California’s hidden health insurance rule punishes young earners

The race for California’s top job keeps circling back to one word: affordability. Candidates on both sides promise cheaper power, lighter tax bills and more homes. Yet the same politicians who vow to ease living costs keep an old rule quietly in place—one that quietly costs young workers real money. A recent paycheck for someone in their twenties might look healthy at about $49, 000 a year. Behind the number, rent eats roughly $2, 100 every month. Student loans sit in the background. Groceries, buses and utilities keep climbing. Gas prices sit well above the national average. With so many demands, building a safety net can feel impossible. Hidden inside this squeeze is a policy almost no one debates on the campaign trail: the health insurance mandate. Back in 2010, federal law tried to push everyone into buying insurance by charging a fee for those who refused. A court later called that fee a tax, but the goal stayed the same—get healthier, younger adults to help cover the costs of older and sicker patients.President Trump removed the federal fee, yet California kept it. Under state law, most residents must carry approved insurance or pay another surcharge. Supporters say the rule keeps premiums stable and keeps more people covered. Those are real benefits if your priority is a smoothly running health system. But flip the question: if affordability is truly the top goal, why does Sacramento still fine adults who choose not to buy something they may not need right now? Many twenty- and thirty-somethings juggle shifting incomes, shifting addresses and shifting priorities. Some months it makes sense to sign up; other months it’s wiser to pay down debt or stock an emergency fund. The mandate removes that decision and hands it to policymakers instead. Fine print aside, the mandate does not actually lower the price of care. It cannot cut a doctor’s visit, shrink a prescription co-pay or shave a deductible. It simply compels participation in a system that already feels unaffordable to many. Voters heading to the polls may hear plenty about affordability. A simple follow-up question cuts through the noise: if leaders truly care about lowering costs, why keep forcing people to buy a product they may not want—and then penalize them for saying no?