Health care - more or less government involvement?

The Christian Science Montior reports that, "Starting next week, on July 1, most residents of Massachusetts will be required to carry health insurance, even if their employer doesn't provide it and even if they aren't eligible for a government-subsidized plan."

Mark Trumbull further describes the plan: "The Massachusetts plan outlines a base level of required coverage and encourages competition among insurance providers. A new state-created marketplace, called the Commonwealth Connector, provides the forum for individuals and families to compare health plans online just as they would airline tickets. Gold, silver, and bronze labels give clues about the scope of coverage. The prices also vary by age and occupation."

On the other hand, Lindsay Walle of Edmond recently submitted an idea calling for fewer government mandated-benefit health insurance laws. She wrote, "When government says that insurance policies must cover treatment for this or that condition or disease, it creates a mandated benefit. The costs for those services are passed along to everyone in the insurance pool through higher premiums. These higher costs can contribute to employers dropping or not offering insurance to their employees."

What do you think? Should Oklahoma increase or reduce government mandates regarding health insurance?