I'm not asserting any state regulators are acting out of some concern about global warming. The commissioners I've had the opportunity to watch have focused on both liquidity and rates. In Maine, for instance, it was a decades long battle with Blue Cross over returns and rates. Then BC went private, and a settlement over capital was reached. In the homeowners market, the commissioner battled over rates and returns, with a tertiary concern over reserves.

Most state commissioners are fighting over rate increase demands based on investment returns, and discerning the true state of the carriers.

None of this is as simple as your (and i) make it seem. Insurers have a vested interest in overstating risk always, either hiding profits or understating the value of reserves.

Global warming is a convenient excuse for higher premiums, but a rogue hurricane will do as well.

Oh, and reinsurers are largely unregulated, but they largely serve commercial and special (excess) coverage. By definition, they are not primary carriers.

There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.

The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.

Isn't that report (falsifying, inaccuracy, etc.) Enough for an investigation and penalties? Would be I I did it.

Couldn't be a reaction to past losses from storms, eh? Or just profiting from uncertainty?

Seriously, this isn't evidence of anything than a profit motive.

And add in the volunteer group that decided to save the project, working out of an abandoned McDonald's.

Oh, wait....

Just like surveillance technology (whoops, it *is* surveillance technology), or tracking technology, and those are just so helpful. Especially to those in power.

I'm just as suspicious of this as I am of the police, the government at all levels, or our elected representatives. These entities all need adult supervision. And good controls.

More than ever? I'm not yet convinced. Seems no one remembers the past

It seems like you present the hypothesis that the government would propose an amendment to do what you then ask if I would accept.

The government could not be trusted to propose an amendment to serve the people. Certainly not now, nor for the foreseeable future. In fact, if the states were to attempt to convene a convention, I expect the federal government to attempt to prevent it.

Such an amendment would be unworkable and a sincerely bad idea. One of the most powerful aspects of our constitution of the fundamental nature of it. Specificity of principle, not narrowness of action.

There is no 'rampant' failure. And technology enabling encroachment on our freedoms does not justify the encroachment. Are you even paying attention? Technology is being used to harm us, not protect us.

These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?

The federal government can continue to monitor and enforce constitutional protections without new mandates forced by federal law and the narcotic of federal money.

I disagree. Care to elaborate on what conditional authority the feds would be operating under?

Lots of infractions do not reach the DA. Minor traffic infractions in particular. These are so 'routine' that there is virtually no due process available to a citizen any more.

But cameras are not addressing running red lights or speeding. It's the violent confrontations these will be used for. Just as the courts 'don't have time' to process traffic stops properly, they will not be taking time to review video evidence either.

I'm not ready to give in yet.