#premium increases

Why California Home Insurance Rates Are RisingAs wildfire losses mount, California home insurance rates are rising because insurers face sharply higher expected claim costs across much of the state.More areas are now priced as higher risk, and climate-driven fire behavior has intensified the threat of large, simultaneous losses.Rising rebuilding expenses also matter.Labor, materials, and replacement-cost inflation have increased claim payouts, while higher dwelling limits push premiums upward.Some insurers have also reduced coverage in vulnerable regions, creating limited competition that can push rates higher.Broader disaster exposure adds pressure.Recent record rain and atmospheric rivers in Southern California have also exposed insurers to growing flood, mudslide, and infrastructure-related loss risks.Floods, drought, storms, and earthquake risk create underwriting uncertainty, especially in the wildland-urban interface.Insurers also face higher reinsurance costs after major disasters, and those expenses are flowing into homeowner premiums.At the same time, reduced competition has narrowed consumer options as some carriers scale back.In this disrupted market, premium transparency and policy bundling have become more prominent topics for households comparing coverage.How Much Could California Home Insurance Cost in 2026?California homeowners could face 2026 insurance costs ranging from about $1,324 to $2,400 per year for a standard HO-3 policy. The exact price will depend on coverage limits, location, and the pricing method behind each estimate.For $300,000 in dwelling coverage, recent averages cluster near $1,335 to $1,543 annually. A $350,000 profile appears around $1,413.Broader datasets place statewide averages near $1,574 or even $2,100. That spread shows how different methodologies can produce very different results. In Florida, regulators recently approved a maximum 14% rate hike, highlighting how insurance affordability pressures are intensifying in major housing markets.Monthly PressureOn a monthly basis, that works out to about $110 at $1,324, $118 at $1,413, $131 at $1,574, and $175 at $2,100. Those numbers can add noticeable pressure to a household budget.If a 16% increase materializes, projected premiums would rise to roughly $1,536, $1,639, $1,826, or $2,436. That would push monthly costs even higher.Coverage choices and deductibles can shift totals further. Higher limits, in particular, often move premiums into the mid-$1,000s or low-$2,000s.Which California Homeowners Will Pay the Most?Where premiums climb the highest, the heaviest burden falls on homeowners in affluent ZIP codes that also sit in high or very high fire hazard areas.A strong concentration appears in Southern California, where nine of the 10 costliest premium regions are located.Luxury Enclaves Face the Largest BillsLuxury enclaves such as Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Rancho Santa Fe, Newport Coast, and Bel Air rank among the most expensive markets.In 91302, annual premiums can exceed $10,000, reflecting both very high property values and a very high fire hazard classification.High Values and Hazard Drive CostsElsewhere, Diablo averages $7,773, northern Marin roughly $6,000, and Atherton about $5,145.These amounts sit far above the statewide median for mortgage holders, showing which homeowners pay the most.How Wildfire Risk Is Changing California Home InsuranceAcross the state, wildfire risk is becoming a direct pricing input rather than only a coverage concern.California now allows insurers to use catastrophe models in premiums, bringing wildfire modeling into pricing decisions.Officials say this framework is meant to reflect fast-changing fire danger, stabilize rates, and expand coverage access.Premium Gaps Widen in Fire ZonesThe shift is expected to create sharper differences between lower-risk and higher-risk homes.In wildfire-exposed markets, several insurers have raised premiums by more than 10 percent, while some increases have reached 50 percent.

Congress Votes Itself Gold Pensions Then Cuts Your Social Security.

A member of Congress who serves 20 years gets $106,380 annually in retirement benefits—over four times what the average Social Security recipient receives after 40 years of work. This investigation reveals how politicians vote themselves gold-plated pensions with automatic inflation protection while threatening Social Security cuts for working Americans.

Representative Michael Thompson retired at 62 with $61,380 congressional pension plus $27,000 Social Security plus $18,000 from government-matched savings, while nurse Sarah Johnson gets $23,364 annually from Social Security alone after 40 years of service. Congress gets lifetime health insurance subsidized at 72% while Social Security recipients face Medicare premium increases.

The same politicians claiming Social Security is "unaffordable" quietly fund their own pensions at $213,000 per beneficiary compared to $21,000 per Social Security recipient. When Congress needs pension funding, money appears automatically. When Social Security needs help, Americans get benefit cuts and retirement age increases. This isn't public service—it's a wealth transfer to the ruling class.

==================================================

Marjorie Taylor Greene created this message. Yes, there is a RULING CLASS in the United States. Their members are worth millions of dollars. Here is the thing: you voted for them. You supported them. You may have donated to their campaign. You put them in office to represent you.

Well you don't have to.

If you agree with what is said here then you should think about your life chances based on how much you will earn during your lifetime. Then contact those who supposedly represent your interests and tell them to take immediate action if they wish to continue receiving your support:

RAISE THE SOCIAL SECURITY WAGE BASE to the point where everyone with a yearly income NOT < $200,000 pays into the Social Security Fund at the same FICA tax rate as everyone else.

Additionally tell them if they don't, you will take it upon yourself to organize every member of the working class/middle class in the United States with the intention to PRIMARY THEM with someone that agrees with you on these issues. They will be scared just as you are when you have to pay the bills to keep you and those close to you alive and healthy. The wealth of the planet belongs to everyone.

And the most technically advanced health care must be totally free to everyone living in the USA.

That is a start.

Insurance companies in Malaysia reported growth in 2023, but they plan to hike premiums by 40% to 70% next year due to rising private hospital costs. This has led many policyholders to cancel their insurance and switch to employer-provided plans or government services.  Malaysian Insurance Companies Face Backlash for Premium Increases It is time to boycott the Insurance Companies.This is…

The onerous ordeal of shopping for auto insurance

Shopping for auto insurance may not be as onerous as, say, preparing for a colonoscopy, but it’s pretty close.

Confronted with an exorbitant hike in our premium, Sharon and I decided to search for a better deal. USSA was a possibility, so Sharon dug out my Navy discharge papers (a minor miracle). Then we braced ourselves and made the call.

The big challenge here comes in making sure you’re comparing apples to apples - especially when insurers have different names for the various elements of coverage.

After spending more than an hour on the phone, we ended up with the same coverage for $500 less per year. I’m pretty sure that’s what we ended up with.

Regulators approve higher health premiums to strengthen Obamacare insurers

December 14, 2016

State insurance regulators across the country have approved health care premium increases higher than those requested by insurers, despite a national effort to keep rates for policies sold on Affordable Care Act exchanges from skyrocketing, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

In eight states, regulators approved premiums that were a percentage point or more higher than carriers wanted,…

Congress seems poised to throw out one of the most popular and effective provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But this move is not motivated just by political pique, it’s intended to protect the income of a special interest group. And some Democratic House members are helping Republicans do it.

This summer, 12.8 million Americans received more than $1.1 billion in rebates from their insurers. Small businesses received $321 billion — money they can use to reduce their employees’ health insurance costs and expand their businesses. For many Americans, this is the most concrete evidence so far that health care reform is working for them.

These rebates were paid out under the act’s medical loss ratio — or 80/20 — rule, which requires insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums on actual enrollee health care claims and programs to improve health care quality. The large group market must spend 85 percent on this. Insurers who miss the target had to pay a rebate.

But the rebates are not the most important benefit of the 80/20 rule. Strong evidence shows the rule is actually driving down premium increases for people and businesses. Health care costs have grown at record low rates since health reform was adopted. The 80/20 rule discourages insurers from raising premiums faster than the growth in health care costs — driving down the cost of insurance to consumers.

Yet Congress looks likely to eviscerate this rule to help a special interest group. One administrative cost that insurers must cover out of their 20 percent is marketing their products. This is usually done by insurance brokers and agents. Traditionally, agents and brokers have been paid through commissions based on a percentage of premiums, sometimes as high as 10 percent to 15 percent. As premiums have gone through the roof in recent years, commissions have grown apace.

The 80/20 rule has forced insurers to tighten their belts, and some have cut commissions. Agents and brokers have gone to Congress, asking for help in protecting their income. The bill, H.R. 1206, which is being marked up this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would allow insurers to subtract commissions from premiums before calculating rebates.

This change would have reduced the rebates by 60 percent, according to a study by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, using 2010 insurer reports. It is likely that for 2012 and subsequent years, it would cut rebates almost entirely.

More important, however, this bill would take the pressure off insurers to reduce premium increases, since it would effectively allow them to keep 20 percent of premiums, plus their marketing costs. All the beneficial effects of the 80/20 rule would be lost.