Almost four decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on abortion in Roe v. Wade, saying it was legal, in arguably the most controversial decision in court history. Since 1973, Americans have remained vocal in strong support and opposition to the ruling, with local and national rallies, and litmus tests for prospective presidents and Supreme Court justices.

If health care reform passes by Democratic fiat, not a vote, as it now appears is likely, then the law creating health care reform will definitely land before the Supreme Court. Ripe for judicial review is are the issues of the constitutionality of the Democrats’ actions to obtain the law, if a health insurance mandate can be imposed on individuals and whether the federal government can trump state anti-mandate laws such as the one passed in Virginia. (Many other states are exploring similar laws.)

If and when the health care reform is taken up by the High Court, the final decision is guaranteed to be as divisive as the court’s abortion ruling in 1973. Although most people have an opinion on abortion, the abortion ruling affects a small number of people directly. Health care reform and health insurance policy affects each of us, so the court’s ruling could become a far greater lightning rod among people than Roe v. Wade ever was.

President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are like the California man who called 911 and claimed that the gas pedal on his Toyota was stuck, requiring a police car to force the 90-mile-per-hour car to a halt.

Like the man who might have put his life on the line to generate a lawsuit and few dollars, both Obama and Pelosi appear to also be operating a scam and are willing to put their political lives on the line.

America — including insurance agents and consumers — is against using reconciliation or any other means to force legislation into law. America wants Congress to scrap the bills, focus on the economy and job creation, and then revisit health care reform in a strategic, thoughtful manner.

Health care reform is a prime concern for our country, but the manner in which it is being addressed, and the costs and sacrifice being thrust upon the American people, is unconscionable.

Insurance agents and consumers who want to write their U.S. Representative can do so easily. Even if you don’t know who your Congressman is, you can easily find out in about 15 seconds. Simply go to this link, enter your address, and write away. (If you don’t know your district, there is a link that will help you to quickly find it.) Click this U.S. House of Representatives website link: Contact Congress here.

Feel free to use or alter the text below.

Congressman (last name):

1. As a resident of your Congressional district, I expect you to vote as I and others in our community wish, which is why we sent you to Congress.

2. I STRONGLY urge you to oppose the Health Care Reform bill being considered this week.

3. The legislation would not bend the cost curve of health care in this country, would exacerbate the cost-shift from public programs to the private market, and would increase taxes.

4. I also STRONGLY oppose the use of procedural gimmicks to ram through this reform, which affects 18% of our economy.

5. I appreciate your willingness to listen to your constituents and vote according to the values and standards of those who voted you into office. If you vote for this legislation, or if either house of Congress enacts the legislation without following the Constitutionally mandated procedure, you can be assured that this constituent, and many others in your district, will use our vote to ensure you do not serve another term in office.

Not everyone reads those annoying prospectuses that come from the companies with whom we invest our hard-earned money.
That’s the finding of a new survey from the Insured Retirement Institute, which found that 90% of consumers would be more likely to read their prospectus if it provided a short summary, rather than the full details of what their money is being used for. The survey also found that only half of consumers read the prospectuses currently provided with their investments, with only about 20% saying they always do.

More of us should be paying closer attention, given the downs and ups of the stock market in the last 18 months.

Companies should put their prospectuses in new media – a YouTube presentation, an iPhone app or a Wii game. That’s where our short attention spans look for important information, not in thick packets sent by snail mail.

Audra Szollosy, a VP at investment banking firm Hales & Co., wrote a good wrap up of insurance agency merger & acquisition activity in 2009 for Leader’s Edge magazine.  The article also included a list of big deals from last year, and discussed both retail and wholesale operations.

While Szollosy was a bit pessimistic about 2009, she holds some hope for the remainder of 2010, provided the economy moves in the right direction and Congress comes to some finality regarding health care reform.

Last week’s much-awaited episode of “The Office,” the NBC sitcom detailing the lives of workers at Dunder Mifflin Paper Co. in Scranton, Pa., took an easy, but at least humorous, shot at health insurance companies at a time when they seem fodder for all sorts of assaults. (I have delayed writing about it until now to give people who taped it for later viewing a chance to catch up.)

For much of the hour (Part 1 and Part 2), Pam, a Dunder Mifflin worker who was pregnant with the baby of her husband, Jim, another Dunder Mifflin employee, continued to work despite obviously needing to go to the hospital. She had contractions, getting progressively more painful and closer together. Her husband and others at the paper company tried to get her to consent to go to the hospital, but she declined, explaining early on that if she waited until midnight to go, she would get an “extra night” in the hospital.

As can only happen in sitcoms, Pam Halpert had the baby at the hospital and all was fine, but not before the insurance industry played the villain again, now to TV characters.

Thomas Currey, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA), warns life insurance agents and financial service professionals that proposed legislation could change how they do business.

Specifically, he tells NAIFA members that the Senate Banking Committee is working on a financial services regulatory reform bill, which could mean that agents who offer annuities will have to make sure that the products they offer are the absolute “best,” and not just “suitable,” leaving the agents open to lawsuits and the interpretation of a judge or jury. More of this entry »

An Atlanta lawyer who deals mostly with commercial liability claims believes that insurance companies are selling the promise of protection, but in fact never intend to pay.

Writing on an IT security website, the attorney asserts that some firms have altered the insurer-insured relationship to one of adversaries, with the insurance companies vigorously fighting claims made by their customers. He says that what they promise — and what they actually deliver — are oftentimes in direct opposition to each other.

With today’s litigious atmosphere, and given the damages often paid by carriers, it is responsible for carriers to remain vigilant when paying claims.

But when an insurer acts in its own interest and not in the interest of its premium-paying clients, it goes against the basic fabric of fair play and fair business, as the attorney adequately describes it.

According to IFAwebnews, AIG will use part of the proceeds from the sale of its Asian life insurance business to repay the fed’s bailout funds, to the tune of at least $16 billion.

This comes after CEO Robert Benmosche said that AIG is on the right path, despite a loss last quarter.

Both appeared to be welcome news, as Wall Street responded warmly — at least, at first — according to Forbes.

The U.S. Senate allowed the National Flood Insurance Program to expire Feb. 28, and while the expiration is most likely temporary, the need for the program couldn’t have been more clear over the weekend.

Property owners along the Pacific Coast from Oregon to California were warned Feb. 27 that a tsunami, caused by the huge earthquake in Chile earlier that day, could hit the coastline, causing flooding. The damage to the Pacific Coast would have paled in comparison to forecasts for damage for Hawaii; those forecasts and the tsunami warnings they spawned were later withdrawn. Yet, the sudden possibility of a tsunami hitting the Pacific Coast of the U.S. shows how quickly the NFIP could become necessary.

No one last week would have predicted a tsunami to hit the U.S. Until then, everyone was talking about the crazy weather this winter, with snow falling in every states but Hawaii, record warm stretches and some intense cold. Flooding caused by melting snows is all but guaranteed in the Northeast in the coming weeks.

The unpredictability of nature, evident so clearly in the last week, explains why Congress needs to extend the NFIP, and not just to March 28, the date the U.S. House of Representatives’ bill before the Senate sets for its next expiration. Short-term fixes included in spending bills aren’t good enough.

Congress must resolve its uncertainty about the NFIP. Its expiration was extended four times alone in 2009. An editor here joked that every staff member at IFAwebnews.com has written an NFIP extension story. He is right and that is wrong.

Property owners need to know where they stand with the NFIP. If legislators don’t like the program, end it – and accept the consequences. Otherwise, extend it for three years. Anything less is silly.

Bob Graham, IFA’s executive editor, is LIVE BLOGGING the health care summit in Washington, D.C.

In addition, all Twitter “tweets” associated with the summit appear alongside the blog.

Viewers can have real-time updates in both blog and tweet at this link:

http://ifawebnews.com/2010/02/25/the-president%E2%80%99s-health-summit/