Why Should Guns Trump Principles?
With supporters pointing to Second Amendment rights, the Florida House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that seeks to prevent insurers from denying coverage or increasing rates based on customers owning guns or ammunition.
. . .
House members voted 74-44, along party lines, to approve the bill (SB 424). The Senate also passed the National Rifle Association-backed bill last month, meaning the measure is ready to go to Gov. Rick Scott.
The bill would apply to property and automobile insurers and add language to part of state law that deals with “unfair discrimination.” As an example, the bill would seek to block insurers from refusing to issue policies because of customers’ lawful ownership or possession of firearms. Similarly, it would bar them from charging “unfairly discriminatory” rates based on gun ownership or possession.
The Republican party attempts, with mixed success, to brand itself as the party of small government, reduced regulation, and free markets. This bill illustrates why that branding is not entirely successful — because too many Republicans, given a favored issue (Guns! Drugs! Crime!), are as unabashedly nanny-statish as Bloomberg on his most Big-Gulp-decrying day.
The proposition is, apparently, that because gun ownership is a cherished right under threat, private insurance companies should be regulated and precluded from charging gun-owning customers more based on the insurance companies' risk assessment. I suppose this is a coherent argument taken in isolation; it's just not consistent with economic conservatism. Saying "greedy insurance companies should be regulated and not permitted to charge what they want, because the free market isn't working" sounds, instead, more like a classic progressive position.
Consider, for instance, the position of Republican state representative Matt Gaetz:
But bill sponsor Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said Floridians have a constitutional right to bear arms, and even one case of insurers taking action because of gun ownership is “too much.”
“How much discrimination based on the exercise of a constitutional right is tolerable?” Gaetz asked.
Gaetz apparently believes that a private insurer charging a customer more based on its own risk assessment is a violation of that customer's constitutional right to do whatever he or she wants. So, Mr. Gaetz: would an insurance company that offers policies covering defamation be violating my First Amendment rights if it charged me — a mouthy blogger — more than a homebound shut-in who never utters or writes a word? Does an insurance company interfere with my right to procreate if it charges me more for a family health plan than an individual one? Should private insurance companies assume the risk of our exercises of constitutional rights? If the government disagrees with the private insurance market's risk assessment, should it intervene? Is it a good thing to increase the power of government bureaucracies and the courts to regulate whether insurance rates are "discriminatory?" Is the insurance market broken and incapable of addressing anti-gun-bias by driving customers away from gun-penalizing insurers and to gun-friendly insurers? I can see why someone would say those things, Mr. Gaetz. I just find them difficult to reconcile with your other positions:
Healthcare and Insurance
Matt Gaetz believes that health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not the government. That’s why Matt Gaetz wants to make sure that you can keep the health insurance you currently have. He will fight to keep health care costs down by eliminating junk lawsuits and fraud in the system.
This is not new. Florida is the state that passed a patently unconstitutional law purporting to regulate what doctors could ask their patients about guns. Florida is the state that decided the right to carry a gun trumps the right of private property owners to control their property.
Treating guns as an asterisk to principles — treating the Second Amendment as if it empowers the government to regulate private conduct, rather than just limiting the government — is incoherent and un-conservative.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Unusually Stupid McClatchy Column Gets Free Speech Wrong - May 4th, 2015
- Prenda Law And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Appellate Argument - May 4th, 2015
- Was Ebony Dickens' Facebook Post Criminal? - April 30th, 2015
- Cops: We Need Rights More Than You, Citizen - April 29th, 2015
- Lawsplainer: Why The D.C. Circuit's Anti-SLAPP Ruling Is Important - April 28th, 2015