Boy, I asked for it.
AA&B posted a recent poll on our Web site (www.agentandbroker.com), asking our readers whether the insurance industry should be federally regulated.
Not that I didn’t suspect, but your overwhelming response was a resounding NO, with 86% voting no, 5% voting yes, and 9% saying they’d favor some joint form of federal/state regulation.
My favorite part of any poll is the free-form comments. Here’s a sampling:
“Not NO, but ‘Hell NO’!”
“The government couldn’t run the Mustang Ranch in NV selling prostitution and booze — they pushed it into bankruptcy. How can they help the insurance industry?”
“The Feds have done a terrible job at regulating banks adn securities dealers, while insurance companies have done well under state regulation. AIG is an unusual situation and did not get into trouble because of the insurance operations. Insurance companies should remain under state regulation, but be limited to what other activities they can undertake.”
“Insurance is written in response to laws passed by states. Difficult for federal control to respond to multiple variations of assorted laws.”
However, there were a few lonely supporters of some sort of federal oversight:
“State regulation is antiquated and imperfect and regulation should take the shape of creating regulatory efficiencies versus more red tape.”
“My agency’s biggest problem is the ‘multistate’ licensing issues. I don’t need a non-resident drivers license to travel across state lines!”