The cumulative impact of a lifetime of spending $5 per week is much less than winning a lottery. Most people can sustain a $5 per week hit, especially if they get the mental benefits described by the parent article.

There are better things to spend $5 on, but it's not a huge deal either way - as long as you stay out of the addictive/compulsive zone.

The losses covered by insurance are very impactful. Most people can't sustain the massive financial hit that comes from, say, their house burning down. It can make sense to lessen their day-to-day quality of life by spending money on insurance, to guard against that massive downside risk.

Hm. Most people collect on insurance for very-sustainable costs - drug benefits, dental for checkups, routine visits to the doctor. Where do those fit into this argument?

Personally, I would like insurance that pays only for large expenses. I know its a sucker game to pay insurance; since the insurance companies profit I must be losing. But 'group insurance' is not something I can change.

When you buy catastrophic insurance it usually comes with free preventative care, which benefits the insurer as well as the insured.

You can often get a lower premium for a higher deductible, and everyone who knows how to multiply does this.

...unless as noted, its group insurance, in which case you take what you get.

Insurance significantly reduces the possible (or significantly likely) variance in a persons financial well-being. This comes at a cost in total wealth that is worth while because it brings the chance that one would vary into territory where the money one has is not enough for basic utility. Insurance on the other hand increases the variance (meaning the slight increase in expected value comes at a cost) at the other end of the spread in a way that does not guarantee any kind of minimal utility. Minimal utility is more important than huge potential diminished returns.