California should stop forcing young people to buy health insurance

California’s gubernatorial candidates agree on at least one thing: The state has an affordability crisis.

Whether the proposed solution is cheaper energy, lower taxes, new housing construction or tougher regulation of large corporations, both Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra are competing to convince voters they can make life in California less expensive.

Young Californians have good reason to be skeptical.

The average Gen Z salary in the state is around $49,000, an amount that no longer guarantees financial security. Rent consumes a growing share of income, roughly $2,100 a month in California. Student debt remains a burden, up to tens of thousands of dollars. Groceries, transportation and utility bills continue to climb. And the price of fuel in the Golden State is far more expensive than in the rest of the country. Building savings — or even keeping up with monthly expenses — can feel increasingly difficult.

Against that backdrop, California continues to enforce a policy that receives surprisingly little attention in affordability debates: the individual health insurance mandate.

Recall that when the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) passed Congress in 2010, it included a provision forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

The Supreme Court, in a controversial 2012 decision, redefined the penalty as a “tax” to preserve the constitutionality of the law.

The purpose of the penalty, known as the “individual mandate,” was to compel healthier young people to subsidize a health insurance system whose expenses focus on the elderly and the chronically ill.

President Donald Trump did away with the individual mandate in his first term, even though his party failed to deliver on promises to repeal and replace Obamacare.

But in California, the individual mandate remains.

Under California law, most residents still must maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty. Supporters argue the policy helps stabilize insurance prices and maintain coverage levels. And those objectives are sensible to keep in balance when evaluating health-care policy.

But the mandate also raises a simple question that gubernatorial candidates should be willing to answer: If affordability is truly the state’s top priority, why is California still penalizing adults for deciding not to purchase a product?

For young workers, financial circumstances are often in flux. People change jobs, relocate, freelance, launch businesses and attempt to build emergency savings. Many are making difficult decisions between paying down debt, saving for a home or covering everyday expenses.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

In those years, flexibility matters.

Some young adults will reasonably decide that comprehensive insurance coverage is worth the cost. Others may prefer different financial priorities while they are healthy and have limited resources. An individual mandate removes that choice and substitutes the judgment of individuals for top-down decisions from policymakers.

More importantly, the mandate does little to address the problem Californians actually face: Health care remains expensive.

Penalizing people for going uninsured does not lower the cost of a doctor’s visit. It does not make prescriptions cheaper. It does not reduce deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses. It simply requires participation in a system that many Californians already struggle to afford.

That is why the individual mandate deserves renewed scrutiny as voters evaluate candidates for governor.

The issue is not whether health coverage matters. It does. The issue is whether affordability can remain the state’s defining political concern while Sacramento continues to impose additional financial obligations on residents already stretched thin.

The next governor will spend a great deal of time talking about making California more affordable. Voters should ask a straightforward question:

If the government is serious about lowering costs, why is it still requiring people to buy something they may not want — and fining them if they refuse?

Sam Raus is the David Boaz resident writing fellow at Young Voices. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.