Pillinc buy phentermine adipex meridia online….

Cialis best price buy online. Purchase cialis online. Generic cialis apcalis price comparison….

Thus, Mr. Wilson is incorrectly thinking about his problem. He will get more competition given lower entry costs (managing 50 states), costs reductions will be transfered to consumers (nature of competition), and higher loss costs given government forcing companies to subsidized entire states that have higher costs.

A final reason why Mr. Wilson may be pushing a Fed charter is to manage the agenda versus have on hoisted upon him by economically illiterate politicians. Again he may be fooling himself. Is he really more clever than politicians? I would bet against that notion by simply appealing to the fact that there are more of them and they are actually in the game (versus just playing as a spectator).

Net, Mr. Wilson is playing a game he does not understand. On the business front he is not fully informed on the real economics of the insurance game when structure is changing. A quick look at earnings and sales suggest that Allstate is loosing profitability and share. Tom and his top leaders can't play the current game. As a political player Mr. Wilson is a neophyte. He like his mentor Mr Liddy (AIG savior) will learn politics is not business. Talk is cheap, real problems always require painful remedies.

Rent control is alive and well.

However – let me point out it was not I who said you could drive w/o insurance – it was Veritas. I think the point he was making was to shop around for acceptable subrogation clauses.

Fast forward to the present and you have the same underpinnings being expressed by Mr. Wilson. Also – as a regulated entity already – the mindset of the insurance industry in general is that this is the general accepted business model. They don't challenge the basic concept of regulation. Instead they look at how they can best operate within the regulated environment – with significant focus on gaining favor with the government regulators.

As a general rule it safe to assume that when a "business" person ask for more government intervention in their market place it is NOT for the benefit of the public as a whole.

Also one note for Truly Liberal – In most states you are required to have a minimum insurance coverage (or post a performance bond of equal value) to operate a motor vehicle. Again you cannot buy a house with a mortgage unless you also maintain an insurance policy to protect the asset in event of damage or loss. Some states now require every individual to have health insurance coverage.

(Go anarcho-Captialist! You know y'all want to!)

NY still thinks the early 1900's standard fire insurance law -accepted as something of a touchstone of enlightened regulation among statists-provides it with some sort of primacy.

The real issue driving seperate companies in NY is its status as an "extraterritorial" state-which means that it requires a company that sells anywhere to conform to NY requirements. The obvious way around this is to set up a subsidiary as libertarian actuary indicates. That's why late night guaranteed issue commercials will say policies offered by "Alpha Beta Life" and in New York, AB life.

In all my years in the insurance industry, I never received a good answer as to how a state regulating business occurring outside its borders could occur. I think there was an "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution that gave that power to the feds.

Well said.

It is the same old game, just in a different industry.

So in order for Mr. Wilson to seek a uniform federal regulator, he must have some assurance that the federal regulations will be less cumbersome than those trouble states.

Does this benefit consumers?

We can't know.

But it seems certain that large insurers will have the most say, if a federal scheme is enacted.

Regarding the National Risk Pool- this is 100% corporatist nonsense. They just don't want to pay for Reinsurance. They can easily get all the capacity they need from reinsurers, banks offering Catastrophe bonds and many other arrangements.

I would note here that most of the large national insurance companies favor both federal legislation and the federal "catastrophic backstop". Allstate (under now AIG CEO Ed Liddy) has for years asked the federal government to have a national risk pool. This shifting of risk from private to public is the property and casualty equivalent of socializing medicine. But, if Allstate could sell insurance without much risk (isn't that oxymoronic?) they would benefit immensely. Unfortunately, it would mean some guy in Iowa would have to subsidize my house (about a half mile from the Atlantic Ocean) for hurricane insurance. And that's fair…right?

For Life Insurance, most states agree and have few variations. The most pliable states tend to be small states. So, any gain from less regulation is made up for by lack of market size. Regulation matters where you are selling product more than where the company is headquartered. So competition is pretty much nill.

However, there are a few states that are major pains and hold ridiculously antiquated viewpoints. Cough, cough, New York, cough cough. So much so that the industry sets up separate companies to operate in that state so that the rest of our operations aren't needlessly harmed.

National regulations would more likely eliminate bizarre requests from a handful of state regulators. So, I suspect he's offering a rhetorical bargain where he suffers additional regulation nationally to eliminate a number of regional headaches.

What's worse? 50 different sets of rules where few are onerous, or 1 set of rules that is a little more onerous than the average of the 50?

Any business in any industry seeks regulation to erect barriers to entry.

Rent-Seeking and Regulatory-Capture are two terms that come to mind.

But if Tom Wilson and Allstate want to open a public discourse on federal regulation, whatever the outcome, THIS is a subject that needs more exposure.

Who is forcing you to buy insurance?

If you don't like the terms, don't buy the policies.

If you are injured in a car, for example, and your medical coverage runs out, you still collect from the at-fault driver's liability insurance, right? WRONG! Through subrogation, YOUR insurance co. has first claim on that liability pot, EVEN IF YOU ARE LEFT DESTITUTE as a result.

The remedy for this is the "make-whole doctrine", which varies greatly from state to state. Subrogation collections has become a profit center for the insurance industry. There are "consultant" (or Pirate) agents who assist the insurance co's. in avoiding the make-whole rule. They will even visit your bedside and threaten not to pay until you sign a waiver of make-whole.

If a national insurance regulator is ever established (which I do NOT advocate), one area that MUST be addressed is subrogation.

http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2009/4/17&name=Dilbert

I just disagreed with Don's interpretation of the actual piece itself. I didn't see Mr. Wilson seeking "stricter" regulation, but seeking a regulatory environment that he could dominate. Having one agency, federal goverment, to deal with instead of 50 would, as suggested upthread, make it easier to buy congresscritters and grease palms……cuts down on the travel expenses and maintenance of 50 seperate offices, doncha know?

I believe, like most others, that his motivation was, as Don suggested, purely to get an environment that Mr. Wilson believes his company can dominate. I believe that Mr. Wilson understands that further regulation is coming for certain, so his motivation is to channel that to his company's benefit.

Excuse me? Where did you draw from that that I'm somehow opposed to federalism. I see two potential positives:

1. the efficiency of a single regulatory structure, and
2. the competition of 50 regulatory structures.

Those two opposing forces form the basis of all tension in a federalist society. And I distinctly didn't say which I thought won out. Kevin O'Reilly brought up an excellent argument for how we can get the best of both worlds. I don't know the insurance industry, so I have no idea which is better – but if an insurer says "man it's tough to keep up with 50 different regulations", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it really is tough and regulatory capture isn't the only thing on their mind.

Yup – I guess that sort of Madisonian acknowledgement of the costs and benefits of both federal and state action really puts me in line to be Big Brother's right hand man.

Can you talk seriously about a question, S Andrews, or do you have to just pick at things?