What Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

The subject of healthcare has been a hot topic in recent decades, part of which has involved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is abbreviated as PPACA or ACA. Enacted on March 23, 2010, the Act changed many aspects of the healthcare system in the US.

President Obama, with a lot of support, enacted this federal statute to help expand the health coverage by the poor in the country. This has earned ACA another name: Obamacare. No matter what you choose to call it, the action had a tremendous impact on the number of people insured and able to obtain medical coverage in states throughout the country.

It provides subsidies and various other funds to help the poor and underinsured. Pre-existing conditions and other reasons that people were often denied coverage were also addressed in the groundbreaking statute. As a result, more people have insurance than ever before.

Although that is the case, there are many people who do not support the ACA and have been working to overturn portions of the act. The current administration is among those who deem the act a burden to taxpayers and an unnecessary area of government control.

Various labor groups and unions have been working to repeal the legislation and there are many who believe that it is going to happen while President Trump is in office. The Supreme Court and other courts are likely to weigh in on cases in the future that involve the act, which could further complicate matters.

Although the statute has helped to provide medical insurance, either through Medicaid or government subsidies of private insurance, it is not clear whether or not that will continue to be the case in the future. This is an important political topic that is sure to see changes at the very least.

Attempts To Stem A Financial Meltdown – The Dodd-Frank Act

In 2007, The United States of America (and indeed the world) was being placed under enormous financial strain through the actions of financial institutions both foreign and domestic.

Global finances were being placed under enormous strain and it was realized that a new approach to policing the actions of financial institutions was long overdue.

This led them President Barack Obama to lead the charge towards the adoption of the ‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act‘ which became law in mid-2010.

The Act served to consolidate the regulatory agencies that oversaw the financial services sector and also (among other things) set up new oversight mechanisms to police what was by then recognized as a ‘systemic risk’ to the United States economy.

The increased regulation was aimed in large part at making sure that what had been referred to as a ‘Wild West Situation’ around the widespread practice of derivatives trading was made much more transparent.

The consumer would also receive new protections and a new Consumer Protection Agency with widespread powers was established. The days of financial institutions promising returns that were simply not within the realms of sustainability were over.

In essence the Act had two tiers. One was to protect the U.S. economy from the practices of financial institutions that had, until then been a systemic risk to the stability of both the economy and the American dollar. The second was to protect the American consumer from predatory practices that had prior to the passing of the Act caused extreme financial hardship to many individuals and families that had chosen to believe in promises of returns that were completely unrealistic.

The passing of the Act was a clear signal to financial institutions that the era of taking advantage of consumers, as well as presenting a clear and present danger to the American economy would no longer be tolerated.

What Exactly Was The Proposed National Insurance Act of 2006?

The National Insurance Act of 2006 was first proposed back in April 2006. The purpose of this act was to help the Department of Treasury become established as an Office of National Insurance. It was going to be headed by the Commissioner of National Insurance, authorizing the Commissioner to regulate, supervise and provide some type of registration for the insurance self-regulatory organizations. The Commissioner would be responsible for supervising, licensing and chartering National insurers.

What Was Its Main Purpose?

The main purpose was to authorize the underwriting of insurance, and also provide a comprehensive system for supervising and regulating these agencies. It was designed to monitor not only insurance branches in the US, but also non-US insurance companies. Those that would offer national insurance would need to obtain a federal license because they would be converted from state to national insurance agencies. It would also remove state oversight on many of the business practices involved with insurance because they would become federally based.

Did It Go Through?

The bill itself was never enacted. Although introduced in April 2006, Congress did not approve it. It was introduced to the 109th Congress at the time. Although it did not go through, it was a radical idea which made it possible for federal oversight over many of the aspects of providing insurance in the United States. However, Congress deemed that it was not necessary as there are already state laws that govern insurance, providing proper regulation and oversight at the state level.

Though it may have seemed like a good idea, it is clear that since that time, there has been no need to present this to Congress after its failure to pass from a bill into a law. Since there have been no regulatory problems with insurance (like car insurance after a car accident) since that time, there has not been a need to reintroduce the bill in an attempt to get federal regulation over insurance policies and companies.

What You need to Know about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act

Toward the end of the last millennia, the banking trends throughout the industry had been in motion for several decades. Banks number of banks across the US had fallen considerably and the banks that remained had grown in size and financial power. There had been 14,000 banks in 1984 but the number dropped to 9,000 by 1999. This was part of an ongoing effort toward greater consolidation that was moving the financial services business in a new direction.

Furthermore, many of the financial services that had been separated during the second half of the century had suddenly become integrated and this included insurance, commercial and investment banking as well. By the start of the 80s, many of the commercial financial services had begun expanding into the underwriting securities as well. Some of them even began to sell insurance.

By 1999, financial integration was an established practice and Congress decided it was time to act. Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act at the end of 1999. The Act was named so in honor of the three congressmen that supported the act to approval. This had also been called the Financial Modernization Act would change how the financial sector operated and gave the Federal government special supervisory power.

The GLBA was intended to promote the various advantages of integration in the financial sector for investors and consumers. While still looking to safeguard the stability of the banking and financial system as a whole.

One of the biggest changes the Act introduced was the FHC or Financial Holding Company. This is essentially an umbrella organization that can manage its own subsidiaries in various financial activities. This was considered the happy medium where banks still have certain financial activities restricted but can opt to be a part of a larger organization that is involved in these activities.

Understanding the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968

Extensive loss of livelihoods, property and even life led to the creation of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The legislation has received much recent attention due to the extensive damage caused by flooding in Florida and Louisiana as it did in the violent series of floods in the aftermath of Hurricane Betsy in 1965.

According to the foreword in the US Code Title 42 Chapter 50: National Flood Insurance, the US congress found that the dangers and hazards of sporadic flooding was creating a personal and economic strain on many parts of the US. It was also mentioned that the physical preventative measures, such as dams and embankments, may not always be sufficient to hold back the flood waters and avoid damage.

For these reasons the Federal Government has decided to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program that was hitherto being addressed on the private sector alone. The US Code also mentions some other reasons that would make it “uneconomic” to stay out of the flood insurance program within reasonable terms and conditions.

This piece of legislation in 1968 was the first-time flood insurance was made available on such a massive scale almost available to everyone. Soon after the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made it mandatory for all people living in Special Flood Hazard Areas to purchase flood insurance to avoid against personal injury lawsuits.

Several important acts followed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, besides the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The most important is the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. The law was meant to ensure that flood insurance premiums were precisely reflecting the risk of flood damage. The result was an increase in premiums that increased the debt of the National Flood Insurance Program.

This act is one of the first times that the federal government became involved with the insurance industry which is usually left for the state government to regulate and monitor.

What is the McCarran – Ferguson Act?

The McCarran Ferguson Act is a law that makes the insurance industry exempt from most federal regulations including some (but not all ) of the antitrust laws. The Act was passed in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was permitted to regulate insurance companies under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This ruling came as a part of the United States vs South-Eastern Underwriters’ Association case.

Senators Pat McCarran and Homer Ferguson sponsored the act, which provides that ‘Acts of Congress’ which are not expressly aimed at the regulation of the insurance industry will not over-rule laws or regulations that are intended to regulate the business of insurance.

The McCarran-Ferguson act still applies today, and it remains an important one. Indeed, one of the recent proposals for healthcare reform made by the Republicans may require the McCarran-Ferguson Act to be modified. In February 2010, the House of Representatives voted in favour of repealing the Act in terms of how it applies to health insurance, but other types of insurance are still covered.

The act protects certain state laws regarding insurance and allows each state to regulate the insurance industry, including establishing their own licensing requirements for insurance. It also exempts insurance companies from federal anti-trust legislation, at least in part, and protects the insurance industry from a federal take-over. It is widely felt that insurance is one of the most regulated industries in the USA, and insurance companies were concerned about the possibility of even more regulation from the federal government, on top of what the individual states were already doing. State insurance regulators were concerned about the outcome of the South Eastern Underwriters’ Association case, and while Attorney General Biddle denied that the government had any intent of increasing regulation, the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 helped to offset those concerns.

Information On Unfair Claims Settlement Act

Imagine running a business and all of a sudden it is flooded.

You will be running around looking to have things repaired, and that’s normal. However, if the loss is too great, you will want to make a claim to your insurance agency based on the plan that was signed in advance.

Now, what if the insurance agency starts using delay tactics by stating they lost their forms or misplaced things? What if you are in need of the funds right away? What will happen then?

Your Albany lawyers should tell you that this is where the Unfair Claims Settlement Act comes into action as a solution.

Let’s take a look at what this act involves.

Purpose of Act

The primary objective of the Act is to protect individuals and businesses from insurance agencies who don’t work in good faith.

If the court deems their behavior abnormal or based around delay tactics, this act is invoked, and an immediate verdict is sent through to speed up the process.

Benefits of Act

1) Speeds Up Process

The purpose of using this act in the court of law is to ensure the process is sped up. There is nothing worse than having a flooded business or a fire go through without having funds to start repair work.

It leads to significant losses that are hard to recover in the short or long-term.

2) Protects Against Shady Insurers

A major benefit is knowing shady insurers will not be able to scheme their way out of making a payment based on the agreement that was signed. This is important for those who are dealing with an accident and need the funds as soon as possible.

The Unfair Claims Settlement Act is one of those policies that are required to ensure things are managed safely for all parties.