This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
Thus, your premise is flawed.
No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.That's no longer insurance; that's more like paying your own way.
This is false. If you were correct then your premiums would equal your costs. That they do not indicates that your costs are aggregated over a large population.Aggregation of risk does not mean individually assigning risk factors to the individuals who are supposed to make up the aggregated group. There's actually no aggregation in the model under which various risk assessments are made and premiums changed.
To aggregate risk over a large population.You charge people market value based on their choices; but if that's the case why have insurance?
All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.What is a natural condition? Obesity, diabetes? Things of that nature? Essentially you're looking at various things with various probabilities. Statistically smokers die earlier and have many health problems. Individually, however, it may not be the case. It's possible for an entirely healthy person to get cancer while someone who has been smoking a lot suffers no perceived ill effects. So you want to charge individually on things which occur statistically. Which is market value evaluation, and of which is not insurance.
And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?
No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.Because that's the purpose of insurance.
The discussion here is 'additional risk' posed by a 'natural' condition. You insist that those that do not pose that risk subsidize the costs of those that do, but there's no sound argument for it.
That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.It's like this, you wanna bitch about assuming other people's risk. I pay car insurance. I also happen to be a damned fine driver. In my 17 years of driving, I've had 1 speeding ticket. Yet I still pay car insurance. It's a lower premium due to my awesomeness at driving; but it's not zero.
Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large populationSo I've been paying for almost 2 decades now for other people's accidents.
Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.For other people's behavior. Why should i have paid all that money for something I wasn't using? Even with some amount of mitigation to my premiums, I've been assuming the risk of others.
Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.
The fact that you think your insurance should go down because you do not pose the same risk as others indicates that you aree that insurance premiums should reflect risk, in dorect opposition to your original premise.