Firstly, is that U.S. fraud or global. U.S. is about half that of global.
Anyway, $7b vs $11b won't affect the argument by any significant amount.
Secondly, I don't believe this is similar to insurance.
Why would the bank or the customer pay the 'insurance' when it is the retailer who is most often left out of pocket as the result of a fraudulent transaction.
Once fraud is established, the customer would more than likely not be liable for the losses unless negligence could be proven.
The bank will then often recover the funds from the retailer.
Whilst insurance benefits the policyholder, this will only benefit a non-contributing third party. (Retailer)
I certainly won't pay a premium for it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
