Health tips for better life

The market for insurance in the US is somewhat unusual. In most every other line of business, companies are allowed to compete with each other across state lines. This helps to keep pricing and the quality of the product to higher levels and protect the consumer. But, the insurance industry is licensed and regulated state-by-state. There’s no such thing as a federal insurance policy. You have to buy a policy written by a company licensed in the state where you live. This is frustrating because, if you live near the border, your friends and colleagues at work probably tell you how little they pay or complain you have the better deals. Either way, it’s not very fair. Worse, the companies often decide not to set up in all fifty states, but pick and choose where they will operate. The result is that many states only have a small number of licensed insurance companies. Because there is no real competition, their premium rates tend to be high. This produces a big political divide. In Republican states, this is the free market at work and no intervention is necessary. If you do not like this, move to another state which has lower rates. In Democratic states, there is more interest in protecting consumer interests. Some states have intervened in their local markets to introduce “managed competition”. Needless to say, this has outraged the insurance industry and the insurance agents who survive on the commission earned from the insurers. There have been heated debates between the lawmakers. Where the local Department or Office of Insurance has produced new rules, they have been referred to the local courts. Who would have thought helping millions of average people to save money on their premium rates would produce so much heat.

Anyway, the latest state to surface in this national debate is Massachusetts. In some ways, this state is also slightly nonstandard because of the dominance of the local agents who handle about 80% of the insurance business. Agents have more to lose if the markets are opened up to competition (and sites like this offer a direct line to insurance companies without having to go through an agent). Not surprisingly, they have been the fastest to the courts in the fight to protect their income. We have just had the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on two rule changes made by the state’s Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes (she has since retired to a university post). Let’s start with the effect of the move to open up the state to competition. Before the rule changes, there were nineteen insurers writing auto insurance policies. Twelve more companies have now entered the markets. In most cases, premium rates have been stable as insurers cut their costs and accepted a reduced profit. But agents have been hit because the opportunities to earn commission have been reduced.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has supported the reforms, finding the effect of managed competition is sufficiently beneficial that it should represent the prevailing public policy in the state. Put another way, the judges think the many consumers should pay less rather than the few corporate officers and stockholders earn excessive profits. Because one of the agent’s automatic rights to a commission has disappeared, they will be looking to recover their losses in other ways. There are two morals to this story. The first is that, if you want to find cheap auto insurance, support the lawmakers in those states who promise to introduce more competition into the car insurance market. Secondly, always get your auto insurance quotes through a site like this and avoid agents who earn commission.

Those people who are demanding that Victory Day should be abolished in Rodhe Island miss the point of the holiday. Political correctness and a desire to not offend anyone take away from the sacrifices of a generation of Americans who fought and sacrificed their lives for the survival of this nation.

As Rhode Island communities prepared to celebrate Victory Day on August 14 in recognition of the allied triumph over the Japanese Empire during World War II, “concerned” citizens opposed to the holiday began lobbing criticisms at event organizers around the state. Rhode Island, which is the only state that still celebrates Victory Day, or V-J Day as it is sometimes called, suddenly found itself at the center of the politically incorrect universe.

Critics of the holiday charge that it is discriminatory and want to remove all references to Japan and the Japanese people.

The Associated Press quoted former Rhode Island State Representative George Lima as saying, “This is a stigma against the Japanese whom we do business with and are allies.” Mr. Lima, who was responsible for a failed attempt to get rid of the holiday while serving in the state legislature during the 1980s, is a perfect example of the many out-of-touch-with-reality individuals who are so concerned they might offend someone else that they often miss the real motivation behind whatever it is they are opposing.

Responding to critics clamoring for political correctness and sensitivity, Rhode Island lawmakers made several attempts to either get rid of the holiday or, in the absence of its elimination, at least change its name.

Each time the tremendous opposition of the state’s citizens caused them to abandon their efforts. Three separate legislative bills introduced during the 1990s by State Senator Rhoda Perry attempted to change the title of the holiday to Rhode Island Veterans Day. “It was absolutely a no-winner,” Perry was quoted as saying. “I did not have support, period.”

In the true spirit of political correctness, though, the Rhode Island General Assembly did pass a resolution designed to ease some of the concerns of those critical of the holiday. The resolution, which was approved in 1990, declared that Victory Day was not a celebration of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or of the death and destruction caused by President Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons. Bowing to the demands of the touchy-feely, can’t-we-all-get-along crowd, the members of the General Assembly managed to change the focus of the debate on the holiday.

Proponents of the celebrations argue that Victory Day is necessary so that Rhode Islanders, and all Americans, can remember the sacrifices made during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, veterans groups are among the most ardent supporters of the holiday. They, unlike the main stream politically correct crowd, understand why Rhode Islanders are steadfast in their commitment to celebrate V-J Day.

Critics like George Lima and Rhoda Perry, who want to abolish the holiday or even change its name, have lost focus on why the holiday even exists. Here’s a reminder. In a surprise attack on December 7, 1941, over 300 airplanes from the Japanese Navy bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, resulting in over 3,500 dead and wounded sailors, soldiers, and marines and over 100 dead and wounded civilians.

That attack propelled the United States into a brutal war against Japan in the Pacific, a war in which our military was forced to conduct an island-hopping campaign against entrenched Japanese soldiers determined to fight to the death. Fighting in the Pacific theater resulted in some of the bloodiest battles of a war that cost us over 300,000 killed and almost 700,000 more wounded.

The celebration of Victory Day in Rhode Island is not about the Japanese people. It is about the generation of Americans who sacrificed so much in a terrible global war that threatened the very existence of our country. It is about honoring them for what they did, and not about offending our Japanese business partners and allies.

In a country where handicapped is often replaced with handi-capable, and where Happy Holidays gets substituted for Merry Christmas, it is imperative that we not let the idea of being politically correct cause us to lose focus on what is important to us as Americans. For now, at least, the people of Rhode Island are standing their ground and serving as a shining example of political incorrectness to the rest of the nation.

Greg Reeson is a frequent contributor to The Land of the Free and Associated Content. His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The New Media Journal, The Veteran’s Voice, The American Daily, GOPUSA and Opinion Editorials.com.