Despite the McCarran Act, substantial dual regulation by the states and the federal government is an accomplished fact. Nevertheless, the states continue to play the major role in the regulation of the insurance business. However, there exists an ongoing tension as to increasing the federal role even to the point of dominance. Some awareness of the arguments for and against federal regulatory involvement, or more accurately further regulatory involvement, is an important component in understanding the regulation of the life insurance business. Earlier discussion considered some of the arguments specifically in the context of the application of the federal antitrust laws. Here the focus will be on state versus federal regulation in general. In doing so, however, it must be recognized that for some time there has been both state and federal regulation of insurance with the former being predominant. There will continue to be, at least for the foreseeable future, some regulation at both levels. The issue is no longer whether there should be state or federal regulation; rather the issue is how much of each.