The issue should not be whether there is a definition of insurance, but what that definition is. In this regard, banks can be protected as well as jeopardized by wording. Likewise, banks have a compelling case that they not be prejudiced against in insurance sales. A reasonable compromise would appear to be to return to a definition of insurance with perhaps some pro-banking modifications. In this regard, Members need to better understand banking industry perceptions and banks need to better understand Congressional reality.
Banks hold the view that no legislation is possible if key elements of the industry object.
This may be true, but it does not also follow that banks can run rough shod over their competitors in a legislative contest. The insurance industry maintains clout and if reasoned compromise is not obtained at the authorizing committee level, it has a good chance to prevail, perhaps with capricious language, at the Rules Committee or on the House floor. If insurance interests lose out completely or are perceived to be treated unfairly, they also have the capacity to upend legislation. Hence, big victories by either side are likely to be pyrrhic. The real Catch-22 of the insurance issue, thus, is not that banks bolt if a definitional structure is implemented and insurance companies if it isn't, but that either side holds a suicide pill if its interests aren't fairly accommodated.