Life insurance has no one-size-fits-all option, but it can be an important purchase for people whose families depend on their income to cover daily living costs, mortgage repayment, college, retirement or other major expenses.
Those who have to pay huge chunk of their income for health insurance won't care about the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution; they will care about the constitution of their own wallets and checking accounts.
The next time you hear a politician say that reducing regulations and allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way toward controlling health care costs, think of the real, much higher cost of such a solution.
State insurance commissioners did the right thing for consumers when they refused to cave in to intense pressure from the profit-obsessed insurance industry to gut an important provision of the health-care-reform law.
The nation's biggest insurers are pressuring regulators to disregard what members of Congress intended when they wrote the law, so that they can keep raking in huge profits for their Wall Street owners.
Now that Congress has taken final action on its health care reform legislation, the reform debate has shifted to, of all places, Denver, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners meeting there.
There has been talk about appointing a new "Systemic Risk Regulator." This "Super Czar" would oversee all of the financial services industry. We had a "Super Czar" last year. His name was Henry Paulson.