If insurance is individually priced to this degree, what's the point of insurance?
Also, the only thing stopping medical insurers from denying coverage or increasing prices for people with pre-existing conditions is the Affordable Care Act.
You can get insurance on very risky things. The way it's done is high rates and "reinsurance" which means the insurance company shares the risk (and premium) with a pool of other insurance companies. For policies with a large possible payout (e.g. a big ship or aircraft) this is always done, to avoid issues for the insurance company that gets unlucky enough to have to pay out.
https://www.iii.org/press-release/triple-i-extreme-fraud-and...
"Florida, however, is the site of 79 percent of all homeowners insurance lawsuits over claims filed nationwide while Florida’s insurers receive only 9 percent of all U.S. homeowners insurance claims, according to the Florida governor’s Office."
A pre-existing condition is not a low probability event. It is a 100% certainty that you have to pay for it. In that case the insurance is just a middleman who is increasing the cost of the thing you definitely have to pay for. You pay the insurance company, they take a cut, and they pay the healthcare provider. Why not just pay the healthcare provider directly?
Second of all: when you take out an insurance policy and pay your first premium, you are immediately covered. If you are "self insuring" by setting aside the same amount monthly, it will take you a long time to even begin to accumulate enough funds to cover yourself in case of catastrophe. (And due to the first point, you may never reach that point.)
Finally, yes, of course, there is no need to take out an insurance policy for a risk that you can afford to pay out-of-pocket. It's like how if you have the cash to pay for a house, there is no need to take out a mortgage.
When you buy insurance, you aren't just pooling risk with other customers with the exact same risk profile as yourself. You're pooling with all customers of the company. (Plus all customers of any reinsurance company, etc.)
Put another way, if the insurance company isn't taking on any risk then you are.
Obviously with something like medical insurance, where people often carry risks that are no fault of their own, there are downsides.
There's no pooling of risk at all.
In the end, this is going to happen. Insurance companies will be soothsayers and get paid for essentially making advisory predictions, not offloading risk, while society will have to agree to bear the cost of known outcomes over which people generally have no individual agency.
Perfectly accurate insurance pricing would be for each policy to cost exactly the amount of covered losses in the period covered plus the overhead of managing the insurance, which obviously would be pointless.
What I'd expect is that you pay into the pool and then after 20 years you've more than paid for the new roof and so you get a new roof.
It should be slightly stochastic financing of your new roof and since a roof has a finite lifetime there should be a new roof at the end of it. It shouldn't be "hey, looks like your roof is about to have issues now, and we only insure new roofs, thanks for the profits, byeeeeee...."
If your roof has a finite lifetime and is approaching the end of its life, the cost of insuring your roof will be close to the cost of a new roof. If your insurance company is not allowed to increase your rate to match your risk (which seems to be the case in California), they will drop you as a customer.
Your previous premium payments insured against the risk of unexpected loss during those earlier policy periods only. They have nothing to do with your current insurance rate.
No, if the expense were that predictable, the best case would be dispense with insurance entirely, since it effects the cost not at all and imposes overhead, especially insurance where the rates are accurately computed over short periods.
Without uncertainty, there is no point in insurance.
You assumed my views without asking.
My comment only referred to there still being a benefit in choosing to have insurance even with perfect information about risk and expected benefits. At no point did I even imply that I thought "it's irresponsible to own anything".
1. If you choose not to take out an insurance policy, and instead save the money yourself, you will not have the lump sum immediately available to cover catastrophe. Whereas as soon as you start paying insurance premiums you are covered.
2. The payout you receive when you make an insurance claim does not just come from the premiums you have personally paid. In fact, for a rare event, the size of the payout likely exceed the total cost of all premiums you could pay over your entire lifetime. This is because the risk is pooled over all customers, and not all customers will make claims.
Neither of the above 2 points become any less relevant as the insurance premiums become more and more accurately priced.
If insurance can accurately predict losses that will occur and price accordingly, you are paying exactly the same amount plus overhead, on a similar schedule for insurance as directly paying for losses yourself without insurance.
The cost spreading effect (both over time and over individuals) is a direct consequence of the inability to accurately predict losses and the resulting inability to price accurately.
The hypothetical that I'm working with is that the insurer can perfectly price insurance by perfectly estimating the _risk_ or _expected loss_ for each individual customer. They can then pool this risk, take a profit, and everyone wins.
This is what I assumed you meant by "perfectly priced insurance". But I've realized you're talking about the case where insurer has perfect knowledge of the future losses each individual will take. I agree in this case insurance will not make sense. Insurance would be free for most individuals and impossibly expensive for those doomed to catastrophe. (The latter group would be screwed, even if they shared perfect knowledge of the future with the insurer.)
So is mine. But my premise is that the true risk (that is, what uncertainty cannot be eliminated with sufficient information about the current state physical universe) is small, most of the apparent risk is just insufficient current data or an insufficient model; things like the drone data gathering are an attempt to narrow the first problem, and the second will improve over time with scientific progress.
As those improve, the expected loss converges toward the actual loss (and does so at any given proximity on progressively shorter timelines.)
Insurance has always been a negative-EV trade for the average person, but there have been mispricings that make it positive-EV when you have more information than the insurance company. However, the inefficiency meant that you also had to pay for the uncertainty on their estimate of your risk.
With less uncertainty, the spread in the market should go down, and your premium should converge to something close to your actual risk plus the cost to assess your risk.
Negative EV in terms of dollars, but not necessarily utility. For most people, a 1% chance of losing their $500k home is worse than paying a $5100 premium.
“All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” - Charles Munger
But we don’t actually know the future that well, so even if we know that some houses are riskier than others, it’s still worth buying.