General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts) Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:31 PM Jan 2014

Senate Passes National Insurance Licensing Act, Includes Amendment Introduced by Senator Warren

Senate Passes National Insurance Licensing Act, Includes Amendment Introduced by Senator Warren

WASHINGTON, DC - The Senate has passed legislation that will streamline the licensing of registered insurance agents and brokers across state lines by establishing the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers. The provision, passed as part of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act on Thursday, includes language from an amendment introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and adopted as part of Senate Banking Committee legislation last year. The amendment was the first Banking Committee amendment introduced by Senator Warren.

The National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act was originally cosponsored as a standalone bill by Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) Senator Warren worked closely with Senator Tester to secure passage of the compromise language, which was adopted by the Banking Committee in June.

"This national insurance licensing legislation will streamline and strengthen the licensing process, and I'm pleased it has passed the Senate," said Senator Warren.

Senator Warren's amendment modified the structure of the NARAB board. Under the bill, eight of the 13 members of the Board of Directors are state insurance commissioners and appointed by the President. The amendment allows the President to appoint anyone with experience and expertise relating to insurance licensing to the other five positions.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=328

Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00019

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate Passes National Insurance Licensing Act, Includes Amendment Introduced by Senator Warren (Original Post) ProSense Jan 2014 OP

This can't be good. Laelth Jan 2014 #1

I don't ProSense Jan 2014 #2

Yes. The banks are "nationalized." Laelth Jan 2014 #5

I associate the term "nationalized" with government-owned. n/t ProSense Jan 2014 #8

Quite obviously, most banks are not owned by "We the People of the United States." n/t Laelth Jan 2014 #10

"Big 'I'" and the American Bankers Assn were big backers of the bill frazzled Jan 2014 #3

Senator Warren is a smart woman. mstinamotorcity2 Jan 2014 #4

Perhaps. Laelth Jan 2014 #6

The one thing I am sure of mstinamotorcity2 Jan 2014 #7

I agree, and that is comforting. n/t Laelth Jan 2014 #9

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

1. This can't be good.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:41 PM

Jan 2014

As fond as I am of Senator Warren, I am opposed to national regulation of the insurance industry. It will work the same way as nationalized banking, i.e. companies will move their alleged "headquarters" to a small state where they can cheaply buy the legislature and then force that state's draconian laws on the rest of the states, thereby thwarting the regulations of 49 states that have laws on the books that are less favorable to the insurance companies.

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but I am quite nervous about it.

-Laelth

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

2. I don't

Reply to Laelth (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:45 PM

Jan 2014

"As fond as I am of Senator Warren, I am opposed to national regulation of the insurance industry. It will work the same way as nationalized banking, i.e. companies will move their alleged "headquarters" to a small state where they can cheaply buy the legislature and then force that state's draconian laws on the rest of the states, thereby thwarting the regulations of 49 states that have laws on the books that are less favorable to the insurance companies."

...understand that point. The banks are "nationalized"? Having said that, I'm trying to find out more about the problem with the previous structure and benefit of the new structure.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

5. Yes. The banks are "nationalized."

Reply to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 03:10 PM

Jan 2014

That's why you see so many banks based in South Dakota and Delaware. They then use those states' laws as the framework for their business policies and screw over all the rest of the states that have different, less-banker-friendly laws. I don't want to see the same thing happen with insurance.

-Laelth

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

8. I associate the term "nationalized" with government-owned. n/t

Reply to Laelth (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 04:01 PM

Jan 2014

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

10. Quite obviously, most banks are not owned by "We the People of the United States." n/t

Reply to ProSense (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 05:42 PM

Jan 2014

-Laelth

frazzled

(18,402 posts)

3. "Big 'I'" and the American Bankers Assn were big backers of the bill

Reply to Laelth (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:51 PM

Jan 2014

which makes me sort of nervous, too. The GAO opposed it, and the WH had reservations about several of the provisions.

Can't say I truly understand it, though.

The Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America (Big “I”), which supported both the flood insurance and NARAB measures, cheered the Senate vote.
...
The American Bankers Association said the legislation is a key priority for many of its members.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/01/30/318963.htm

mstinamotorcity2

(1,451 posts)

4. Senator Warren is a smart woman.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 01:57 PM

Jan 2014

She hasn't led us wrong thus far maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

6. Perhaps.

Reply to mstinamotorcity2 (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 03:12 PM

Jan 2014

I admit that I am inclined to trust her. That said, this legislation makes me very nervous. Of course, if it's in any way good (this law), it doesn't stand a chance of passing in the House, so it may be a non-issue.

-Laelth

mstinamotorcity2

(1,451 posts)

7. The one thing I am sure of

Reply to Laelth (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 03:17 PM

Jan 2014

if she put an amendment in the bill she did it for the protection of the Consumers. Its always the fine print and undisclosed terms that make me nervous. And she can read!!!!

Laelth

(32,017 posts)

9. I agree, and that is comforting. n/t

Reply to mstinamotorcity2 (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 31, 2014, 05:41 PM

Jan 2014

-Laelth

Reply to this discussion