Maybe in some platonic ideal, but in practice a) consumers (and even brokers) aren’t that sophisticated, and b) likelyhood of the company being around in 20 years isn’t baked into the price. When I shopped for insurance there were only 3 options with contract terms that passed muster, and all three companies are large ones that I’d expect to be around in 20 years to a degree that has no relation to the price quotes I got.

With term life insurance specifically the lifetime policy premiums are typically so low relative to the value of the policy that there's a natural bias towards insuring generally healthy people. Its not uncommon to see policies that are something like $40/month for 20 years ($9600 in premiums) for a $1mm death benefit, for example.

People with more complex medical conditions often can get life insurance from smaller, specialized providers... and at much higher rates. But the big mass-market players offering inexpensive term life products are only offering them that cheaply because they really control the risk profile during underwriting.

Insurance companies only make money, when they insure people..

If you want to gamble on your health then you want a tontine, not life insurance.

No. Many people have family/kids and want to care for them, and their plan A is to work until retirement. If they die prior to that, the family/kids would be in dire straits. That's plan B, the issue life insurance solves perfectly well.

That, in fact, is the general (and beneficial) function of insurance: You only need to provision for the expected loss (plus some fee for the insurance), not the maximum loss (which many people could not afford).

Perhaps some life insurance products fall into that category. For many families, though, term life insurance plays a big part into ensuring financial security if one income earner dies prematurely.

Oh come on, you can't be serious.

It's not a gamble, you transfer your risk to a collective.

Life insurance, in the past, was frequently illegal.

I'd argue that it should be illegal again, as a moral hazard (directly contributing to countless murders and other schemes) and as a particularly morbid form of gambling.

If you think it's that simple, you have no idea what you're talking about.

How many years experience do you have in the insurance industry that you're so confident to talk like this?

> because this is a financial product and doesn't require months of building a factory or something to offer.

How many financial instruments have you launched? If the answer is zero, you should refrain from any conversations on the topic because your opinion literally means nothing.