Reply #5: No ... [View All]

But that is a different matter. I live in California where our Republican governors took all of the teeth out of the Public Utilities Commission which used to be pretty good at regulating the utility companies, but which now exists as little mote than a figure head agency with little or no enforcement power.

However we do have an insurance commission here in California, which was created by a ballot initiative called Proposition 103. Except for the brief period of time when it was taken over by a Republican candidate, it has regulated rates, claims processing and other aspects of commerce within the insurance industry. It takes the position that if you sell insurance in California and do business here, you abide by California law. A few years ago they helped me out with a health insurance claim I was having trouble with where the company was in another state. I got my claim paid adequately and fairly with their help. We also have a law here which could benefit people in other states who have intransigent insurance companies. It is called first party bad faith, and the grist of it is that if your insurance company knowingly deals with you or stalls your claim or goes against your contract you can sue them for punitive as well as actual damages. There have been some hefty settlements. I don't know the state of insurance law right now. We do, after all have another conservative Republican governor after all. But if there was a nation wide law like that, a consumer agency and perhaps an ombudsman who would help out consumers I'm sure the insurance companies would be much more responsive than they are now. Of course a public option would help ever so much too.

Does that cover both issues? Comparing utilities and health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges, but even so both can and do function better with oversight and regulations.