The “article” I just read would appear to be an unpaid advertisement, not an unbiased article. The source of the “article” was the AIA itself and I find it amazing how every time the OFC is mentioned the adjective modernized is slapped in front of it. State based regulation is not perfect, but it is just as modernized as ANY federal regulator will be. Additionally, we have seen how great FEMA, Medicare (CMS) and other federal insurance programs have been. Federal regulation is just a dream for large insurance companies to elminate consumer advocacy and real regulation of thier market practices under the guise of some monolithic regulator who has no understanding of local needs, issues or consumers. I for one dread the day any federal regulator of insurance is authorized!
Disagree with the comment. We all should know the top regulatory items for planning. Understanding how the trades have priotized their annual agenda is very important in this regard (that includes PCI, NAMIC, IIABA etc.).
I agree, we should have access to the priorities of the various trades. I appreciate how the Insurance Journal provides us access to that information.
What I don’t appreciate is when an apparent “article” is published, which looks like a news article, but is actually propaganda from a trade. If you didn’t notice the little, Source: AIA, at the very bottom, you very easily could have thought that it had been written by a journalist, not the AIA itself. What I am suggesting isn’t that the AIA (or any trade) be censored, but rather their articles be written in a manner of providing their opinion and agenda in a clear manner, or disclaimed from the beginning that the following information is the opinion and agenda of a particular organization. This way the reader can have a better understanding of the biases included in the article, again, not thinking they are reading a “journalistic” article or unbiased journalism.
Another way could be to list the article as a news release, much the same way the Insurance Journal denotes “Commentary”, this way the reader knows up front the type of information they are reading.
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.
The “article” I just read would appear to be an unpaid advertisement, not an unbiased article. The source of the “article” was the AIA itself and I find it amazing how every time the OFC is mentioned the adjective modernized is slapped in front of it. State based regulation is not perfect, but it is just as modernized as ANY federal regulator will be. Additionally, we have seen how great FEMA, Medicare (CMS) and other federal insurance programs have been. Federal regulation is just a dream for large insurance companies to elminate consumer advocacy and real regulation of thier market practices under the guise of some monolithic regulator who has no understanding of local needs, issues or consumers. I for one dread the day any federal regulator of insurance is authorized!
Disagree with the comment. We all should know the top regulatory items for planning. Understanding how the trades have priotized their annual agenda is very important in this regard (that includes PCI, NAMIC, IIABA etc.).
Pat,
I agree, we should have access to the priorities of the various trades. I appreciate how the Insurance Journal provides us access to that information.
What I don’t appreciate is when an apparent “article” is published, which looks like a news article, but is actually propaganda from a trade. If you didn’t notice the little, Source: AIA, at the very bottom, you very easily could have thought that it had been written by a journalist, not the AIA itself. What I am suggesting isn’t that the AIA (or any trade) be censored, but rather their articles be written in a manner of providing their opinion and agenda in a clear manner, or disclaimed from the beginning that the following information is the opinion and agenda of a particular organization. This way the reader can have a better understanding of the biases included in the article, again, not thinking they are reading a “journalistic” article or unbiased journalism.
Another way could be to list the article as a news release, much the same way the Insurance Journal denotes “Commentary”, this way the reader knows up front the type of information they are reading.