According to today’s (April 30) Congressional Quarterly journal: “Congressional Democrats appear increasingly determined to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of a health care overhaul, despite warnings by Republicans, business groups and insurers that doing so would mean the end of employer-sponsored health insurance.”

The write-up posted on the subscription-only website was in response to a letter drafted by 15 Democrat senators and one independent that was directed to Democrat Senators Edward Kennedy and Max Baucus, who chair the committees writing health care overhaul language into 2010 budget legislation that would provide for “a public plan option.” Since the House approved budget reconciliation rules in their version of the 2010 budget.

According to The Hill newspaper, the letter to Kennedy and Baucus came a day after “more than 100 liberal House Democrats, represented by the Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian-Pacific American Caucus, sent a similar letter to House leaders.”

While most Republicans say the plan will find most employers will opt out of private insurance and go to the public plan, that payments to doctors would be lower and would lead to a dearth of physicians, and that ultimately our country could see a rationing of health care, at least one columnist, writing for the Washington Examiner, thinks that Sen. Kennedy is actually playing right into the hands of the health insurers with his proposal.

Okay, so the headline is a bit of a ploy in that Steven Earhart, president of NAIFA-Greater Philadelphia, hasn’t really found a “magic bullet” to stop the onslaught of state taxes aimed at death benefit payments that appear on the horizon.

But his sentiments in his most recent communication to the NAIFA-GP membership echoes a mantra I have been repeating for years: The best defense against an intrusive goverment that seeks to diminish the service and products we offer is to have a strong, vibrant agent assocation that can effectively lobby our state and federal legislators. Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t believe me? Read this Huffington Post blog article and see it for yourself.

The top “thinker” at the Insurance Information Institute believes that those insuring workers, property and liability risks could see an influx of business, if the goal of recent economic stimulus funding comes to fruition; namely, increased employment.

According to an article posted on IFAwebnews.com, Robert Hartwig said that creating 3.5 million new jobs would be a boon to private workers’ compensation carriers.

However, he noted a minor problem — the recession — that might put a little wrinkle in those big government plans.

Congressional Democrats are making no bones about it: President Obama’s health care legislation will pass, and any Republicans standing in the way will find themselves unable to do much other than complain, according to the Associated Press.

Health care “reform” is part of a wider budget package, which Democrats have vowed to pass in celebration of the president’s first 100 days in office. Proper debate and investigation be damned, say the Democrats; they want to give the president a victory during to mark his first 100 days (huge bailouts have proven to not be so popular or “victorious”), and this plan to add another $500 billion to the national deficit is just the way to do it, they contend.

While Obama and Democrats say they want a bipartisan bill, Republicans — and at least one Democrat — don’t see the bill as bipartisan, due to the “fast-track” approach that Democrats are taking.

“When you jam something down somebody’s throat, it’s not sustainable,” said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.

According to the New York Times, Democrats in Congress are trying to craft the bill to virtually ensure that Republicans have no say in what is in the legislation, or if it passes.

IFAwebnews.com reports that The Hartford is seeking suitors for its property-casualty unit, which could signal a break up of the company.

The Pennsylvania Association of Health Underwriters (PAHU), the state chapter of the National Assocaition of Health Underwriters (NAHU) recently sent an email to members outlining the organization’s stance on a number of legislative issues, including its concern that the role of the health insurance agent is not fully realized by many consumers or governmental leaders. What follows is the text of that email. Read the rest of this entry »

This opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal spells it all out. Democrats in Congress are poised to create a national health care plan that will effectively put agents and brokers out of business.

Recently in the New York Times, Ramesh Ponnuru, a national editor for the National Review, offers a good, comprehensive argument against universal health coverage, zeroing in on the most complex and nettlesome issue: What is adequate coverage?

“To mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, as many have suggested, would require that the government specify what constitutes adequate coverage - in other words, what health conditions an insurance policy would need to cover,” Ponnuru writes. “Every provider group with a lobbyist, from massage therapists to fertility specialists, would want in. The result would be expensive insurance policies and costly government subsidies to help people buy them. Young and healthy people, especially, would be forced to overpay. So we would end up with more cost-shifting, and no savings.”

IFAwebnews.com reports that the property/casualty insurance industry could be in for some turbulent times, with a hardening market brought about by a recession that could see a diminishing supply of insurance, but also a diminishing demand for insurance.

Ohio attorney Kevin LaCroix penned an interesting and intuitive – if a bit scholarly — blog about the study that was the basis for the article. Read his blog here.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government may add to its never-ending list of those receiving TARP money: life insurers.

Among those mentioned as possible recipients of taxpayer largess: Hartford, Genworth, Lincoln, Prudential and MetLife.

The prospect of a national “czar” for insurance regulation is again rearing its ugly head, according to a recent article posted on IFAwebnews.com. The comprehensive story lays out arguments both pro and con for a bill that has been introduced in Congress to authorize an Office of National Insurance.

I have made it known that I am no fan of federal regulation of just about anything, unless it involves an issue of public safety or trade that is not already addressed by the states. In the case of insurance, state-based regulation has worked just fine, thank you very much. Read the rest of this entry »

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California’s insurance commissioner have a dilemma on their hands: A workers compensation rating advisory panel has suggested that worker comp rates in the state be increased by nearly 25%, but as one of the Top 10 economies of the world, California is already in economic crisis mode.

The premium rate increase was reported by the Los Angeles Times.

It is an especially dicey situation, as the governor — who has no authority over such increases — has already stepped into the fray. And Commissioner Steve Poizner is poised to run for governor next year, making any action on his part appear to be politically motivated.

A study has shown that health care costs for injured workers rose by 27% this year, so the facts are on the insurers’ side.

However, a rate increase of such magnitude in today’s economy could be a hardship that has a severe impact on already struggling employers, not to mention a quandary for agents and brokers who have to relay news of a massive premium increase to their commercial clients.

The life settlement industry only runs when it has money to buy policies, and like other industries, those funds in many cases have dried up.

But at least one expert believes that investors who seek safety — and a sure return on their money — will turn toward life settlements, as reported in this IFAwebnews.com story.

(Sung to the tune of the Bud Light commercials)

Mr. CEO of Bollinger Insurance Solutions
At a time when everyone is worried about their pay,
You could have taken a $500,000 payment and invested it,
Socked it away or reequipped your theater room.
But no, no, no,
You gave it in the one true commodity that continues to provide value
Again, and again, and again.
Your employees!
Real Insurance Hero
Mr. CEO of Bollinger Insurance.