With this explosion, there was a ~$200 million satellite destroyed as part of a ~$60 million launch. We'll probably see much cheaper payloads to go along with cheaper launches eventually, but for right now the payload loss dominates, so you have to look at that as well.
For this particular problem, the risk to the payload will be eliminated by not attaching it for the static fire. Any risk during the actual launch would still affect the payload, though.
Insurance isn't magic money. The cost of the satellite is recouped through premiums charged to companies launching satellites. It becomes part of the cost of launching one way or another. If gain X has cost Y, Y still factors into the tradeoff even if it's insured.
To put it in concrete terms, if insurers decide that SpaceX is significantly more dangerous to its payloads, then launch insurance for satellites using SpaceX rockets will become significantly more expensive.
Not sure what you're getting at with the condescending tone. My point is that the satellite owner did not realize a $200m loss; SpaceX being at least partially self-insured, from what I've read, is more likely to take a hit. There were 85 launches in 2016, one rocket blowing up is not going to significant change the landscape (heh).
Disclaimer: I don't know shit about the space industry, so don't waste your time.
We're discussing the tradeoffs involved in making launches cheaper but more risky. My point here is that insurance is irrelevant to that tradeoff. One way or another, the payload owners are ultimately paying for that risk.
For this particular problem, the risk to the payload will be eliminated by not attaching it for the static fire. Any risk during the actual launch would still affect the payload, though.