All insurance, from auto to life, health, and crop insurance, works best when it expands the number of people it covers. That’s because the broader the participation, the more widely risk can be spread. And by spreading the chance of loss among a diverse group of insureds, premiums become more affordable for everyone involved.

This concept is known as the “risk pool.”

Think of it like this: Car insurance would not work if only a handful of drivers participated – especially if those drivers were accident-prone or heavily ticketed. Insurance companies would be hesitant to offer coverage and premiums would be astronomically high. A deep bench of experienced drivers with safe driving records is needed in the risk pool to balance out the equation and help offset losses.

The same can be said for health insurance. Why else do you think there was so much discussion on enrolling young, healthy people during the Affordable Care Act debate?

Crop insurance is no different, except crop insurance is about acres covered, not the number of farmers participating. If 1,000 acres is farmed by one farmer or three smaller operations is of little to no consequence. Getting the 1,000 acres covered is the key to expanding the size of the risk pool.

Widening the risk pool is so important that many forms of insurance encourage participation through incentives or mandates. If you have a mortgage, for example, you are obligated to carry insurance. State laws require auto coverage. Health insurance is aided when employers and the government help cover a portion of the premium.

In the case of crop insurance, these incentives didn’t always exist. As a result, coverage was expensive, policies were unavailable for many crops, and few people were insured. And when disaster struck, farmers looked to Congress to help them rebound through expensive, unbudgeted disaster legislation.

In fact, in the early 1990s, less than 30% of farm acreage was insured and farmers were vulnerable to risk. Having been stung by $70 billion worth of disaster bills since 1989, lawmakers needed to find a way to boost crop insurance participation.

Congress expanded the size of the risk pool through a three-pronged strategy.

First, it said crop insurance must be available to all – farmers couldn’t be excluded because they grew canola instead of corn or because they farmed in California instead of Connecticut. Then, the government invested in the development of new policies for crops, regions, and farmers that were traditionally underserved. Finally, it incentivized participation by discounting farmers’ premiums.

And the results speak for themselves. Today, 90% of acres are covered, taxpayer-funded bailout packages are a thing of the past, and farmers get assistance quickly when they need it thanks to private-sector efficiency.

Yet, despite these advances in modern risk management, some of agriculture’s political opponents have demanded that these investments be unraveled and that we return to the old inefficient and expensive model.

These farm policy critics want to exclude farmers with large operations from the system and cap benefits for all growers. Doing so would remove large swaths of acres from the risk pool, alienate experienced farmers with lower risk profiles, and ultimately make it harder for smaller, beginning farmers to get insurance coverage.

Just like removing all the safe drivers from auto insurance, that would be a wreck for everyone involved – including taxpayers.

Crop insurers and farmers have shouldered their share of challenges in recent years, ranging from an historic drought to lower-than-expected financial returns, legislative debates, and implementing a new Farm Bill.

But Tim Weber, chairman of the American Association of Crop Insurers and National Crop Insurance Services, said today that those challenges have only strengthened crop insurance providers and better equipped them for the future.

“I believe crop insurance is stronger today for the obstacles it has faced in recent years and most importantly, it is ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges,” he told colleagues at the industry’s annual conference.

Weber, who is coming to the end of his term as chairman, used his remarks to reflect back on lessons learned during pivotal years within the industry – a time, he said, when teamwork and building alliances was emphasized.

“Overall, I am very proud of what we have accomplished,” he said. “These accomplishments were the result of a hard-working, talented workforce that was willing to work together as [insurance providers], agents, adjusters, and industry allies to overcome attempts to weaken our farmers’ and ranchers’ most important risk management tool.”

Weber noted that, despite crop insurance’s past successes and its popularity with farmers, agriculture’s opponents will continue to criticize the farm safety net. He pointed to the recent Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which sought to cut $300 million a year from crop insurance, as proof of that criticism and how rural America must counter it.

“Farmers from across the country came to our defense…as did the agent force, the lending community, input providers, Main Street businesses, the conservation world, and leading voices from academia,” he explained. “Notwithstanding this level of support…we would never have won this battle if not for the leadership of key lawmakers who were not bashful about standing up for agriculture.”

Weber urged the group to remain vigilant moving forward by focusing on industry cooperation and collaboration with third-party allies. He also urged insurers to invest time and resources in the political process as a way to blunt future critiques.

“We need all Members of Congress to hear directly from their constituents regarding the importance of maintaining an effective crop insurance program,” he concluded. “After all, every person in this country benefits from a dynamic, financially healthy agricultural industry. Not only does it provide a dependable supply of domestically grown food, fuel, and fiber, but it also supports economic and job growth.”

NCIS President Tom Zacharias took on opponents of farm policy during more than a dozen live interviews at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters Convention in mid-November.

“The opponents of farm policy have bad memories, bad metrics and misleading messages,” noted Zacharias, who was referring to the 11^th hour budget deal cut in late October that would have crippled agriculture’s safety net. “This destructive proposal would have forced a new SRA renegotiation before the end of next year around an arbitrary rate-of-return target so low that it would have effectively ended private-sector delivery.”

Zacharias reminded radio hosts that the private sector delivery of crop insurance — which ensures farmers receive their indemnity check for verified losses in weeks not years — was one of the chief reasons why farmers have adopted crop insurance as their primary risk management tool.

“Farmers have embraced both the personalized risk management plans that they work out with the crop insurance agents and the speed at which help arrives after they experience a loss,” Zacharias added.

Zacharias explained that before the advent of the premium subsidy and private sector delivery; only about 30 percent of cropland was protected by crop insurance.

“Those who would cut crop insurance further would literally turn the clock backward by decades, removing private-sector delivery and driving down enrollment in the program,” he said. “Today, that number is easily more than 90 percent.”

Farmers are the engines that drive the rural economy, and when it became clear that the farm safety net was under attack, rural America rallied. Zacharias noted, “Farmers from across the country called on their congressional delegations demanding that the cuts be stopped. Commodity organizations pulled out all the stops to educate lawmakers about the need for effective and affordable risk management tools, while input providers and agricultural lenders also weighed in.”

When looking towards the opposing side, he explained that opponents of agriculture have purposely confused the public about gross revenue versus net profit to spread misinformation about crop insurers’ returns. But when the facts are laid out and terms are clearly defined, it is clear that business returns have fallen well short of the levels necessary to preserve private-sector delivery of crop insurance.

“The actual bottom line return for crop insurance companies has fallen well below other lines of insurance, with crop insurers are losing 1.4 percent under the 2011 SRA,” Zacharias explained.

Despite the misleading rhetoric, rural America rose to the occasion and fought hard for the crop insurance industry. “All of that effort paid off in the end, with farmers and their allies in rural America securing a promise from Senate and House leaders to restore the full funding of the program in the omnibus budget deal at the end of the year,” Zacharias concluded.

Although it made for many sleepless nights, the harmful proposals were neutralized – for the time being – by passage of the highway bill that will restore $3 billion worth of cuts to the nation’s crop insurance program.