TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote: If they charge more or refuse to insure without the statistics or because that is the way some imbecile wants it, it's wrong. It they charge more or refuse to cover if you have a gun because of pressure from the government, it's wrong. If stores place a 30.06 sign in their window because their insurance company told them to.....
I can see the point of legislating the insurance companies on gun control. How does an insurance company have the right to control your unalienable rights?

I'm with you 100%. If they can't show actuarial statistics or an increase/decrease in risk, then they shouldn't do it. Gun control is political, so I can see favors being bought and sold.
If they can show statistics, then they should be able to do what makes risk based sense. Before I decide, I want someone to show me the statistics, or we call a spade a spade. I'm not going to call "grand conspiracy" out of the gate.

Texas_Blaze wrote: So you have no problem charging blacks more for healthcare then.

That's a bit of an incendiary question. It's a trap! I will say this - if you want to make it "fair" and not play the race card, have all of our genetics tested and then associated in risk pools. Takes the race out of it. Blacks as a group would pay more, yes. So would people with predispositions for cancer and who knows how many other heath factors. Do I think it's a good idea? No. Does it make statistical sense? Yes.

TacShot wrote: Do not approach the issue from an actuarial point of view, rather see it as a political tool to make America disarm. We already know the basic premiums for the Affordable Care Act are going to increase substantially over the coming years.

So you mean more of the same trend in terms of health care cost that was occurring before Obamacare? I'm not a big supporter of the new socialized medicine, but the prior trend of healthcare costs would have crippled my retirement. It's not fair to completely ignore history and treat things like they were going great. Obamacare may well do the same to my retirement, but I'm not sure it's entirely the fault of Obamacare.

I appreciate you calling out the grand conspiracy, but for it to work, you have to get all healthcare providers to charge this politically-based premium. Good luck with that. That's not the political effort I'm terribly worried about.

CHL is a tax. If it's a right, why do we have to certify and pay fees on it?

Curious - was this just a political grandeur bill or one that had a legitimate basis in protecting consumers? IE - has any auto insurer ever charged a gun-owner premium?

For me the home / property side is a little more mixed. Insurance should be actuarial - that is based on actual statistics... If gun owners are more likely to sustain damage to property (or incur liability) then a premium (or discount) is justified. Denying insurance companies the ability to use actual statistic data is like asking health insurance companies not to charge any more for smokers... It's a "not my pet pig" issue for me.