Direct Buy Auto Warranty DBW Calling for a congressional investigation of the assurance industry, spearheaded by such "#1" companies as DBW. Iselin NJ 08830

I've determined to contact my congressman with the following question:  Why should companies like Direct Buy Auto Warranty (DBW) even have access to a share of the national market for selling auto warranties to consumers with 100,000+ mileage on their cars as it is obvious, at least to this consumer, that they are so well-rehearsed and at-the-ready for denying claims based on an automobile's "pre-existing" problems?

I'm addressing this problem to our lawmakers because it may require an amendment to The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637), a United States federal law, (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), enacted in 1975, to remind DBW that they are not as "authoritative" as they displayed in condescending both my mechanic and me, and doubtless many other consumers, as if theirs is the final "etched in stone" say in a matter as ECON 101 designates that say to belong to "the ultimate consumer".  

Thus the beginning of a long drawn out process. First must be to find out exactly how many claims are honored on higher mileage cars by DBW realistically as opposed to simply offering a consumer to (in essence) pay back their down payment already paid to DBW on a repair when a consumer has more than that invested in a shared-risk business such as, and specifically, DBW. 

I only wonder if there should be a law to mandate that such companies get all the reasons from the consumer for which they've the foreknowledge and predictability experience for denying a claim up front, at the point-of-sale (POS) and not just at claim time, as it will allow consumers the option of not investing in what one suspects to be a very useless extended warranty to far too many consumers. 

Of course, new cars today are being sold with 5/10 years 50,000/100,000 miles unbeatable factory warranties - and this would create a very narrow window of opportunity for these companies to blatantly rip off consumers as I'm  sure I was ripped-off.  But no one owes them, or any assurance company like them, to add to their monthly, quarterly and/or annual financial statements for false securiy and very superficial service in return. 

Company reps knowing the laws to protect the business only will never be enough to keep these kind of jobs from being outsourced to  China, India, Brazil etc. - and it's unpatriotic to not trust the American way, no matter how long it takes.  And, as I'm sure the problem is bigger than DBW, I will forward all rebuttals to my congressman. The company knows the problem.