Student Spectrums

Faizah Hassan is a 10th grader in ILM Academy as she enjoys the pursuit activities that involve different forms or art. She advocates for different social forms and stands for what is right  and enjoys debating her view of the world, and hopes to share those opinions, through her personal experiences.

As a high school student in California, I am concerned about the future of our state’s healthcare system and how it will impact the  generation. Proposition 35, despite its promises, poses significant risks that could jeopardize our state’s financial stability and limit opportunities for as well as my future.

At first glance, Proposition 35 seems like a straightforward solution to our healthcare crisis, extending an existing tax on health insurance companies to fund Medi-Cal without raising taxes on individuals. However, this measure locks us into a rigid funding structure that could have unintended consequences for California’s budget and my future. I mean let’s face it, California is already in debt, but for them to take more money out form companies, just to fund another person’s healthcare-come on. That is ridiculous, I mean think of it, once Proposition 35 is allowed, money will be taken from companies, and then when those companies lose that money from taxes, the people who work at the company will lose bits and pieces of their salary.

One of the biggest concerns is the lack of flexibility Proposition 35 introduces. By earmarking funds, it restricts the state’s ability to resources where they might be most needed in times of crisis. As a student, I worry about what this means for education funding and other critical services. If the state faces budget shortfalls, will my school lose funding for essential programs? Will class sizes increase because there isn’t enough money to hire teachers? 

Moreover, Proposition 35 could lead to increased costs for healthcare providers, which might be passed down to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. While the proposition claims not to “raise taxes on individuals,” the indirect financial burden could still fall on us through higher healthcare costs. If anything, the funds weaken peoples’ paychecks and there’s also the issue of accountability and oversight. Although Proposition 35 includes measures to ensure funds are used appropriately, the complexity of healthcare financing makes it difficult to guarantee that every dollar will be spent effectively. The risk of misallocation or inefficiency is too high when we’re dealing with such large sums of money.

As an American who lives in California and comes from a middle class family, I don’t want to have money taken out of my paycheck, because California wants to pay for someone else’s Medi-Care. Proposition 35’s rigid funding structure doesn’t allow for flexibility. It ties up resources in a way that might not be sustainable long-term, especially if federal regulations change or if there are shifts in healthcare demands.

Ultimately, while I understand the need to address our healthcare challenges, I believe Proposition 35 is not the right solution. We need a more balanced approach that considers all aspects of our state’s needs education, infrastructure, and economic development—alongside healthcare. If they wanted to make healthcare more flexible, they could have just made it a free  right, they can’t do that because they are too stuck in debt. I’m not at the age to vote,but we should demand solutions that offer flexibility and sustainability without compromising other critical areas that affect our lives.

For these reasons, I urge for people to vote against Proposition 35. The government should work better  to find a more comprehensive solution that secures our healthcare system while also protecting the future opportunities for students like me across America.