But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.
OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.
Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain
loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible
loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?
And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?