States Revolt Over Insurance Mandate

There's an effort afoot in statehouses across the country to make it unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance.

In fact, legislators in 34 states filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions to thwart the federal government from mandating insurance as part of any health reform passed out of Washington, the Associated Press reports.

This anger over mandates is misguided. This is a play by lawmakers to assert states' rights but the idea of mandatory health insurance is strictly an economic necessity to change insurance practices.

Let's forget for a moment that President Obama's health reform is barely breathing after Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts. The insurance industry is criticized for denying coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions but that practice isn't going to be eliminated unless there's a bigger pool of insured people to spread the risk. That's one thing the insurance companies like Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc. and the White House can agree on. Organizations like the National Business Group on Health, which represents self-insured employers, say people who don't buy health insurance drive up the costs for everyone else.

But as the AP notes, there's a fair amount of political theater here. Often calling their proposals the "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act," it's not clear that states can actually prohibit such a federal mandate. Nonetheless, the politicians are tapping into a voter anger over their perceptions of Democrats' health reform dealings in Washington. That anger was punctuated by Brown's upset win.