I'm not a mathematician, but I guess as we bring it to a close today, if a 41¢ premium rate covered 100% of the costs--based on a one-in-thirty or one-in-twenty-five claim rate as you say--then very clearly, as you said, my math tells me that only one-third of the cost would be covered with that 41¢ premium rate. If the claim rate was three times higher, then one in ten.
I guess my question is basically getting into a policy area, but you've answered a few of those thus far today, so how would that be good public policy if the premium rate is only covering roughly one-third of the cost? How is that good public policy?