“Say you decline to buy homeowners insurance which covers against theft, and someone steals/destroys your $5000 plasma TV. You’re saying that if you insist that party repay you the $5000, you’re a net winner because you get the $5000 and you got to spend the money you would have spend on homeowners insurance premiums? Does this really make sense?”
_______________________________________________________________
There are so many things wrong with that statement that it does not qualify as an analogy.
In the real world, you will never recover the value of the TV from a perp -get real.
Yes, it makes sense. The guy declines coverage which he should pay for and still have coverage for losses (in the form of damages).
If someone else is responsible for the damages, why should he have to pay for them or for insurance to cover them? Either way it’s money out of his pocket (either in the form of insurance premiums if he chooses to buy insurance, or repairs if he does not) for something for which someone else is responsible.