Berlau on Obama's New Regs: So Much for That
As Tim Cavanaugh just noted, les regulations nouveau est sont arrivent les nouvelles régulations sont arrivées! The Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau has issued a quick and detailed response:
Early on in the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that his economic team was pursuing true regulatory reform and modernization, consolidating and combining functions of key financial agencies and moving away from the "more is better" approach to regulation that had been followed even in some Republican administration in response to a crisis. Even this week, administration officials Tim Geithner and Larry Summers wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the current "framework for financial regulation" contains "jurisdictional overlaps, and suffers from an outdated conception of financial risk.
Initial reports indicate, however, that these early hopes of a more accountable regulatory structure have been dashed.
Whole thing worth a read. Berlau's Reason archive here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mais non, les regs sont arrivees.
He's still speaking, but I'm pretty sure the one group of people not mentioned in the regulation and creation there of were the industries regulated.
That's a little odd. The most successfully regulated industries result from the regulators and those regulated working closely in all aspects.
I don't know about you, but Tim's comment made more sense to me than hmm's, and I don't understand French.
"Mais non, les regs sont arrivees."
Comment dis tu "Grammer Nazi" en fran?ais?
En plus t'as oubli? le accent sur arriv?es.
N'oubliez pas que c'est "nouvelles".
If I'm remembering my French correctly...
Why is everyone talking baby talk?
Stated more succinctly in Spanish:
No es frio, people.
The most successfully regulated industries result from the regulators and those regulated working closely in all aspects.
But "those regulated" are greedy, baby-kicking CEOs. You can't allow them a seat at the table. They're greedy. GREEEEEDEEEEY!!!!11!
But "those regulated" are greedy, baby-kicking CEOs. You can't allow them a seat at the table. They're greedy. GREEEEEDEEEEY!!!!11!
I know you are trying to be sarcastic. but they are fucking greedy.
Here are the CEOs of 3 major health insurance companies talking to a congressional committee about their companies habit of wrongfully dropping sick people -- who have been paying their health insurance premiums -- once they get sick and need to make claims (this is called 'rescission').
Some reasons why people were dropped from their coverage:
No they aren't greedy at all.
People who have been paying their policy and done nothing wrong are being dropped because they will essentially be expensive to treat.
Why would we let the fox be part of the plan to keep the hen house secure?
The most successfully regulated industries result from the regulators and those regulated working closely in all aspects.
If, by "successful" you mean "effective at erecting barriers to entry while establishing above-market rates of return for entrenched firms", okay.
Comment dis tu "Grammer Nazi" en fran?ais?
Grammar Nazi, that's how.
Ha, you're all wrong about the French. It should read:
Les nouvelles r?gulations sont arriv?es.
It's "nouvelles" rather than "nouveau" because "r?gulations" is plural and feminine. The accent goes above the e in "r?gulations" because, well, it just does. The "nouvelles" precedes "r?gulations" because it's one of the few adjectives that comes before the noun. It's "sont" and not "est" because "r?gulations" is plural, and it's "sont" rather than "ont" because "arriver" is an action verb and thus is an ?tre rather than avoir verb. And it's "arriv?es" and not "arriv?" because, when you have an ?tre verb as opposed to an avoir verb, the past participle must agree with the subject. Qu?stions?
Some reasons why people were dropped from their coverage:
I've learned one rule of thumb in twenty years of practicing law - never take one side's story at face value.
Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives: "No."
Why shouldn't any material breach of the contract be enough to justify a rescission? The intentional fraud standard would bar rescission when, for example, people stopped paying their premiums.
I've learned one rule of thumb in twenty years of practicing law - never take one side's story at face value.
Well the other side isn't denying the validity of the stories.
Why shouldn't any material breach of the contract be enough to justify a rescission
Because intent matters.
Because honest mistakes shouldn't result in loss of coverage especially when they keep taking your premiums and then only throw you off the rolls when you get sick.
Because forgetting that you went to a dermo for acne has NO BEARING on you cancer.
In fact, I think the rule should be that if they don't catch the fraud within 60-90 days of enrollment, then they can't thrown you off the rolls.
Look, you can argue that if they covered up a pre-existing condition they should be thrown off the rolls, but people who made a good faith effort to be honest about their health history who might have missed something somewhere (most people cant tell you the name of, date of and reason/outcome of every doctor you have seen in the past 10 or so years) shouldn't get cut off once they make a claim after they have been paying their premiums.
The intentional fraud standard would bar rescission when, for example, people stopped paying their premiums.
Canceling for non-payment isn't a rescission.
A company can cancel someones policy for non-payment.
A rescission is like the contract never existed, rather than one party breaching the contract.
L'Etat c'est moi.
Well the other side isn't denying the validity of the stories.
ChicagoTom, insurance companies are subject to HIPAA, and are barred by law from responding to these kinds of allegations without the written consent of the insured. When a response is prohibited by law, the lack of a response is not really an admission.
Because intent matters.
It does if the contract says it does. I don't think I've ever seen a contract that says it can be cancelled or voided only for intentional breaches.
I'm not saying that rescission hasn't been abused. I'm just saying that allowing it only for intentional fraud is going too far.
Canceling for non-payment isn't a rescission. A company can cancel someones policy for non-payment.
A rescission is like the contract never existed, rather than one party breaching the contract.
True. Bad example.
In fact, I think the rule should be that if they don't catch the fraud within 60-90 days of enrollment, then they can't thrown you off the rolls.
Make that an option that people can elect and pay for, and I got no problem. More insurance mandates, though, only increase the cost of coverage for everyone, and lead more people to not have coverage. I thought that was the problem we are trying to solve, no?
Oh, I get it. French.