Given the fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans can be trusted to resist the temptation to exploit the public's misunderstanding and ignorance about insurance, isn't it about time the industry formed its own party and fielded its own candidates for elective office--starting with this year's presidential race?
Face it, no matter who is in office, in Washington or the state houses, insurers are almost always the scapegoats for whatever ails a particular market.
New York Gov. David Paterson just signed a law freezing medical malpractice insurance rates--but did he freeze malpractice suits or damage awards as well? No chance.
Florida, run by supposedly business-friendly Republicans, are hammering carriers left and right about their homeowners rates, but are they stopping people from building in hurricane zones? Nope.
It goes on and on. Insurance is an easy target with deep pockets. No one understands how insurance works or appreciates how critical it is in their daily lives until a claim occurs.
So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I suggest the industry launch an Insurance Party and field its own national and local slates.
At the very least, having candidates running for office will increase the media exposure given to the industry, which currently commands the spotlight only when insurers do something "bad."
Election coverage would give insurers, agents and brokers a chance to put a public face on the industry, as well as an opportunity to talk about all the good insurers do, and how they help society recover from minor losses to the worst of catastrophes.
A number of producers are already serving in state legislatures. Why not Congress? Or the White House???
You might say people wouldn't believe what the Insurance Party's candidates tell them. Perhaps, but I can't imagine insurers having any less credibility than your run of the mill politician, can you? And maybe voters and reporters will actually learn something about the industry and realize all that insurers contribute to their communities.
There are some fine insurance candidates out there for President, in any case. How about Alex Soto, former president of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America? Or Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana who is now president of the American Insurance Association? Or Bob Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, the industry's most articulate spokesman and most passionate defender?
Do you have anyone else in mind? Nominate them here and now! The more, the merrier!
Of course, even if the industry managed to form its own party, it would no doubt implode at the first national convention. After all, the industry--seen as a monolith by the public and many politicians--is split on key issues.
Could you imagine the Insurance Party Platform Committee battle over state versus federal regulation? A national catastrophe fund? Combining flood with wind coverage? Whether to permit or ban broker contingency fees? It could get ugly in a hurry.
What do you folks think?
Comments (6)
As long as 56 of the U.S. Senate chairs are stuffed with lawyers, along another 174 (40%) of the U.S. House of Representative chairs, there would appear to be little chance that even guys like Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman could make much of an impact. I mean, the Republicans controlled the both houses of Congress for 12 years, and there was not even a whiff of tort reform.
Then there is the compliant press. Who knew Dickie Scruggs was Trent Lott's brother-in-law until the former got caught doing what he had always done? Maybe you knew, but few of us out here in corn country heard or read about it--it would have been good to know.
Great topics lately--and yes, I have the links to the above numbers.
SAM RESPONDS:
I think you're forgetting that in 2005 Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act, which makes it easier to remove class-action lawsuits from state court into federal court. This cuts down on venue shopping by plaintiff attorneys, and limits abuse in what some tort reform groups call "judicial hellholes."
I'm not sure which media you've been following, but we always reported the Scruggs-Lott connection, and many mainstream media reports I saw did the same. It was no secret.
That said, your main point about lawyers controlling Congress is valid. But since these people are "lawmakers," who better to make the law than lawyers?
CHARLIE GETS THE LAST WORD:
My point on the Scruggs/Lott issue was that the fact these two ner'do wells were brothers-in-law should have been been publicized before Scruggs' illegal behavior became an issue. And, when I talk about media, I am not including insightful, insurance-related periodicals like NU.
As for lawyers making law, the answer to your question would be almost anybody--lawyers have certainly have made a mess of things to this point. Maybe, for the good of the order, they should stick to practicing it.
Posted by Charlie | August 27, 2008 8:34 AM
Posted on August 27, 2008 08:34
Sadly, the industry is its own worst enemy. The bad press that the property-casualty industry gets is sometimes well deserved.
Trying to get a politial party formed would be the death knoll for it, as the backlash would be tremendous. Imagine the opposition using phrases like, "If you vote for the Insurance Party, you are opening the door for more rate increases and less coverage."
While I agree that Alex Soto, Marc Racicot or Bob Hartwig would be very good choices, they would have their lunch eaten by the pros.
The worst thing that could ever happen is to have some current or former insurance comissioner in there. These comissioners have had 30 years to get their act together on issues like licensing, reports, etc., and have yet to make any real progress.
Too many of them only use the position to make headway to other elected offices, or use it as part of their resume for other endeavors.
I have no need for them when it comes to trying to resolve the issues, as each are so scared of giving up some of their fifedom. It is sad.
Get rid of the bean-crunchers who run the companies. Get back the professionals who understand the business, and maybe try to educate the public about insurance, and things would get better for this industry.
Posted by JR | August 27, 2008 8:58 AM
Posted on August 27, 2008 08:58
I would think that evaluating this idea from the point of view of the Profit & Loss statement (as insurers do with everything else), then they should really go for it.
Think of all the money the industry would save in lobbying and graft money!
And how could the public argue with that? Lower expenses for insurers are always passed along to the policyholders right? LOL.
And just think of all the great regulations we could "modernize" once we are in charge. Boy, this could really be a boon to "competition" in the insurance market!
It's the public that would benefit! We only have their best interests in mind!
Wow, Sam. That's rich.
Posted by Insured Consumer | August 27, 2008 9:11 AM
Posted on August 27, 2008 09:11
As long as we are tongue in cheek, would you, Sam, agree to run with me as my VP running mate?
SAM RESPONDS:
I assume you mean for the newly launched Insurance Consumer Party, created to counterbalance the nefarious Insurance Party?
Either way, as a journalist, I prefer to stay in the press box and report on your calls to reform the insurance industry!
Posted by Bob Hunter, Consumer Federation of America | August 27, 2008 9:20 AM
Posted on August 27, 2008 09:20
It is a funny idea!
Company presidents and insurance commissioners may represent themselves as being from the insurance field, but have never worked as insurance agents or brokers. They only know the numbers, and what to do to move the numbers in their favor--not what the public wants and needs.
Most of these representatives never handled a claim or served a client in need!
We don't need more fools running for office. We need people who want to help our country and give people a fair chance at success.
Posted by Joe Sanders | August 27, 2008 9:30 AM
Posted on August 27, 2008 09:30
One point that could be taken from your jest is that we are in need of an alternative to the two parties currently in power, since both will go so far as to abandon their own principles in favor of demonizing a private industry to score points with potential voters.
Of the alternative parties currently in existance, which one(s) would a) take more of a laissez faire approach to insurance regulation, and b) with the backing of the insurance industry plus its current party membership, would have enough influence on an election to make the other two parties take notice in this era of close national elections?
The Libertarians, perhaps?
Posted by Greg | August 27, 2008 3:46 PM
Posted on August 27, 2008 15:46