New (FL) law forbidding doctors to talk to patients about guns angers physicians

[Henry]

From the bill:

prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition;

Really?

[twa]

From the bill:

Really?

looks like they are trying to get into protected class status

I'm more of a don't ask/don't tell fan

[Henry]

looks like they are trying to get into protected class status

I'm more of a don't ask/don't tell fan

I thought gun owners, by definition, were already a protected class.

[Larry]

Most of our right wing regulars of ES have steered clear' date=' to their credit.[/quote']

Which doesn't in any way imply that they don't approve of FLs action. Most of them are simply smart enough not to stand up and admit to their legislative desires.

[repo_4]

Which doesn't in any way imply that they don't approve of FLs action. Most of them are simply smart enough not to stand up and admit to their legislative desires.

Not so. I do not approve of the law. I also do not approve of a doctor being able to use that information (my gun ownership status) against me though. Not implying that all will but there has been at least one case shared on here where it did happen.

[twa]

I thought gun owners, by definition, were already a protected class.

To hear some tell it they are a endangered class,both from the choice to have guns,and those that wish to prevent them having guns.

but no, they are not a protected class as far as discrimination

[Dan T.]

Not so. I do not approve of the law. I also do not approve of a doctor being able to use that information (my gun ownership status) against me though. Not implying that all will but there has been at least one case shared on here where it did happen.

So far there's been no case of a doctor using a patient's "gun owner status" against the patient. The only case presented I've seen so far in which a doctor dropped a patient was when the patient refused to answer questions. The doctor had no idea what the patient's "gun owner status" was because the patient refused to answer the question.

To me, that seems too reactionary on the doctor's part, though it's his perogative to drop a client. It certainly doesn't require a stupid, unconstituional law to remedy the situation.

---------- Post added July-20th-2011 at 10:16 AM ----------

To hear some tell it they are a endangered class,both from the choice to have guns,and those that wish to prevent them having guns.

but no, they are not a protected class as far as discrimination

Did Henry's joke sail high overhead?

[twa]

Did Henry's joke sail high overhead?

Did mine?

[Burgold]

just to be contrary....is it really the gov in this case?...or a matter of a bill tacked on to more important legislation that he signed?

Are you really asking if a Bill passed by a legislature and signed by a governor is a government action? Even if it's only one line of a bill passed by a legislature and signed by a governor? Is that your question?

[Dan T.]

Did mine?

Yes, it did. Was there a joke in there? Was it the thing about endangered class?

[twa]

Yes, it did. Was there a joke in there? Was it the thing about endangered class?

yes...though more snide than humorous

Bur...I was referring to the Governor specifically(how much he was involved)....yes I realize a bill passed and signed is a govt action.

add explaining joke(always a bad sign)...the flip side of Henry's

the libs and drs say simply owning a gun endangers you

the right thinks it makes them a target for discrimination and LEO/govt harassment

[Burgold]

Whew. That's all I can say. If we couldn't even agree that the actions of the government are part of a government I'm not sure if I'd survive.

[Predicto]

Did I read that right? An insurer in Florida is legally prohibited from charging a different insurance rate to people who have guns in their house from people who don't? That's nuts. I support the right to own guns, but denying that they are a safety risk in the home is pure bull.

[twa]

Did I read that right? .

looked that way to me....are there any other groups excluded from assessing risk factors in ins?