re: #253 Gus 802

I’ve heard that before about it being cheaper. There was a media interest regarding tort and liability insurance several years ago which gradually drifted off the scope. Now I’m wondering if it should be a three pronged approach: health and liability insurance regulatory reform combined with tort reform. Also, should there be more scrutiny of liability insurance rates? Then you have to consider Federal authority regarding state regulations and it’s implications with the SCOTUS.

I like your thoughts on the three-pronged approach! Also interested in the Fed authority re state regs. I’m wondering if this would fall under the Commerce Clause?

For example:
The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.

Is it reasonable to conclude that a state preventing insurance companies operating in other (multiple) states from pursuing commerce in that state would fall under this definition?

(Don’t know, just wondering.)