This is presented as necessary to "cover" the costs incurred by the fires that burned down so many homes in California.

Well, weren't all those "premiums" people were coerced into paying supposed to pay for just such losses?

Of course, a sizable tranche of the money mulcted from "policyholders" went to pay for the Crassus-like salaries paid to the capos and dons of the mafia, who earn millions annually mulcting "policyholders" and – this is important – using every imaginable shyster-trick to get out of paying when a "policyholder" files a claim and expects to get paid. Luigi wasn't wrong about this.

Well, how much more are we talkin' about, Willis?

The pre-fire average annual cost of "coverage" in California was about $10,000. Imagine that. Imagine paying out $50,000 in just five years to "cover" your home. How many people can afford the cost of such "coverage"? How many people will be driven out of their homes by those costs?

By what it is shortly going to cost?

Probably a lot – given another 20 percent on top of that. It amount to another $2,000 annually, or about $12,000 after the fire. This is likely to prompt some sales. Extremely affluent celebrities and government hog-troughers can afford this. Average California people cannot.

And neither can those of us who do not live within the boundaries of California. Yet – bet your bippie – owners of homes far, far away from where the fires were will be "asked" to absorb their "fair share" of the costs incurred by the fires in CA that the families are most uninterested in paying for. Especially given they can force others to pay them. And – please – do not think that laws forbidding insurers to transfer costs in this manner will prevent exactly that from happening. There is too much money involved and – remember – the insurance mafia has plenty of money to pay the government (more finely, the government hog-troughers) to assure that you are made to pay.