On April 12, with great pomp and fanfare, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, signed a health care bill that passed the Democrat-controlled state legislature with nearly unanimous support.

Even U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D) was on hand to dole out praise. Given that Kennedy is a leading opponent of market reforms in health care and a great supporter of socialized medicine, reason exists to feel uneasy right off the bat. A closer look at the plan does not make one feel any better.

The legislation is touted as providing universal coverage in the Bay State through an individual mandate, that is, government forcing individuals to purchase health insurance. Romney led the charge. The New York Times quoted the governor declaring that the measure ranked as "a big part of the legacy I will have personally for my four years of service as governor." However, he continued: "I have no way of telling if it's going to be a help or a hindrance down the road."

Well, let's see if we can clear things up for Governor Romney with a little economics applied to public policy.

Access to health care basically is about affordability for both individuals and businesses. While part of the rise in health care costs over the years is tied to improved or enhanced care, a big chunk -- the bad part, if you will -- is largely due to government interference. For example, government programs, bureaucracies, taxes, regulations, mandates and third-party payments work together in a counterproductive way to drive up health care costs.

Real, positive health care reform would redress these ills. Unfortunately, though, too often what's billed as health care reform merely adds to these woes. That again is the case with the Romney-Massachusetts measure.

For example, Massachusetts businesses and consumers already face high health coverage costs because of mandates, including, for example, community rating and guaranteed issue. But the Romney-Massachusetts plan does nothing to alleviate these mandates. There is no deregulation. To the contrary, the central point of this entire effort is to impose a new mandate -- that individuals must purchase insurance or suffer financial penalties.

For good measure, businesses face a new tax. As passed, the legislation required that firms with more than 10 employees that do not provide health care coverage pay an annual tax of $295 per worker. Romney used his line item veto to get rid of this tax, but legislative leaders pledge an override, and they apparently have the votes.

In addition, as The Wall Street Journal reported, "employers whose uninsured workers make multiple use of emergency room care ... would have to pay between 10% and 100% of the portion of those medical bills exceeding $50,000."

Meanwhile, the plan expands government spending and bureaucracies. Without deregulation, the price of health care coverage will continue its ascent. Indeed, with this individual mandate, politicians will find it irresistible to add mandated coverage in the name of helping the consumer. Legislators actually started this process in the legislation itself by requiring dental coverage for adults, which Romney vetoed.

Naturally, with such an expansion of government comes an expanded bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, which will determine what is appropriate coverage, eventually will be filled by the special interests pushing for more mandates, regulations and spending. Another part of the expanded bureaucracy is a state health insurance exchange, meant to bring buyers and sellers together. Gee, and I thought that's what private markets did.

Finally, while there is lots of talk about greater consumer control, in reality, the Romney-Massachusetts plan does nothing to redress the problem of third-party payments. Under the third-party-payer system that has dominated U.S. health care for at least four-plus decades, somebody else -- either an employer-provided plan or a government program -- picks up much of the tab for health care, starting with first-dollar coverage. That means consumers and health care providers are not concerned about prices, and costs skyrocket.

Adding fuel to the spending fires is the fact that politicians and government bureaucrats, since they are spending other people's money, also don't worry about costs.

What does all of this mean? The Romney-Massachusetts plans is destined for failure because it fails to deal in a constructive way with reining in government programs, bureaucracies, taxes, regulations, and mandates, and making progress on the third-party payment problem. In fact, it actually makes matters worse.

Costs will accelerate, with taxpayers, including businesses, picking up the tab. Of course, as government interference drives up costs, advocates of socialized medicine will inexplicably blame the free market, and continue their push for nationalized health care.

That will be the contribution of the Romney-Massachusetts health care mandate plan. It will be a hindrance now and down the road.

This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.

E-mail comments and questions about this or previous columns to Raymond J. Keating

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.