Skip to main content

Huge rate hike!

Image
By scooby

 California FAIR Plan seeks huge rate hike. Map shows which ZIPs hit hardest


“The California FAIR Plan has proposed raising home insurance rates by an average of 35.8% starting next spring - a hike that, if approved in full, would be its largest in at least seven years.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/california-fair-plan-seeks-largest-231104839.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
Can you put a price on the opportunity to live in paradise - apparently the answer is yes.
10/07/2025 9:43 PM
Anonymous said…
“Can you put a price on the opportunity to live in paradise - apparently the answer is yes.”

If you subtract the freely allowed illegal alien arrivals from the legal tax paying resident CA exodus, the answer is NO.

Is CA “beating the farm” on a 2025 or 2030 census that will INCLUDE illegal aliens?

Because if this is not permitted, CA will have absorbed millions of people that the federal government will not acknowledge or help fund, leaving CA legal residents, on an isolated financial island on the hook for those expenses. What a CA financial sh_t storm this would be.
10/08/2025 5:36 PM
Anonymous said…
MAGA thinking! Referring to illegal aliens negatively, putting all migrants in one basket, exaggerating the number of border crossings. The oligarchy is doing a good job making you focus on migrants instead of them!
10/09/2025 6:50 PM
Anonymous said…
“exaggerating the number of border crossings” (?)

As of 2023 data, the population of illegal immigrants in CA alone was ~2.3 million. This 2023 figure exceeds the 2025 population of Santa Clara County in CA. According to Moody’s Analytics, 22 states are now in a “recession”, some states are in an “expansion”, while CA was identified as “treading water”.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/are-we-in-a-recession-yes-if-you-live-in-one-of-these-22-states/ar-AA1NR6ja
10/10/2025 6:17 AM
Anonymous said…
Again, why is this being posted here? What does this have to do with what's going on at the NNSA Labs? I agree it's a general concern for homeowners in CA, but how difficult is it for LLNL employees living in the Livermore area to get homeowners insurance. I suspect it's a nonissue.
10/13/2025 11:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more