I myself have been a backer, for the most part, of state regulation–certainly not because it's been done well, but because I have no confidence the federal government (especially the current administration, which has taken incompetence to an art form) could ever do it any better. Indeed, they might do a much worse job of protecting the consumer's interest.

However, I have never been a fan of the byzantine structure set up by the NAIC to establish some semblance of national order over the diverse, often conflicting and always expensive state regulatory system. Entire generations seem to pass before a model bill does. It certainly isn't difficult to pick out the NAIC's flaws. What's hard is figuring out how best to improve the Rube Goldberg-like system we have in place.

If anyone has the courage to respond (even anonymously), please speak up! Is the NAIC salvageable, or should we scrap the whole system in favor of an optional federal charter?

For those OFC-backers out there, what makes you think Uncle Sam will do any better of a job than all his nephews in state government? And what if you're wrong? At least with state regulation, only one state can get screwed up at a time. If the Feds mess up on insurance oversight, it's going to be one huge mess we may never get out of.

But if we do keep state regulation intact, how can we make it work more effectively and with less cost? Solomon himself might have a hard time with that one.

I'm eager to hear your take on all this!