Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
UPDATE 2-Obama to urge U.S. insurance office, not regulator

by: Kevin Drawbaugh and Patrick Rucker
published: Jun 16, 2009
The Obama administration will call for a new U.S. Treasury Department office on insurance but won't propose federal regulation of the industry in the sweeping financial reform plan it will unveil on Wednesday.
The Office of National Insurance, as proposed, would monitor all aspects of the industry and flag any risks that could contribute to a future financial crisis, according to a document obtained by Reuters.

It could recommend to the Federal Reserve that large insurers be subjected to strict capital and risk rules that would apply to large financial holding companies under other aspects of the Obama plan.

And it would attempt to coordinate industry policy, but it would stop short of being a direct regulator, according to the document.

The nation's 6,000 insurers are now regulated by state and territorial governments. The industry has been divided for years about changing this. Large life insurers and some large property-casualty firms favor creating an optional federal charter.


Get Updates Via Email

Get monthly updates about the debate over an Optional Federal Charter.
Sign up Today! ... Click Here
National Regulatory Modernization for Insurers FAQ's
Would the proposals create a big new bureaucracy?
Would these national regulatory proposals increase compliance costs?
Would the creation of a national regulator help incumbent companies make larger profits?
Is an Office of Insurance Information a good idea as a precursor to a national insurance market?
What would the proposed national regulators affect state regulation? What about federalism?
Will states lose tax revenue under an Optional Federal Charter?
Would insurance companies withdraw from certain parts of the country under an OFC?
Would there be a ''race to the bottom''?
Would an OFC subject insurance companies to both federal and state laws, thus increasing the overall burden of regulation?
What is really wrong with the current state system?
Will an OFC help the development of new insurance products?
Is the insurance industry unified in its support of OFC?
Would local insurance agents go out of business under an OFC?
Supporters and opponents of an OFC both cite Illinois as an example of what the market would look like under an OFC. What is the Illinois market like?
What would an OFC do for America’s international competitiveness?
Do other developed countries have something like an OFC?
Would an OFC protect consumers from insurance fraud?
Will it confuse consumers?
Do government-set rates protect consumers?
J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America has presented a range of data showing that publicly held insurance companies are relatively safe investments and have become safer in recent years. Does this prove that the insurance industry is reaping more profits than it deserves and should not be rewarded with an Optional Federal Charter?
Does a ''revolving door'' between the industry and regulators prove that the insurance industry and the state regulatory systems are corrupt or that the insurance industry ''owns'' state regulators?
Is an OFC the only way America could liberalize its insurance markets?
What are some alternatives to an OFC?
Resources

You are Visitor #2296074 Since 2007