I don\’t mean just small carriers, but anybody who has to buy Insurance.
We also know that many states make mistakes when the introduce regulations… This will happen with Federal regulation as well! And it takes a lot more money to sway the Federal politicians and there is not another competing model of regulation to point toward for change.
The state by state system is good for the varying rules and regulations that are state specific. A nationalized system would be far less efficient and much less in tune with the needs of policyholders. In addition any nationalized system would be far too politicized and subject to the whims of whomever is in the white house.
Insurance is a vast and complex industries. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country–many of whom have multiple insurance plans. It would be impossible for a federal insurance agency to not become a bloated bureaucracy that is slow to change and slow to aid policyholders.
The Federal Government has bungled far too many things to inspire any confidence in their ability to police something as complex and varied as the insurance industry.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
As a state insurance department market conduct examiner my only observation to all concerned, Be very careful what you are asking for – it oftens happens you get more than originally thought.
Almost anything would have to be better than the confusing mess we have currently – with 50 different sets of rules & procedures & redtape. It seems to me that no matter how bad a federal bureaucracy might be, at least it would only require dealing with one mess rather than dozens.
If you like the U.S. Postal Service, you\’ll LOVE nationalized insurance!
While it does seem a lot more convenient, wonder what impact it will have on carriers\’ underwriting philosphies.
One thing you can be sure of is that the insurance industry will make out in the long run with whatever legislation that my senator files. He is very much for business interests….the federal regulations will probably allow for \”cherry picking\” and ways to get around state regulations.. and remember, most states make regulations to protect their residents. NH recently changed their insurance regulations to roll back prior legislation that allowed insurance companies to pick & choose their clients. Many companied dropped health plans due to the triple costs and very few companies saw a savings. The new food & drug labelling issue is similar. The federal rules will override state requirements to list pertinent ingredients, etc. This is also a Senator who touts states rights and local control….check out all the insurance companies who have donated to him. He \”raised\” almost $4mil in 2002 to win the election and has raised under $400K per cycle since then…hmmm…look at those donations.
Perhaps every small business person should read \”Confessions of an Economic Hit Man\”, by John Perkins. This is another case of Banks using political spokespersons to achieve an unannounced agenda. Small businesses can only depend on the State by State maze to keep control away from the people who care not how much money they lose to get control of what they want.
When has the Federal Government helped you?
Rick, almost anything would be better may be right. Anything but federal regulation. The insurance industry and state regulation are far from perfect but I can\’t fool myself enough to think that the BIG government is going to be better. On the contrary, it could be a nightmare of catasrophic proportions. No thank you.
… \”NH recently changed their insurance regulations to roll back prior legislation that allowed insurance companies to pick & choose their clients. Many companied dropped health plans due to the triple costs and very few companies saw a savings. \” …
Let\’s not confuse free enterprise insurance run by the private sector (cherry picking if you will) with government run programs like unemployment, medicaid/care, and what NH elected officials want (take all comers at one price regardless). I recall NH has had more than one insurance crisis due to socialist insurance regulations based on taxpayer \”savings\” to the point where no carrier could make a profit — any profit. Either permit a profit to be made or no carrier will do business in the State. \”Live Free or Die\” also applies to the cost of insurance.
50 state regulations cause an unbelieveable administrative load on national carriers — and that load is borne by all customers. Adopting a common regulatory (rates, rules and filings to start) environment won\’t bring roll-backs, but will control out-of-control administrative costs for such things as 50 seperate Market Conduct Study departments (who by the way in some states directly charge all their costs back to the carrier they are currently investigating – so exactly who do they work for?)
A national regulatory system will only benefit and increase competition among big carriers to see how many small guys they can squeeze out. I have to ask who is giving Sununu money for this–not the little guy. This is what has happen with the banks… The only place you can still get good service (creative financing etc. is with someone who can take the time to understand your financial needs and can analyze your risk, and not jam a square peg into a little round hole… hmm where will all the underwriters go!) are local credit unions, unless you have millions. Basically this means the little guy gets screwed… and I don\’t mean just small carriers, but anybody who has to buy Insurance.
We also know that many states make mistakes when the introduce regulations… This will happen with Federal regulation as well! And it takes a lot more money to sway the Federal politicians and there is not another competing model of regulation to point toward for change.
The state by state system is good for the varying rules and regulations that are state specific. A nationalized system would be far less efficient and much less in tune with the needs of policyholders. In addition any nationalized system would be far too politicized and subject to the whims of whomever is in the white house.
Insurance is a vast and complex industries. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country–many of whom have multiple insurance plans. It would be impossible for a federal insurance agency to not become a bloated bureaucracy that is slow to change and slow to aid policyholders.
The Federal Government has bungled far too many things to inspire any confidence in their ability to police something as complex and varied as the insurance industry.