Michigan State University is now mandating that its students be covered by health care insurance, a requirement being phased in with the current freshman class.

The mandate has caught the attention of some in the Michigan House of Representatives. A Feb. 15 hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education has been scheduled to examine the issue.

“We're really concerned about this," said House Subcommittee Vice Chair Rep. Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant. "This policy is not uncommon with private colleges, but it hasn't been the policy at state universities. A big concern is that MSU would just be the first."

Despite a request, university officials were not willing to set the policy aside, Rep. Cotter said. He said he views the policy as a mandate that adds to the cost of a university education.

“It can be an added burden to students,” he said. “Typically, students graduate with a large debt to pay off. In four years this would add $6,000 to that debt and quite often it takes more than four years to finish college. When you look at the extra cost and figure in compound interest it can really add to the debt."

MSU spokesman Kent Cassella said the mandate is an extension of a policy that has existed for select other groups.

“This has already been a requirement for some of our students, such as foreign students, medical students and veterinarian students,” he said, adding that the university is not financially responsible for unpaid bills.

"This is a public health issue. The financial risks are real," he continued. "Students who aren't covered and run up big health care debts can end up not being able to complete their education."

Cassella said that 85 percent of the students who enroll at MSU are already covered by health insurance provided by their parents or someone else. For those not already covered, the university offers Aetna at an annual cost of $1,505.

“We think that's a good price,” Cassella said. “The university makes absolutely no money off of this.”

MSU has made every effort to inform parents about the new policy, Cassella said. If the university hasn't been able to verify that a student already has coverage, they're enrolled in Aetna and the cost is part of the bill received by the parent or whomever else is responsible for the student's education costs.

If it turns out that the student is double covered, the university will drop the Aetna coverage.

“If they can show us that the student is already covered, they are reimbursed the cost,” Cassella said.

House Subcommittee Chair Bob Genetski, R-Saugatuck, refers to the new MSU policy as an "Obamacare-style mandate."

“It's a barrier to entry and to education,” Rep. Genetski said. “The average student graduates with a debt of about $24,000. Keeping in mind the rising costs of tuition, this Obamacare-style mandate will put some students' educations in jeopardy.”

When told of the MSU claim that it isn't making a penny off the mandate, Rep. Genetski was skeptical.

“I find that interesting,” he said. “There's similar insurance students can get through Grand Valley State University that only costs $654 per year. There's also the problem of billing the parents and assuming they'll notice. I think some of them might look at their bill but not recognize what it is.”

Mike Boulus, executive director of the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan, said the policy is a decision that should be left up to the university.

“Universities in Michigan haven't been doing this but about 25 percent of universities nationwide have this policy,” Boulus said. “It really is all about someone's philosophy. Some people are very opposed to mandates. But I can tell you that about $1,000 of what I pay for my health insurance covers those who are uninsured — and it's the same with your insurance costs. A lot of the same people who oppose this kind of mandate, are fine with the mandate that they have to insure the vehicle they use to drive through MSU.”

The Detroit Tigers were a few wins short of going to the World Series last year. Getting that close has encouraged team ownership to open up its wallet and sign All Star first baseman Prince Fielder to a 9-year, $214 million deal in the hopes that he will help push the team over the top as well as continue strong attendance at Comerica Park.

Since the club has all that extra revenue available and expect more from higher attendance, will they consider repaying Michigan taxpayers for the hundreds of millions of dollars that were used to subsidize the team's stadium?

Comerica Park opened in 2000 after three years of construction and a total cost of about $300 million. The stadium was subsidized by taxpayers at somewhere between $115 million and $189 million, depending on the source. The Tigers are also supported in many other ways by city taxpayers. Meanwhile, the city has a $200 million budget deficit and an emergency manager running the schools.

Sports teams often make the argument that they bring economic benefits to the cities in which they are located, but the research on this is specious at best.

The conclusion of a 2000 report from the Cato Institute says, “Despite the beliefs of local officials and their hired consultants about the economic benefits of publicly subsidized stadium construction, the consensus of academic economists has been that such policies do not raise incomes. The results that we describe in this article are even more pessimistic. Subsidies of sports facilities may actually reduce the incomes of the alleged beneficiaries.”

Numerous other studies have examined the question of stadium construction projects and found that “in virtually every case” there was no statistically significant positive correlation between construction and economic development. 

Real life examples bear this out, and there is a great one here in Michigan: The Pontiac Silverdome.

The Silverdome, where the Detroit Lions played before moving into Ford Field in Detroit, was built in 1975 for $55.7 million ($227 million today). Besides tax benefits from the city of Pontiac, the Lions received $800,000 per year from state taxpayers. After the Lions moved, Pontiac paid $1.5 million a year in upkeep and eventually sold the stadium to a Canadian developer for $583,000 in 2009.

Michigan residents can take solace in one thing; the Silverdome is far from the worst stadium boondoggle. In 2010, the New York Giants and New York Jets football teams (who actually play in New Jersey) broke ground on their shared New Meadowlands Stadium. In the meantime, the old Giants Stadium, which was demolished to make room for the New Meadowlands, still carries $110 million in debt from when it was built in 1976.

In sum: The bill for a now-demolished stadium is being subsidized by New Jersey residents who are, again, subsidizing a new stadium on top of the old one for two teams named for New York.

The New York Times reports, “New Jerseyans are hardly alone in paying for stadiums that no longer exist. Residents of Seattle’s King County owe more than $80 million for the Kingdome, which was razed in 2000. The story has been similar in Indianapolis and Philadelphia. In Houston, Kansas City, Mo., Memphis and Pittsburgh, residents are paying for stadiums and arenas that were abandoned by the teams they were built for.”

The preponderance of the research shows that stadium subsidies provide no net economic benefit for cities, states or taxpayers. Beyond that, they are a direct subsidy from mostly middle-class and poor citizens to rich owners and teams.

But not all sports teams operate this way. Instead of taking money from taxpayers, many pay for their stadium, property and repairs themselves — including one of the NFL's most storied franchises, the New England Patriots.

As Michigan and other states continue to consider stadium financing, remember that this subsidy game has continuously been played and taxpayers always the losers.