No. You dont. Yuor "single aggregated payment group" necessarily must include the same market-based evaluation of risk - the only difference is that those who create that risk pay more than those that dont.
This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
Thus, your premise is flawed.
It does mean that my risk is not aggregated since my risk is calculated specifically for me and my conditions. That's a personal case, not an aggregated case. Aggregation means that you take the average of a large sample set. Individual risk assessment means that you individually assess risk; that is not aggregation. Just because I pay money into a company that a bunch of other people are paying into doesn't mean that I've aggregated my risk. I'm paying for my specific risk, a bunch of people happen to pay into the same company at their specific risk values. It's not aggregation just through coincidence of paying into the same company.
No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.
No, they are not. I pay specifically for my circumstances and choices; that's not aggregation. That's individualistic risk assessment.
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.
This is false. My premium would not equal my costs. In fact, the sum of all my premiums would have to be greater than my costs, else the company doesn't net a win. If I am charged my individual risk value my premiums are essentially a savings account (not insurance). I pay in every month noting that at some point I'll need that money. My risk isn't aggregated since it's valued for my specific conditions, thus insurance acts more as a health savings account than actual insurance. But a piss poor savings account because insurance tends to do all they can to not pay out. In a savings account, at least I can always withdraw the money.
To aggregate risk over a large population.
But if you charge people for specific, individual risk values, you have not aggregated that risk. You've been charged full amount.
All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.
The insurance industry in America is hardly real insurance. Particularly auto insurance since it is mandatory for all. Insurance operates more as a saving account at best and a scam at nominal value.
And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?
I did
No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.
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.
There's no "additional risk". The aggregated risk value of the system is the aggregated risk value of the system. It's an average of all parts. That's aggregation. If you add in "additional risk", it's no longer aggregated. Not on the risk front. There's no "spreading out" risk. It's been individualized; which is the opposite definition of aggregate.
That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.
I pose minimal risk, yet am not allowed to reap that outcome. I'm not allowed to get rid of my insurance either. So I pay for everyone else. The same thing you're bitching about with health insurance.
Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population
Yes, that is the point of insurance. However, we have individual risk assessment for the individual people and their specific circumstances which is no longer aggregation.
Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.
Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.
And that means that their risk has not been aggregated over a large population. It's not a tough concept to understand.
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.
No, I think I should be allowed to opt out of insurance all together. However, with car insurance, I have also stated it's no longer insurance since everyone has to have it. At that point, it's just probabilities. X number of people will have accidents, X number of people will have insurance. You're guaranteed at that point to have to pay out. So all that's left is for individual insurance companies to try to play off each other. The goal is to maximize the number of low risk drivers who pay into your system while minimizing the number of high risk drivers. That's why car insurance companies will often give lots of breaks for very good drivers. They know that you're not likely to get in a wreck, so they can just have your money. If everyone has to have it, it's not insurance since the system on the whole is guaranteed to realize all probabilities.