A number of newspapers are using a "truth meter" approachto the proclamations of national and local politicians, rating whathas been stated as truth, mostly true, half true, mostly false, orso false it is rated "pants on fire." There are a good manystatements made about and by the insurance industry which ought to undergo such metering aswell. In some cases, it is advertisements in the mainstream orindustry media that should be tested; in most it is politicalstatements that warrant a veracity check.

My old Irish father often said, "If you believe everything youhear, you will eat everything you see." While his comments wereprimarily directed toward some delicacies such as snails, tripe,and edible weeds, the bodacious eaters on the TravelChannel would have one believing that one can thrive oneverything from roaches and rats to monkey tail stew. What the poorpeople in famine-struck areas of the world eat would nauseate mostof us, but it may be all they have. However, if they consumed thetypical American diet of hot dogs, bacon burgers, and cola, then itwould probably kill them just as it is killing us. The governmentis constantly updating what we need for a good nourishing meal, andit surely is not that. Its recommendations rate a "mostlytrue."

However, why do we need the government to tell us what to eat ornot eat? Are we like the tour guide my wife and I had on aScandinavian tour who said, "Vee are vaiting for our government totell us vut to tink?" I could not imagine an American saying, "Weare waiting for Washington to tell us what to think." That would belike waiting for a jury to tell the court what is truth. One doesnot find truth in court cases; one finds only what factsmay influence a decision when the case is adversarial. If it wasnot adversarial, then it would not be in court. On the contrary, weneed to tell Washington what to think or do. Because of a lack ofaction recently, we may need to do more than tell them. We need toremind the government that most of the time its pants are on fire,and it needs to start seeking the truth.

1. Federal insurance regulation is preferable to stateregulation: probably false.

Consider, for example, the (currently inactive) movement to havethe federal government assume regulation of insurance. It was the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Actthat gave the states the right to regulate insurance—as long asthey did so. They have. Since Congress has a hard time even gettingaround to extending the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), atleast beyond a few months, imagine how slow the industry would beif it had federal rather than state regulation. At least with moststate regulators the prospect of approaching reelections keeps thembusy, usually benefiting both insureds and insurers. Insuredsobtain some protection against unjust rates, and insurers receive afew perks that their lobbyists have been seeking.

The benefit of state regulation is evident inour system of adversarial law. Locate any court decision in anygiven state, or even any federal jurisdiction, and you will find anexact opposite decision in another state or jurisdiction. Even whenthe U.S. Supreme Court pontificates, many states still go their ownway. State jurisdiction over employee benefit programs subject tothe Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was abolishedin favor of the federal courts. Has it made employee benefitsdisputes better or claims easier to resolve? Different approachesby different state courts can be viewed as the American way ofjurisprudence. Any suggestions that Congress and federal courts cando it better rates a "half truth" to "probably false" on myveracity meter.

2. "Flood" should be a covered peril under homeowners'forms: probably true.

One subject that is likely to raise its pretty head againfollowing Hurricane Irene is the notion of making "flood" astandard peril under homeowners and commercial property forms. Timeafter time the media shows us blubbering homeowners or shopkeeperswith their stuff piled in the gutter professing ruination as theyhad no flood insurance. Well, they did not think they were in aflood plain. Neither do I, but I want to buy flood insurance. Iwould prefer including that covered peril in my homeowners' policy,as it would then include additional living expense, which anNFIP policy does not.

We all certainly would pay a bit more for our property coveragesif flood was included, but is that not what the concept ofinsurance is all about—spreading the risk? As it is, you and I haveto pay for all of those non-insureds who have built in flood plainsthrough our taxes. This year, FEMA says it is almost broke from allthe billion dollar disasters of 2011. I do not live near a volcano,but have to pay for "volcanic eruption" coverage in my homeowners'policy. I doubt the roof on my Florida condo will cave in from theweight of ice, sleet or snow, but I pay for that too, as do all theinsured people in Florida, New Orleans and other flood-proneareas.

Flood is considered an "uninsurableperil," yet it is already a covered peril in our auto physicaldamage coverage, so why not add the house and the store and theoffice? It would be better than the "all or nothing" of excludingwater damage—all that does is create litigation. There are somereasons to not add flood to homeowners and commercial propertyforms, but they are weak reasons. I rate this one probablytrue.

3. "Global warming" is a liberal plot byenvironmentalists: pants on fire.

There have been doubters for decades, and now we have them inCongress and even running for President. "No such thing as'globalwarming,'" they rant. "Show us the proof." If a picture isworth a thousand words, then a picture of a largely ice-free ArcticOcean all the way to the North Pole should do it. The insuranceindustry is definitely among the believers, and most insurers havealready started making plans for what to do when the ocean watersrise and the climate continues to create the crazy weather patternswe have all experienced in 2011. If you think rates are high now,just wait. The hotter it gets, the higher they will go.

Yes, tree-hugging environmentalists and pro-clean air lawadvocates can be vociferous at times, but failure to recognize thatCO2 emissions are causing the climate to change is pure stupidity,regardless of how many television meteorologists suggest otherwise.There is a difference between weather andclimate, and it is climate change that is going to meltthe ice caps and mountain glaciers and put New York City under tenfeet or more of water. The Department of the Interior's NationalPark System suggests that all the glaciers in Glacier National Parkwill be gone within 20 years. Thankfully, I have been there twiceto see them—if you have not, better hurry. Unfortunately theclimate is heating up, and for those who doubt, their pants willsoon be on fire, at least on my meter.

4. "The scalpel performed thesurgery:" partly true.

For decades, I have suggested that while technology is a greattool, it is also hazardous if we come to rely too much upon it.Just recently there was discussion that airline pilots areforgetting how to fly the big jet aircrafts because the computerconfigures all but about three minutes of the flight. If thecomputer detects an emergency and rings an alarm, then the pilotsmay have forgotten what to do. This was the apparent reasoningbehind the crash of an Air France Airbus over the Atlantic Ocean,and a small airliner near Buffalo, N.Y.

A recent poll revealed that people who read the New YorkTimes in print form remembered more of the news stories thanthose who had read the exact same stories on the New YorkTimes' website. As our schools (and the claims industry) arenow headed toward the elimination of textbooks in favor ofcomputerized learning and e-books, what might this bit of newssuggest? Can "technology"adjust insurance claims? Can a robot perform surgery?

The answer appears to be a qualified yes. Atlanta's St. JosephHospital is now the home of the International College of RoboticSurgery. Using what is called the da Vinci® Surgical System, anincreasing list of surgeries are performed by surgeons usingrobotic arms, scalpels and fingers. But what about adjusting? Itseems that some of us can also be replaced by technological devicesand systems – software can now think as well as many in the claimsbusiness. So, if you like your job, then you better be able tothink faster than a robot. Otherwise, you may not be employed formuch longer. I hate to admit that this is partly true. But do notresign yet—for the serious claim, the eyes, ears, and brains of alive adjuster will still be needed, just as much as the skilledhands of a surgeon.

5. It is dangerous to drive and text:absolutely true.

The grim statistics of vehicle-related fatalities (drivers,passengers, and pedestrians) are that of the roughly 49,000 deathsthat occur annually, around 37 percent are due to intoxication ordrug use (mostly alcohol), but a surprising 28 percent are due todistracteddrivers. This driving and phoning issue gets my goat. We havebecome the phone-y generation.

Yet, I also wonder why the auto insurance industry has not takensome action, like suing cell phone providers or the makers of thephones, berries, pods, and other gizmos for excluding warninglabels on products, or devising technology that would prevent usein a vehicle. Why do we see those goofy ads by one particularinsurer showing three stupid idiots doing stupid things with theirgadgets, instead of an ad warning that the insurer might put anexclusion in a policy that if the accident is caused by distractionby an electronic device, then the policy will be void. That wouldget somebody's attention. Warren Buffet may be a brilliantbusinessman, but if I were him then I would kick the advertisingagency's butt. At least that Aussie lizard says somethingintelligent now and then. As a reader, you may agree or disagreewith my truth-meter ratings. That is good; I want to hear opposingviews (and even agreeable views, if any). If I were to honestlyrate myself, then I would probably not be an "absolute truth." Ioften must rely on statistics for my columns, and we know howunreliable those can be…"pants on fire." Or, maybe "mostly true."What do you think?