>>Your logic is flawed.
>It wouldn't be the first time.
>
>>> Life insurance is not health insurance
>Of course it isn't.
>However, the principle that people with extraordinary risk exposure should be subsidized by people with normal risk exposure is at play here.

Again it makes no sense to me (perhaps I'm just misunderstanding?..) --- there is a 100% chance that you will die - there is not a 100% chance that you are going to have some sort of catastrophic illness that costs the person 100,000's or millions of dollars to deal with. Plus there is not a possibility that a person will die as a result of not having life insurance - whereas this is obviously true for those without proper healthcare and health insurance.