[LorenPechtel]

Disagree on the probability bit. The important part is the severity of the negative outcome.

And if you can't afford to lose the toy you couldn't afford to buy it in the first place. Thus toys should never be insured.

(That is, of course, assuming they aren't mispricing it. I've seen a situation like that where I considered it: There are companies that offer small-appliance warranties at approximately an x% of price model--reliability doesn't enter into it. If you know that with your use case the product is likely to fail within the warranty... But some searching shows the real business model is to make it nearly impossible to actually make your claim.)

[dangus]

> And if you can't afford to lose the toy you couldn't afford to buy it in the first place. Thus toys should never be insured.

You’re getting this wrong.

Being unable to afford to lose a toy doesn’t mean you weren’t able to afford it, it means you weren’t able to afford buying it twice.

It works the same way with home insurance. I can afford the house. I can’t afford two houses if my current house burns down and I need to buy another one.