Oh, and insurance companies are evil.
Impossible. A corporation or other non-human entity cannot be evil or good. Those are moral designations that can only be applied to human beings with concious choice. A fox eating a rabbit isn't evil, it is an animal. A hammer used in a murder isn't evil, it is a misused tool. A company that assesses risk and charges for covering said risk it isn't evil, it is called a studious company. Now, the people inside the company can and may be evil, but the company itself cannot be evil. We shouldn't say the same ridiculous things about companies that antis say about our guns, in both cases it makes us look like morons.
For all the paranoia displayed in this thread you would think that the insurance company or health professional did something nefarious. Well, guess what, they probably didn't. You might not like the questions but if you want coverage then you have to answer them. If you want a complete treatment, then you need to answer those questions. It is funny how mixed up we as gun owners can be when it comes to using our logic on non-gun issues.
Insurance companies assess risk and to do that they ask questions. If they believe that owning a firearm raises the chance of a firearm related injury, then they will want to make sure they cover that in their risk assessment. They may have a result from their data that shows them that motorcycle riding gun owners are 15.2% more likely to be involved in a firearm related injury. Just like they may have one that says a father of 2 that drives a Prius and owns a gun is 15.2% less likely to be involved in a firearm related injury. It isn't personal, it is merely data used to help them understand risk. This is no different than insurance companies using credit scores to track risk, there is a correllation.
It is funny that you don't hear about people with great credit scores who manage risk complaining about the lower rate they get, do you? How many of non-smokers complain about the lower rate they pay compared to smokers? Ever hear about those in-shape people bitching that they don't get charged as much as an obese person? Logic dictates that you get charged more for the bigger risk that you are. Face it, owning guns IS A RISK FACTOR, there can be no refuting that fact. Don't let your personal feelings of what constitutes moral behaivor and what doesn't get in the way of logic. Drinking, smoking, being overweight, owning guns, riding a motorcycle, mountain biking, and so many other activities are risky. The more risk they can assign to the risky people, the less the rest of the lower risk population pays. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless of course you are mad because behavior you think is acceptable happens to be risky. This isn't a lunatic prohibition group like MADD pushing to keep you from drinking or the VPC from owning guns on "health" grounds. This is an insurance company charging you based on the risk that YOU WILLINGLY take on in your life.
Certainly there is pressure to make guns a risk factor for political motives. However, before you put on the tinfoil, why not call the insurance company or write them to get an answer. If they write back and say that they heard from Rebecca Peters that firearm ownership is bad and they are trying to stamp it out with their questionaire, well, there you go. Post that letter and I'll take it all back.
