Back Door Gun Control through Insurance Premiums

[TacShot]

Most of the responders to the OP are missing the point. 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. Now, assume the Affordable Care Act is modified or expanded to increase premiums based upon firearms in the home. Let's say the initial increase is $10 per month per member (all equally at risk) of the household where guns are stored. For a family of four, that is an additional $480 per year. Slowly step up that premium to $50 per member and the additional $2400 per year becomes a burden the average household cannot afford. Is it logical, of course not. Is it possible with an anti-gun congress or administration, absolutely! Am I scaremongering, only if you believe those speaking out against government control of the healthcare system, the abuses of the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS are scaremongering.

[cb1000rider]

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.

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.

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?