Matt Mahan

And that's what I mean by saying we have to be able to appropriately price risk.

Insurance companies need to be able to charge rates that reflect the true risk and cost.

I think they should be strongly incentivized

if not held accountable for allowing homeowners to adopt best practices and thereby reduce their premiums.

And I think there's a subset of folks who may need to be on and pay into a public option of some kind because they just won't be covered by the market, or perhaps they have to choose that based on where they live, they won't have insurance.

I don't know, but I don't think you can force

everybody else to pay exorbitant rates to ensure that we cover the last riskiest home that's going to be the most expensive to cover.

It's just it's an illogical setup.

Yeah, I'm worried about it as well, and I'm intimately familiar with it because we've had to tackle pension reform in San Jose.

We were sort of the canary in the coal mine quite a few years ago as our unfunded pension liabilities began eating up our general fund.

Even today, after pension reform,

19% of our general fund in San Jose this year goes to paying an unfunded pension liability.

That just comes off the top.

That is one out of every $5 goes first to our obligation to retirees.

And again, I don't blame the retirees or those who advocated, it's politicians who didn't do the math, didn't recognize when the math wasn't working out and swept it under the rug because they knew they'd be long gone by the time the bill came due.

And so,

Look, there's really only two options here.

One is to move toward a defined contribution model as we have in the private sector.

You see all over the world, the employer and the employee pay in.

It's put in the market.