TexasCHLforum.com

The Florida legislature recently passed a law prohibiting discrimination by insurance providers against gun owners in Auto and Property policies. I would like Texas to enact a similar but more comprehensive law to include Life and Health policies. I fear the Affordable Care Act (obamacare, a plan for eventual total control of the citizenry) will morph into a plan wherein the rates for an owner of firearms would be raised by fiat to where few could keep their guns and be able to afford the premiums. This would be a very effective form of "Back door gun control" and do not doubt for a moment that the anti-gun crowd sees the opportunity to do just that!

Now would be a good time to start contacting your state rep, or your potential new state rep if your in a district subject to change.

contacting your rep is a good idea. In fact I did just that. Great post!

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.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

I agree with you but, 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?

cb1000rider wrote: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.

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

•Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes.
•African-Americans are three times more likely to die of asthma than white Americans.
•Deaths from lung scarring -- sarcoidosis -- are 16 times more common among blacks than among whites. The disease recently killed former NFL star Reggie White at age 43.
•Despite lower tobacco exposure, black men are 50% more likely than white men to get lung cancer.
•Strokes kill 4 times more 35- to 54-year-old black Americans than white Americans. Blacks have nearly twice the first-time stroke risk of whites.
•Blacks develop high blood pressure earlier in life -- and with much higher blood pressure levels -- than whites. Nearly 42% of black men and more than 45% of black women aged 20 and older have high blood pressure.
•Cancer treatment is equally successful for all races. Yet black men have a 40% higher cancer death rate than white men. African-American women have a 20% higher cancer death rate than white women.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/fe ... lacks-most#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Apples and oranges. Smoking is a choice. Genetics is not. And since people are not born with a gun in their hand......

Now I am not saying I agree with any rates based on gun ownership, I was simply pointing out that your analogy is flawed.

poppo wrote:

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

Apples and oranges. Smoking is a choice. Genetics is not. And since people are not born with a gun in their hand......

Now I am not saying I agree with any rates based on gun ownership, I was simply pointing out that your analogy is flawed.

So statistics don't count when it is genetic, but they do count when you want to control a person. oh, ok, I'll buy that. Thx.

Making everything about race is past ridiculous.

mojo84 wrote:Making everything about race is past ridiculous.

I am not ok w/ gun owners being singled out for insurance purposes just as much as someone being singled out because of genetic predisposition. what is ridiculous is to have different rules, if statistics are what insurance companies base premiums on.

Texas_Blaze wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Making everything about race is past ridiculous.

I am not ok w/ gun owners being singled out for insurance purposes just as much as someone being singled out because of genetic predisposition. what is ridiculous is to have different rules, if statistics are what insurance companies base premiums on.

Should young male drivers have to pay more in car insurance than young female drivers? Statistically young male drivers have more accidents than young female drivers costing the insurance companies more money. So the insurance companies have two options, charge male drivers more than female drivers to maintain equal profit margin on each group or punish the statistically safer driver by increasing rates on female drivers to make up the loss of profit margin on the male policies. Which practice is best financially and which is morally correct?
This quandary is no different than the question of health insurance. If one group of people statistically cost the insurance company more money than another group of people which is more morally correct, to price each policy so that the company maintains the same profit margin from each group or increase the amount you charge the group costing the insurance company less money to make up the difference?
The answer to the question would be very simple if the statistics were reversed. To charge a minority group a higher rate to make up for losses caused by the white man would be immediately denounced as racism, as it should be. But the catch 22 here is statistics fall the other way which of course causes you to cry racism. But logically only only one of the scenarios can be racism, please tell me which one it is.

Now let's talk about gun owners. If the insurance company can prove that a group of people engaged in a particular activity cost the insurance company more money to insure, should the insurance company charge just that group more money to maintain profits or should they charge everyone more money to maintain their profit margin? In the case of guns I don't believe the statistics prove a legal gun owner cost the insurance company anymore than the guy who owns a chain saw. Is it wrong to single out gun owners if they are not affecting the bottom line? Yes! Is it wrong to single out a group of people because they cost more than another group of people? You tell me.

I think most of us understand the basics of actuarial insurance.

The key is what statistics will (could) be used (abused) to charge gun owners a higher rate?

Or what could stop an insurance firm from simply charging gun owners more on a whim, to make a political point, as a social engineering endeavor, or simply because someone high up in the firm is a fervent anti-gun ideologue?

A-R wrote:I think most of us understand the basics of actuarial insurance.

The key is what statistics will (could) be used (abused) to charge gun owners a higher rate?

Or what could stop an insurance firm from simply charging gun owners more on a whim, to make a political point, as a social engineering endeavor, or simply because someone high up in the firm is a fervent anti-gun ideologue?

Competition.

ScottDLS wrote:

A-R wrote:I think most of us understand the basics of actuarial insurance.

The key is what statistics will (could) be used (abused) to charge gun owners a higher rate?

Or what could stop an insurance firm from simply charging gun owners more on a whim, to make a political point, as a social engineering endeavor, or simply because someone high up in the firm is a fervent anti-gun ideologue?

Competition.

Is that allowed in the age of Obanacare-style insurance regulation?

The Texas Department of Insurance has to review and approve all rates. They also control what can and cannot be used as factors for premiums. Trust me, they have bigger fish to fry like wind/hail exposures, auto liability and water damage. I've never heard guns specifically brought into the equation. Some policies have limits on guns just as they do on other specific items like art, silverware and jewelry. Many will allow you to increase the limits and coverages in order to fit your personal needs.

I'm more bothered that my premium goes up because of hurricanes hitting 7 hours from my home. Can't say I'm worried about my guns costing me more.