> The same way responsible drivers should not pay for reckless ones? Or responsible homeowners shouldn't pay for reckless ones? Yes, exactly. Reckless drivers

> The same way responsible drivers should not pay for reckless ones? Or responsible homeowners shouldn't pay for reckless ones? Yes, exactly. Reckless drivers and reckless homeowners should pay higher premiums, as their insurance covers a higher risk (a priori expected cost) compared to responsible drivers and responsible homeowners. > The whole idea of insurance is to distribute the costs so that no one has to bear long tail costs alone... The "whole idea of insurance" from the buyer's perspective is to pay a fixed premium instead of carrying risk. The value of the service, and thus the premium one is willing to pay, is determined by the risk being mitigated for each individual customer. The existence of "risk pools" is important for the insurance provider's cash flow, but a mere implementation detail to the customer. Insurance is not a subsidy or charity; if you and others like yourself are expected to cost more on average than some other group, you should expect to pay more. In a competitive insurance market those with higher risks will pay higher premiums; a company that attempted to charge everyone a flat rate would find itself either bankrupt or incapable of competing on premiums for any but the most expensive (highest-risk) customers.