The leading figure in state regulation and the head of a major insurance industry trade group pushing for optional federal charters will meet face-to-face in a “Great Debate” over state versus federal regulation next month in Las Vegas, with a national Webcast rematch set for September, with both events moderated by yours truly. Read on for details, and feel free to suggest any questions you might want me to raise.
The debates will pit Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who is president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, against American Insurance Association President Marc Racicot, former governor of Montana.
The live debate--to be held on Aug. 4--kicks off the National Insurance Industry Convention and Expo at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas. (For more information about the NIICE event, click here.)
If you cannot be in Las Vegas, the two will have a shorter, but no less lively debate for a national audience as the keynote event at NU’s second annual Virtual Conference on Sept. 25. Details on how to log on for the Web event will be released soon.
This debate takes on added urgency, with Congress this fall considering whether to set up a federal Insurance Information Office as the first step in a transition to an optional federal charter.
NAIC has offered conditional support to creation of an IIO, but opposes federal chartering.
AIA has long called for an optional federal charter, although other associations in the industry are more skeptical, or even hostile to the charter idea.
What questions do you folks think I should ask?
Comments (2)
A suggestion for a question or area to explore:
Some contracts insurance cover risks that exist solely or almost solely within a single state (e.g., most personal risks and those of small local businesses) while others cover risks that exist or arise in multiple states and even outside of the USA (e.g., businesses with operations or property in more than one state).
Might it make sense to divide the regulatory responsibility accordingly--i.e, that with respect to insurance contracts covering risks arising only in a single state, sellers and carriers be subject to regulation by that state; while those that sell contracts covering risk in more than one state be subject to federal regulation rather than the simultaneous regulation of multiple state?
For example, if a carrier sells workers' comp insurance to an employer with workers in both NY and NJ, and does so by selling two separate policies covering the liabilities under the two separate WC laws, the carrier and its producer would be subject to the insurance laws and regulations of both states, separately as respects each contract.
However, if the carrier sells a single policy to cover the employer's WC law liabilities of the two states simultaneously, the insurance issues about carrier solvency, carrier and producer licenses, insurance rates and rating rules, forms, market conduct and claims adjusting practices would be subject only to federal regulation, due to the interstate nature of the contract.
Posted by Mikk | July 25, 2008 8:42 AM
Posted on July 25, 2008 08:42
I don't get why anyone would want to be regulated by the federal government. These are, after all, the people who manage our country now.
Are the borders and immigration well controlled? Do we get involved with one-off wars without feedback from Congress?
Do we have flourishing federally supervised financial institutions and banks? Are imported and domestic food and crops safe to eat? Is there plenty of energy? Are drugs controlled? Is medicine safe? Are federal taxes fair, rational and carefully spent?
Do the advocates of a centralized federal authority think the state regulation of insurance or reinsurance they sell to state consumers will go away?
Do they suppose that to concentrate power in Washington will serve to enhance their wishes and need to dominate a fractured insurance market through laws? By the way, I think those days are pretty much over.
Do they really believe that state regulation including assessments, data calls, pools and special funds will be eliminated? Premium taxes?
How will federal oversight protect an insurer from state attorney generals banding together and regulating through expedient lawsuits, particularly in health care?
Finally, I think the states are doing a very good and fair job of it. Generally.
The U.S. insurance regulatory enviornment will never resemble that now in Europe or the European Union, with a centralized and well cared for regulatory bureaucracy.
Posted by Robert Holland | August 1, 2008 12:06 PM
Posted on August 1, 2008 12:06