What, you might ask yourself, would cause a health insurance company coming off a quarter where it had multi-billion dollar profits to slam individual policyholders with rate increases up to 39%?

Well, let’s see. 

Maybe the insurer is headquartered on Mars and is unaware that a debate to reform the health care system has been raging in the United States for the past year.  And maybe this insurer was unaware that this debate has witnessed health insurers taking more than their share of abuse.

Or maybe the insurer is headquartered in the U.S. but is in need of a gigantic corporate hearing aid to assist in overcoming a massive condition of tone deafness.

Or maybe the insurer is just plain arrogant and doesn’t give a hoot about how this plays out in the larger world.

OK, maybe it’s none of these.  Maybe there were good reasons for the move and let’s concede them all.  So, concede the point that those billions in profit were largely a one-shot deal arising from a sale of a business.

And concede that the state’s regulations and the recession were causing the insurer to lose money on its individual business.  And concede that medical costs are skyrocketing, leaving premiums breathless to catch up in many cases.

Even with all those valid reasons, I still have to ask what the impulse is that causes one to offer up oneself as a piñata.  For surely, the company, no matter how tone deaf, had to have had some inkling of the uproar its pricing actions would cause.

After experiencing a year of hearing insurers railed at for unrestrained increases in premiums that are crushing businesses and consumers, how on earth do you go ahead and up the ante for some customers by 39%?

Was the company really clueless enough to expect that politicians would pass up the opportunity to relaunch a crusade that was showing signs of flagging?  Do lions pass up a nice big chunk of red meat when it’s thrown their way?

So, here’s my advice to the CEO of the company.  Don’t blame your actuaries, who I’m sure had very good reasons for justifying these increases.  Do blame your PR people—they’re paid to know better and they let you down grievously.   

And do take some of the blame yourself.  You could have had enough courage to tell your shareholders that this was just not the time to become a poster child for the excesses of the health insurance business.

I certainly hope the rest of the business will take note of what happened here.  But it does make you wonder whether tone deafness has become so persistent a condition that insurers have stopped listening.

I was originally going to headline this piece “Run, Sarah, Run.”  But then I realized what a joke it was—and a one-liner at that—so I had to turn to something else to fill the space.

And then I thought: How about the American Council of Life Insurance’s February 3 statement regarding life settlement securitizations, which uses the now-familiar Palin-esque technique of making unfounded allegations to make noise and get noticed.

The ACLI’s comment drew quick and scornful responses from life settlement industry participants.  And rightfully so.

For years now the ACLI has been engaged in a very deliberate campaign to conflate legitimate life settlements with stranger-originated life insurance transactions. 

In the early days this succeeded, largely because both settlements and STOLI were relatively new and unfamiliar and people had difficulty sorting out the two.  But people wised up as the gulf between the two widened.

Part of ACLI’s campaign has been to imply that the life settlement business as a whole is in favor of STOLI and as a whole is behind these transactions.

This of course is not true.  The Life Insurance Settlement Association has fought to have STOLI transactions banished in the various states with as much fervor as the ACLI. 

The life settlement business realized long ago that STOLI was a poison that would choke off the growth of legitimate business if it were not prohibited and thus controlled.

Might there be some “bad apples” in the settlement business who would try to promote STOLI transactions nonetheless?  I’m sure there are.

But this leads me to a dirty little secret that ACLI has been loath to even acknowledge; this is that STOLI transactions have to be done through life insurance companies.  Who else writes life insurance policies?

It is hard to believe that life insurers, whose underwriting is truly sophisticated, (and let’s face it, underwriting is involved in any policy large enough to be worthy of settlement) cannot identify an application that is made for STOLI purposes and the agents who consistently bring in these types of apps.

For years there’s been scuttlebutt that certain companies—hungry for business—had little compunction about accepting apps that had STOLI written all over them.

So, I’d like to know more about what type of self-policing the ACLI has encouraged among its members.  I’d like to hear more from companies about what actions they’ve taken against any agent who is involved in promoting STOLI.

It’s hard for me to believe that some evil STOLI promoters in the life settlement business are consistently pulling the wool over the eyes of life insurers—especially to the degree the ACLI would have you believe.

ACLI, in its comments, makes some legitimate points about securitization.  But it so seriously undercuts its case with these STOLI allegations that its credibility is damaged.

There is always going to be tension between the life insurers and the life settlement business.  Just wishing, on ACLI’s part, is not going to make settlements go away—they have, after all, proved their value to consumers.  But scurrilous allegations directed toward the entire life settlement community are not going to work either—one would think that would be obvious to the ACLI by now.

But then again, Sarah’s still at it.

By this time we all know how very very difficult it is to get anything done in the U.S. Senate, so it is not surprising that Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was upset about President Obama’s proposals regarding banks—what businesses they can or cannot be in under certain conditions and how big they should be.

One can understand the annoyance of the soon to be retired senior senator from the Nutmeg state who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.  After all, members of his committee have been paired off for months working on different facets of financial reform so that the Senate can have a bipartisan solution to hold up to the world.

Never mind that by the time Dodd’s committee finally puts something out, whatever the plan is will have taken longer to gestate than an elephant.  And the similarity, friends, is not likely to end there. 

So much time will have gone by that we will almost have forgotten what the impetus for financial reform was—and maybe that’s the point.  After all, banks are minting money again (although still not lending it), bank bonuses are in the pre-meltdown range (if not higher) and money from bank lobbyists is gushing. 

It’s obviously ‘What, me worry?’ time again in the good old U.S.A.

So what does the president do when these months-long negotiations between Banking Committee members are reaching a critical point?  He comes along and crashes the party.

I guess he didn’t realize just how delicate these negotiations are, how their fragility could be shattered by wanting too much from the legislation.

The New York Times quoted Dodd as saying that the administration was “’getting precariously close’ to excessive ambition for the legislation.” 

Dodd added: “I don’t want to be in a position where we end up doing nothing because we tried to do too much.”

While I feel your pain, senator, I’m also thinking that maybe the president has seen how unrewarding it has been to pretty much hand over major initiatives on health care reform and financial services reform to Congress.  Maybe he has seen the error of his ways and decided to start flexing a bit of executive power.

Maybe he just wants to get something done.  And let’s face it, that hasn’t seemed to bother you or your fellow committee members very much.