Ever wonder why health insurance costs so much in Indiana? Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that every insurance policy in the state must cover all kinds of services deemed unnecessary by many, including alcoholism treatment.

In fact, Indiana has 34 of these mandates. Should a resident want to buy a policy that doesn't cover, say, chiropractor visits, sorry -- the government has decided that everyone must have that coverage.

Recently, enthusiasm for universal healthcare coverage has swept the nation, with governors in Massachusetts and California leading the way. Maine and Vermont are currently revising their own systems of expanded health care coverage, and at least eight other states are pursuing similar reforms.

Certainly, the approximately 47 million uninsured in America is a significant problem, but the proposals under consideration do little to address the primary reason for the lack of coverage - very expensive insurance.

And why are those costs spiraling upward, seemingly without limit?

One major reason is government meddling in the market for health insurance, particularly through the imposition of restrictive mandates and regulations.

The average state has 36 mandates on an individual health insurance policy. And with each mandate, the cost to the consumer goes up. These mandates often stand in the way of making health insurance more affordable in the first place.

Just as options on a new automobile -- like tricked-out rims, GPS-navigators, and heated seats -- add to the total cost of the car, so too do insurance mandates.

If affordability and accessibility are the problems behind the number of uninsured, then why haven't state governments removed the mandates for those who want to buy a basic policy? It's not just the government's desire to micromanage -- it's interest group politics.

Acupuncturists, for example, certainly provide an important pain-relief service to many individuals. But is it really necessary for everyone to have acupuncture coverage whether they want it or not?

It would make far more sense to give individuals the freedom to purchase policies that suit their specific needs. A bill like the Shadegg bill of 2006, if it had passed, would have allowed individuals to purchase insurance across state lines.

Fans of acupuncture could choose a slightly more expensive policy that covers the prickly treatment, while others who prefer to relieve their pain in other ways could purchase less comprehensive policies, most likely at a lower cost.

The current system guarantees that everyone pays the highest possible price.
We are covered for things we don't use. Or if we do take advantage of these mandated benefits, we don't realize the full cost of the benefit because someone else pays.

But we all indirectly absorb those costs thanks to higher premiums. So it should come as no surprise that the universal program placing mandates on employees and individuals -- passed in Massachusetts last year -- is already destined to fail because it's prohibitively expensive.

Estimates now show that the monthly costs for an individual will be $380, almost double what the designers predicted. A movement is afoot to exempt those earning up to three times the federal poverty line, or $60,000 per year for a family of four.

Exemptions like that hardly constitute a universal plan.

Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed new taxes on doctors, hospitals, and employers, while doing nothing to address the high cost of health insurance.

Health coverage is often too expensive for small businesses to offer, so a better solution would be to make it more affordable by reducing regulations, not to issue new penalties, and by allowing small employers to band together so as to build a large risk pool.

Removing mandates from insurance policies may not grab headlines like the "universal" proposals of Gov. Schwarzenegger and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, but such a strategy will be far more effective in expanding coverage and lowering cost.

The conversation about health care reform is long overdue, but unfortunately for most consumers, it's headed in the wrong direction. Without addressing the high costs of health care, efforts to achieve universal coverage by legislative fiat will fail. Just look at automobile insurance. Even though it is mandatory in all but three states, one in seven drivers on our roads remains uninsured.

There's a better way to expand healthcare coverage -- through greater purchasing freedom and fewer regulations.

Let's hope Indiana learns from the heavy-handed approaches of other states and opts for a more effective approach -- like ending the silly requirement that all insurance policies cover things like morbid obesity treatment, which most people will never need.