Tony Ondrusek, Publisher

The National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors (NAIFA) sees no problem with bringing to an end the era of the independent insurance agent.

Or so it must seem, after NAIFA recently presented its opinion on a proposed Optional Federal Charter, which is now closer to reality following the Bush Administration’s pronouncement that it will seek to overhaul the insurance industry. Such an overhaul would in effect make state insurance regulation secondary to a federal insurance “czar,” making it easier for large agencies to grow and expand like a supernova, leaving smaller, independent agents hawking their products on street corners the way the unemployed sold apples for a penny during the Great Depression.

Certainly, growing a business and prospering is the foundation of the American economic system — the publisher of this news website and corresponding print publications seeks growth and profit from business operations — but doing so with the blessing and aid of the federal government and to the ultimate detriment and possible elimination of competition takes the concept of a regulatory “tune-up” a bit too far.

Perhaps NAIFA is too cozy with major carriers — again, those who contribute to the bottom line of this website’s publishing company — and cares little for its ultimate end-users, those in the agent community.

Perhaps it sees dealing with multiple carriers and providers, some of whom will stay with state regulation and some of whom will go with an OFC — and the subsequent confusion — as acceptable.

Perhaps NAIFA believes that the benefit of the consumer to go directly to a state agency to seek local action when confronted with problems such as fraud and unfair business practices is an antiquated and quaint notion, but not a benefit that today’s consumer should feel entitled to.

Perhaps NAIFA believes that federal agencies such as the IRS, Medicare and Medicaid, the Social Security Administration, et al, are the finest examples of efficiency and consumer friendliness, and that the insurance industry should be regulated in much the same way.

Or maybe the PCA, a property/casualty association, has it right when it states that the best way to regulate insurance is to fix a system that has been in place for nearly 130 years, and to make that system stronger and better able to remedy its ills, thereby preserving the independent agency system.

NAHU (National Association of Health Underwriters) has yet to weigh in on the subject, and informed sources say that expecting that group to take a position is like standing in the backyard at night and expecting to see Hailey’s Comet; don’t expect any action on that front for years or even decades.

Doctors, lawyers, dentists, plumbers, restaurateurs, auto mechanics, service station owners, public utility companies, retailers, landscapers, massage therapists, and even Dairy Queen franchise owners work under a state regulatory system, and do so successfully.

Why should the independent insurance agent not be allowed to continue to do the same?