This sort of thought implies not believing in insurance of any kind. Why should people pay into a common fund when only a small percentage of them will ever use it.
But my message was about the general principle of insurance being the very thing your comment was against. The situation where the vast majority of people pay some cost of which only a few need to utilise.
Sure, but the likelihood of that is low enough that insuring against that isn't worth it for most people
> But my message was about the general principle of insurance being the very thing your comment was against. The situation where the vast majority of people pay some cost of which only a few need to utilise.
No, the principle of insurance is that people pay to hedge against some event that has a reasonable likelihood of happening to them at some point. Whether it's a majority or a minority paying for it is not central to the concept of insurance.
Obviously I'm ignoring variance in this calculation, but you can easily adjust the numbers to give a margin of safety.
For insurance to work more people have to pay into the system than people who receive payment, otherwise the insurer will go bankrupt.