Look, maybe i'm bad at explaining things, but "the business of insurance" and "insurance" are not the same things, legally. And different laws apply to these separate things.
This like before when you refused to see the difference between an entity regulated by the government (almost any entity) and an entity taken over by the government. You seem to love conflating separate things into one thing -- is it because you can't handle complexity?
I "handle complexity" just fine, sandwich girl. I've made no conflations of anything. I acknowledge that "the business of insurance" and "insurance itself" (or, more your forte - "the business of sandwich making" and "sandwiches themselves") are seperate things. Insurance itself is a contract agreement made within the business of insurance. Sandwiches themselves are products of your business of sandwich making.
Regulations upon the business of insurance affect the product in the qualifications and limitations written into the legal contracts of insurance itself.
And as you're expertly aware, regulations upon the business of sandwich making affect the nature of what you may legally sell as a sandwich itself.
An insurance company - in the business of insurance, can sell an insurance policy to someone in another state in violation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but when it comes time to pay out a claim on that policy, it's not a legal contract because of the violations of the regulations on the business of insurance that went into underwriting it.
You at Arby's today can sell a rotten meat sandwich to someone in violation of health regulations upon the business of sandwich making, and find yourself in trouble when the customer eats it and wants restitution.
Really Dorajane, there's nothing complex here. A sandwich jockey like you should be able to grasp it, even despite the fact that the only law school classroom you've ever seen the inside of was on TV.
An insurance company - in the business of insurance, can sell an insurance policy to someone in another state in violation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act,
Sigh. And let's repeat AGAIN: it would not be a violation of McCarran-Ferguson for State Farm Massachusetts to sell an insurance policy in CT. It would be a violation of CT state law. CT could right now make interstate insurance legal within its borders.
but when it comes time to pay out a claim on that policy, it's not a legal contract because of the violations of the regulations on the business of insurance that went into underwriting it.
"Regulations of the business of insurance" of the state where the insurance policy was sold. Good god, this is not hard.
If it's "not hard" then why are you having so much trouble with it, sandwich girl?
Despite your obvious unfamiliarity with law, surely in some time between junior high and your career at Arby's you encountered a class that attempted to teach you the Constitution of the United States, specifically rhe "Full Faith and Credit" clause concerning the laws and judicial proceedings of one state being respected by all other states.
McCarran-Ferguson throws the Congressional duty of regulating the interstate commerce of "the business of insurance" to the individual states, creating the very situation you describe, where some states allow the interstate sale / purchase of insurance and some do not.
End McCarran-Ferguson, and the question becomes federal once more, and people can buy insurance regardless of where they live and where the insurer is based.
Access to more insurance options and a wider market for competition achieved, at no cost to the government whatsoever.
Are you opposed to the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (even though that stance is primarily held by Democrats) because it doesn't blow a trillion dollars on an even more Byzantine scheme?
Or is it a case of Occam's razor being sharper - you're digging in your heels in embarassment because your understanding of the laws in question could fit up a gnat's ass and leave room for a freight train?
4 comments:
Look, maybe i'm bad at explaining things, but "the business of insurance" and "insurance" are not the same things, legally. And different laws apply to these separate things.
This like before when you refused to see the difference between an entity regulated by the government (almost any entity) and an entity taken over by the government. You seem to love conflating separate things into one thing -- is it because you can't handle complexity?
I "handle complexity" just fine, sandwich girl. I've made no conflations of anything. I acknowledge that "the business of insurance" and "insurance itself" (or, more your forte - "the business of sandwich making" and "sandwiches themselves") are seperate things. Insurance itself is a contract agreement made within the business of insurance. Sandwiches themselves are products of your business of sandwich making.
Regulations upon the business of insurance affect the product in the qualifications and limitations written into the legal contracts of insurance itself.
And as you're expertly aware, regulations upon the business of sandwich making affect the nature of what you may legally sell as a sandwich itself.
An insurance company - in the business of insurance, can sell an insurance policy to someone in another state in violation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but when it comes time to pay out a claim on that policy, it's not a legal contract because of the violations of the regulations on the business of insurance that went into underwriting it.
You at Arby's today can sell a rotten meat sandwich to someone in violation of health regulations upon the business of sandwich making, and find yourself in trouble when the customer eats it and wants restitution.
Really Dorajane, there's nothing complex here. A sandwich jockey like you should be able to grasp it, even despite the fact that the only law school classroom you've ever seen the inside of was on TV.
An insurance company - in the business of insurance, can sell an insurance policy to someone in another state in violation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act,
Sigh. And let's repeat AGAIN: it would not be a violation of McCarran-Ferguson for State Farm Massachusetts to sell an insurance policy in CT. It would be a violation of CT state law. CT could right now make interstate insurance legal within its borders.
but when it comes time to pay out a claim on that policy, it's not a legal contract because of the violations of the regulations on the business of insurance that went into underwriting it.
"Regulations of the business of insurance" of the state where the insurance policy was sold. Good god, this is not hard.
If it's "not hard" then why are you having so much trouble with it, sandwich girl?
Despite your obvious unfamiliarity with law, surely in some time between junior high and your career at Arby's you encountered a class that attempted to teach you the Constitution of the United States, specifically rhe "Full Faith and Credit" clause concerning the laws and judicial proceedings of one state being respected by all other states.
McCarran-Ferguson throws the Congressional duty of regulating the interstate commerce of "the business of insurance" to the individual states, creating the very situation you describe, where some states allow the interstate sale / purchase of insurance and some do not.
End McCarran-Ferguson, and the question becomes federal once more, and people can buy insurance regardless of where they live and where the insurer is based.
Access to more insurance options and a wider market for competition achieved, at no cost to the government whatsoever.
Are you opposed to the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (even though that stance is primarily held by Democrats) because it doesn't blow a trillion dollars on an even more Byzantine scheme?
Or is it a case of Occam's razor being sharper - you're digging in your heels in embarassment because your understanding of the laws in question could fit up a gnat's ass and leave room for a freight train?
Go make a sandwich, idiot.
Post a Comment