Coalition Seeks a Federal Insurance Regulator

New York Times ^ | June 15 2004 | Joseph B Treaster

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Frustrated by the sluggishness and inconsistencies of state regulation, 135 insurance companies, agencies, banks and financial services trade groups urged Congress yesterday to establish a federal regulator for the insurance industry.

In a letter to Senators Richard C. Shelby, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Paul S. Sarbanes, the ranking Democrat on the panel, the insurers and bankers complained of the burden of having to comply with regulators in 50 states, saying it was a very costly system that "provides no advantage to the consumer."

The shortcomings of state regulation have been underscored in the last year by investigations that have revealed improper practices - from bid-rigging to manipulating share prices - by some of the largest insurers and brokers. The first disclosures of improprieties came from the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who has gone on to develop the biggest cases.

The proposal would not eliminate state regulation but would permit companies to choose whether they wanted to be regulated from Washington or their home states. It was expected that adoption of the plan would significantly reduce the influence of state regulators...

(Continued on NY Times site)

[M. Dodge Thomas]

IMO if you want to understand why "Federalism" recently stalled out in the Supreme Court, you are looking at one of the major reasons: corporations operating across state (and national) boundaries often much prefer Federal to state regulation of most business practices. (The major exception is labor law, and even in this case corporate opinion may be changing; for example the CEO of Federal Express recently listed the "hassle" of doing business in the US due to the lack of "national labor laws" as a reason US business finds it difficult to compete internationally.)

[tahiti]

the insurers and bankers complained of the burden of having to comply with regulators in 50 states, saying it was a very costly system that "provides no advantage to the consumer."

I would safely say the "very costly" means the insurers and bankers expend money to comply with the regulations.

With that being the case, consider the following:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[January 24, 2000]

Justice Stevens, concurring.

"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Amendment V

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If I was the CEO of an "insurers and bankers" I would quit complying with the regulations until my institution was compensated for the taking for the public use because otherwise the regulations are unconstitutional.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

If I was the CEO of an "insurers and bankers" I would quit complying with the regulations until my institution was compensated for the taking for the public use because otherwise the regulations are unconstitutional.

Interesting you should bring that up - just the other day I was telling the judge:

"Your honor, I was going 70 miles and hour in a school zone, but the constitution is on my side.

Money is property, Justice Stevens even said so.

And as everyone knows, "Time is money".

So time is property, and I'm not complying with the speed limits until the government compensates me for "taking" the time I lose by complying with traffic regulations, because otherwise the speed limits are unconstitutional."

And - can you believe it - the old fool just fined me $250, and told me I was an idiot.

[an amused spectator]

And - can you believe it - the old fool just fined me $250, and told me I was an idiot.

You should have worn your black clown suit, to let him know that you were a member of the club...