[ad_1]
https://www.larepublica.ec/?s=Eduardo+Carmigniani
First, the conceptual: such a monopoly is detestable. There is no valid reason to remove private insurers from their legitimate right to compete. The pretense that the state can self-insure not to pay the cost of insurance to private companies is absurd because instead of transferring risks, it captures them for it -even (at least in the uninsured part, if the reinsurance has been hired …). There are, yes, that prevent the opening to resurrect corrupt practices in the sector.
Second, the normative. According to the old law on general insurance (Article 74) "For insurance contracts, all institutions and entities of the public sector will be the subject of calls for tenders between insurance companies established and legally established in the country ". This article has not been expressly repealed. But it was tacitly in the Correa regime, when the law of public procurement allowed, by regulation, to be exempted from calls for public contracts to state contracts with "companies whose the subscribed capital belongs to at least fifty (50%) percent ". "(Article 2, 8), as is the case of Sugar
In exercising this power, former President Correa said in 2009 (in summary) that public insurance would follow the direct contracts regime. with public insurers, or the bidder company did not have one (Article 107 of the Regulation). It was thus that the monopoly of Sucre was established
Do not be confused. The aforementioned monopoly does not continue because the Secretary of the Presidency, Eduardo Jurado recounted the order he gave, last June, that the insurance contracts of the state are contracted after a call for tenders because I could give this order. The problem is that the regulations of the former president Correa remain in force.
The solution is then in the hands of President Moreno, only he can change it. Do not go back to the subject.
Source link
