This question isn't ever answered, unless you are suggesting that any policy that benefits corporations, no matter the benefit to everyone else, should not exist. There isn't evidence to swing the data either way unless one of us reads through FEMA logs or whatever.
What part of "it falls outside of the conceptual nature of insurance" is so hard to understand? You have made a counter claim that "as long as poor people get some help it's ok", with no conceptual backing and also can't even find data to suggest the poor even receive any outsized help from the program in the respective situations. You're entire position is completely unsupported conceptually and empirically, and yet you're trying to project that onto me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
Insurability[edit]
Main article:
Insurability
Risk which can be insured by private companies typically shares seven common characteristics:
[17]
- Large number of similar exposure units: Since insurance operates through pooling resources, the majority of insurance policies are provided for individual members of large classes, allowing insurers to benefit from the law of large numbers in which predicted losses are similar to the actual losses. Exceptions include Lloyd's of London, which is famous for insuring the life or health of actors, sports figures, and other famous individuals. However, all exposures will have particular differences, which may lead to different premium rates.
- Definite loss: The loss takes place at a known time, in a known place, and from a known cause. The classic example is death of an insured person on a life insurance policy. Fire, automobile accidents, and worker injuries may all easily meet this criterion. Other types of losses may only be definite in theory. Occupational disease, for instance, may involve prolonged exposure to injurious conditions where no specific time, place, or cause is identifiable. Ideally, the time, place, and cause of a loss should be clear enough that a reasonable person, with sufficient information, could objectively verify all three elements.
- Accidental loss: The event that constitutes the trigger of a claim should be fortuitous, or at least outside the control of the beneficiary of the insurance. The loss should be pure, in the sense that it results from an event for which there is only the opportunity for cost. Events that contain speculative elements such as ordinary business risks or even purchasing a lottery ticket are generally not considered insurable.
- Large loss: The size of the loss must be meaningful from the perspective of the insured. Insurance premiums need to cover both the expected cost of losses, plus the cost of issuing and administering the policy, adjusting losses, and supplying the capital needed to reasonably assure that the insurer will be able to pay claims. For small losses, these latter costs may be several times the size of the expected cost of losses. There is hardly any point in paying such costs unless the protection offered has real value to a buyer.
- Affordable premium: If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely that the insurance will be purchased, even if on offer. Furthermore, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, then the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance (see the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 113: "Accounting and Reporting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts").
- Calculable loss: There are two elements that must be at least estimable, if not formally calculable: the probability of loss, and the attendant cost. Probability of loss is generally an empirical exercise, while cost has more to do with the ability of a reasonable person in possession of a copy of the insurance policy and a proof of loss associated with a claim presented under that policy to make a reasonably definite and objective evaluation of the amount of the loss recoverable as a result of the claim.
- Limited risk of catastrophically large losses: Insurable losses are ideally independent and non-catastrophic, meaning that the losses do not happen all at once and individual losses are not severe enough to bankrupt the insurer; insurers may prefer to limit their exposure to a loss from a single event to some small portion of their capital base. Capital constrains insurers' ability to sell earthquake insurance as well as wind insurance in hurricane zones. In the United States, flood risk is insured by the federal government. In commercial fire insurance, it is possible to find single properties whose total exposed value is well in excess of any individual insurer's capital constraint. Such properties are generally shared among several insurers, or are insured by a single insurer who syndicates the risk into the reinsurance market.
In other words, no private company would touch it, because it would be stupid to do so. So the government steps in and does the stupid thing.
This is another thing I don't get. I say it's a lazy narrative. You then disprove this lazy narrative by citing the evidence for the author, therefore doing the work he should have done beforehand. To me that is lazy writing, but I guess not to you since he's arguing in favor of a narrative you like. I question the validity of the "fighting age males"(which some studies go to 59, which is kind of ridiculous) and use the Jewish refugee migration pre 1939 as an example and you respond with;
"Demographics must be confusing you.
What are you talking about? Young males spread seed, work, and conquer. Old people die. Young women birth babies.
No problem. Sharia law won't be a problem for me, I already avoid pork and I can make room in my day to bow to Mecca."
I'm sorry for not providing more evidence for you to handwave when typing on the tiny screen of my smartphone. If it's a lazy narrative purely because the author doesn't cite support for a point that was tangential to the article (which means you went on a tangent relative to my post,not me), and I provided the support, your "lazy narrative" complaint is no longer valid. If you want to dispute the actual numbers then go ahead. Saying "well I'd like to see a comparison to some other relative historical situation, but those figures don't exist so the current situation warrants no concern" isn't a rebuttal.
tell me which males from which countries stayed to fight (preserve the status quo) while they sent women and children abroad. Then i'll agree that the narrative makes sense, other than that it seems like bullshit right-wing scare tactics.
There are three points of the anti-islamic refugee position:
1. Importing large amounts of people from a culture radically different is going to create major social problems (this holds true regardless of the specific religion)
2. The west can't afford it (also not specific to the refugees)
3. Muslims in particular (not every individual Muslim obviously) have a history of being diametrically opposed to western civilization,
because it's not Muslim, rather than for some ideological differences that could be ironed out.
The point being supported by the article I posted was point #1. Yet, to say it was being supported by the article isn't quite true. The mass sexual assaults on New Years were the support. The article pointed out that feminism, whose harpies have complained about victim blaming for so long, are now in a position where they would rather victim blame than be "xenophobic".
But that lazy narrative tho.
I mean come on. I really don't care about these points, but you're really quite wrong on the whole idea of a perfect European society being tainted by Muslims. 
