Kansas gun law renders school uninsurable?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why not put the Hell's Angel's in charge of school security? What could possible go wrong?

Hey, the Stones liked the idea.

[Svartalf]

That was Altamont... even I know how that ended.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That was Altamont... even I know how that ended.

I heard a guy in California claim to be one of the Angels there that day. Whereupon five real Angels demanded to see his club card. He ran away.

[klr]

Moved to the Gun Club

[Svartalf]

Moved to the Gun Club

Shame, I normally avoid that section, and now you've put me there.

[klr]

Moved to the Gun Club

Shame, I normally avoid that section, and now you've put me there.

You can always back out, very carefully ... (damn, I know we have a smiley for that)

[pErvinalia]

:backingoutslowly: :backingout: :backout: :fuckingbackingthefuckoutfuck:

[Collector1337]

It should be illegal for insurers to discriminate against people exercising their rights. That's like refusing to insure particular religions.

Or charging higher rates for smokers, people with longer commutes, people who choose to build their houses on floodplains. Not to mention crop insurers who make sure that farmers don't plant too early, placing their crops at a higher risk for late frosts.

Why not put the Hell's Angel's in charge of school security? What could possible go wrong?

None of those things are a right.

[Coito ergo sum]

It should be illegal for insurers to discriminate against people exercising their rights. That's like refusing to insure particular religions.

Nonsense. Insurers are private enterprises making insurance decisions and should be able to make decisions based on risk, provided they do not make irrational decisions based on race, color, national origin, etc. where such distinctions have no statistical basis. However, if insurers give women lower insurance premiums because they are statistically less costly to insure, so be it. If a school is more costly to insure because it has an open gun rule, it would be un-American to compel them to enter into insurance contracts that they don't want to enter into.

[Coito ergo sum]

It should be illegal for insurers to discriminate against people exercising their rights. That's like refusing to insure particular religions.

Or charging higher rates for smokers, people with longer commutes, people who choose to build their houses on floodplains. Not to mention crop insurers who make sure that farmers don't plant too early, placing their crops at a higher risk for late frosts.

Why not put the Hell's Angel's in charge of school security? What could possible go wrong?

None of those things are a right.

All of them are right.

An insurance company that thinks it's too risky to insure smokers ought to be able to deny coverage to tobacco smokers. Similarly, they should be able to charge higher prices. Same thing with longer commutes. auto insurance is more expensive, often, for those with longer commutes because they pose a greater risk. And, people who choose to build houses on the beach ought to pay more in insurance for risks associated therewith. I fucking hate having to subsidize folks who insist on living in hurricane areas but don't want to pay to insure against that risk.

[Collector1337]

It should be illegal for insurers to discriminate against people exercising their rights. That's like refusing to insure particular religions.

Or charging higher rates for smokers, people with longer commutes, people who choose to build their houses on floodplains. Not to mention crop insurers who make sure that farmers don't plant too early, placing their crops at a higher risk for late frosts.

Why not put the Hell's Angel's in charge of school security? What could possible go wrong?

None of those things are a right.

All of them are right.

An insurance company that thinks it's too risky to insure smokers ought to be able to deny coverage to tobacco smokers. Similarly, they should be able to charge higher prices. Same thing with longer commutes. auto insurance is more expensive, often, for those with longer commutes because they pose a greater risk. And, people who choose to build houses on the beach ought to pay more in insurance for risks associated therewith. I fucking hate having to subsidize folks who insist on living in hurricane areas but don't want to pay to insure against that risk.

What documentation do you have to show me those things are rights?

If the insurance is mandated by the government, they can't deny it.

[Coito ergo sum]

What documentation do you have to show me those things are rights?

The ninth amendment.

However, it's not really a question of whether it is a "right" or not. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean another person has an obligation to insure risks associated with your exercise of that right.

If the insurance is mandated by the government, they can't deny it.

That's just a truism. Of course if insurance companies are a mandated to cover a risk then they can't (legally) deny it.

However, just because the government mandates that you get insurance coverage doesn't mean it is proper for government to compel another person to insure you -- much less compel those other people to insure you at the price you want. That's why when government mandates insurance they often have to set up government run programs for the "uninsurable" so that uninsurable persons can get state subsidized insurance.