Couldn't said costs be viewed as upfront costs of a very, very long term investment in the human race? The more we spend on astronaut safety for a small number of astronauts in the present, the cheaper it'll be in the future for a large number of astronauts and the sooner we'll be able to send large numbers of them. If we wanted to think in the long term, we'd remember that our population is growing and will continue to do so. Investing in solutions on where to put people and how to feed them now will save us a lot headaches compared to waiting until it really is a problem. (granted there are plenty of potentially habitable spaces here on the globe to explore, such as floating on/under the ocean, re-greening the deserts, or perhaps carved out of the icecaps, but eventually those spaces will run out as well).

Yep, you're right. I honestly don't know why they haven't (or at least a class-action suit or something similiar). I'd love it if one of those "IAAL" types could fill me (and others) in on that.
My point was simply that it would seem prudent to plan for worst-case senerios. I would think that profit-seeking entities would someday learn how profitable risk management can be, in the long run.

Yes, I'm also aware "the long run" doesn't seem to be in our current corporate culture's lexicon. Hmm... it's possible I just answered one of my own questions.