NAMIC, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, issued a \u201cStatement for the record to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding The McCarran-Ferguson Act\u201d protesting any repeal or limitation of the MFA\u201d. According to NAMIC\u2019s website, the organization identified saving the MFA as its top issue of 2007.<\/p>\n
I sometimes hear that insurers actually favor a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Here, for the record is NAMIC\u2019s position on the issue.<\/p>\n
NAMIC POSITION\u2026<\/b>NAMIC opposes any changes to or repeal of the existing antitrust exemptions afforded under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Congress should be wary of the unintended consequences of changes to the current limited antitrust exemption. Any change that precludes, restricts, or even merely discourages the production and exchange of advisory loss costs and supplementary rating information could place smaller and regional firms at a distinct disadvantage, increase consumer costs, reduce consumer choice, and seriously undermine competition. There is no credible evidence that the cost, availability, or quality of insurance products would be enhanced if the McCarran- Ferguson limited antitrust exemptions were repealed or modified. Any change in the existing antitrust regime and repeal or modification to the current limitations could decrease market stability, reduce affordability and availability of products, stifle innovation and expansion, diminish industry efficiency, and, ultimately, inhibit rather than increase competition in the insurance marketplace.<\/p>\n
Apparently, Insurers are surprised that the MFA is under attack, The Washington Post reported at the end of last month.<\/p>\n
The insurance industry is one of Washington\u2019s fiercest and best-funded lobbies, so it rarely gets surprised. But last week several industry representatives privately acknowledged amazement that their most important federal benefit \u2014 an antitrust exemption \u2014 is in danger.<\/p>\n
Well, hello<\/i>. Where have they been since November of 2002 when the Antitrust Modernization Commission was formed? Having attended meetings of the Commission and submitted comments on the need to repeal the MFA, I know first-hand that insurers were oblivious to the threat. Ironically, when attorneys representing insurers and journalists writing on the industry started looking into the AMC\u2019s interest in the MFA, they called me<\/i>. Nonetheless, the fact that an industry that has one of \u201cWashington\u2019s fiercest and best-funded lobbies\u201d completely ignored the AMC shows a certain level of arrogance or stupidity that is difficult to believe.<\/p>\n
Yet, now, the insurers are up-in-arms about Senate Bill 618 and the companion house bill submitted last month. According to The Washington Post:<\/p>\n
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has already created a \u201cwar room\u201d that is targeting the districts and states of lawmakers who might be sympathetic or persuadable. It is hunting for insurers with employees in those places whom they can train to lobby their elected representatives. A broad coalition of insurance lobbies is also in the offing.<\/p>\n
I wonder if those employees will continue to receive their insurance company salaries while they are lobbying their elected representatives and whether those salaries will be included in and reported as money spent to lobby Congress.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NAMIC, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, issued a \u201cStatement for the record to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding The McCarran-Ferguson Act\u201d protesting any repeal or limitation of the MFA\u201d. According to NAMIC\u2019s website, the organization identified saving the MFA as its top issue of 2007. I sometimes hear that insurers actually…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-1","description-off"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1961"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1961"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1961\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1962,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1961\/revisions\/1962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vehicleinfo.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}