The presidential debate is getting bogged down in a petty dispute over which candidate has enough “experience” to run the country, which in reality obscures the most important point of this election–what direction will the person elected actually take on any number of key policy questions? The same issues dominate the argument over whether the revolving door between state insurance departments and the industry being regulated should be slammed shut.
The other day, I ran a post from Steve Piontek, editor of NU's life and health insurance weekly, about how shameless regulators have become in negotiating lucrative gigs in the business while they are still regulating it. Steve called for a two-year ban on any insurance industry employment for any of its regulators.
Some who responded to that post brought up the same, old argument about how you need someone who completely understands the industry to regulate it. I frankly think that's a bunch of hooey, just as I believe the entire “experience” debate in the presidential race is a smokescreen to steer voter attention away from what matters most–what the candidates will actually DO once in office.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
