Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (3869)	1/14/2008 12:52:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Of course insurance companies love to sell policies in states other than NYS where THEY can determine who they want to insure Generally businesses like to be able to determine who they do business with. And generally letting them have this ability is a good thing.

To: John Koligman who wrote (3869)	1/16/2008 9:16:02 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

I hate to be redundant but this explains the problem with your argument: guaranteed issue "blocks people from access to health insurance. Anything that makes a service unavailable tends to cause frustration. Calling for more government intervention to fix a problem caused by government intervention does not seem efficient to me." OTOH this is a profound statement of yours: insurance companies love to sell policies So why would anyone want to Balkanize the market to make it difficult for insurers to find profitable niches that are not economically viable in individual state markets?

To: John Koligman who wrote (3869)	4/16/2008 9:19:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The Forgotten Financial Sector By ED ROYCE April 16, 2008; Page A18 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson recently released a proposal that he hoped would jump-start a debate about how to improve federal oversight of the financial services industry. While part of his proposal was aimed at the current economic turmoil, most of the plan focuses on bringing our regulatory model into the 21st century. Today, the House Financial Services Committee will join that debate with hearings on how to overhaul insurance regulation. Now is as good a time as any to begin this discussion. Along with our overactive trial bar and anticompetitive corporate tax rate, excessive regulation is the major factor deterring companies from listing on U.S. stock exchanges. Nowhere is over-regulation more apparent than in the insurance industry. Because of a Supreme Court decision nearly 140 years ago, the states have sole regulatory authority of insurance. What has resulted since is a bureaucratic cluster of 51 different regulators (every state, plus the District of Columbia) overseeing their individual jurisdictions, punishing American consumers and insurance providers alike. Take, for instance, product development. A company looking to introduce a new product throughout the country has to get approval from every regulator. All have their own approval process, so the national rollout of a new product often takes months, if not years. It should come as no surprise that the last major personal line, property/casualty product to be introduced nationwide was homeowners' insurance in 1959. Additionally, while the federal government's price controls collapsed in failure when President Richard Nixon tried them in the 1970s, they live on in state capitols throughout the country. With the exception of Illinois, every state subjects property and casualty insurance products to varying degrees of government price controls. This prevents companies from setting actuarially sound rates, and reduces the number of products available to their customers. Above and beyond the bureaucratic delays, today's fragmented regulatory model means that there is limited insurance expertise at the federal level. Whether it is in response to a financial shock like the one we have seen in the municipal bond insurance sector, or in formulating tax policy or negotiating free trade agreements, there is no formal representation for insurance carriers or their policyholders within the federal government. At least the banking and securities industries have a seat at the table, via the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, when these issues are debated. Mr. Paulson called for the creation of an optional federal charter (OFC) for property/casualty and life insurers, reinsurers, and insurance agents and brokers. This option is geared toward more efficient, not simply additional, regulation. By providing an alternative to the state-based oversight, an OFC would establish a national regulator for the industry and diminish the ability for state regulators to manipulate the market. As a result, American consumers would be on the receiving end of a more effective system. The nonprofit American Consumer Institute recently found that the cost of excessive regulation at the state level is $13.7 billion annually – paid for by insurance buyers through higher premiums. A central tenet of an OFC would be consumer protection. Policyholders will benefit from an increased number of products at lower rates. They will also benefit from more centralized regulation geared toward protecting buyers against bad actors, and toward making sure companies have the ability to meet their claim obligations. While the inclusion of an OFC for insurance in the Treasury's report was a major step in the right direction, we are still lagging behind Europe in the insurance arena. The European Union is close to passing a directive, known as Solvency II, which would overhaul the insurance regulatory structure in 27 countries. Solvency II offers a real chance to harmonize Europe's regulatory authority. Unfortunately, the completion of Solvency II could spell trouble for U.S. insurers. Because Congress has failed to establish a regulatory equivalent here in the U.S., many of our companies may face significant burdens overseas. A regulator representing the entire EU will be reluctant to grant access to their market when the company in question is overseen by a nonsovereign state regulator. This will force U.S. companies to set up shop within the EU, or risk not being granted access to the broader market. Our tangled bureaucracy will continue to threaten the ability of American firms to operate overseas. There are many interested parties around the world hoping the Paulson report will help convince Congress to move our insurance regulatory model forward. If we fail to do so, our insurance providers will continue operating at a competitive disadvantage. And their customers will continue to pay the price of excessive regulation. Mr. Royce (R., Calif.) is a member of the House Financial Services Committee and a co-author of the National Insurance Act. online.wsj.com