Anyone who thought the debateover health reform ended when President Barack Obama signedlandmark legislation into law was badly mistaken. Indeed, itappears opponents of the law have only begun to fight—both in courtand at the ballot box.

First, a federal district court judge refused to dismiss alawsuit by Virginia challenging the constitutional authority ofCongress to force everyone to buy health insurance coverage or paya penalty.

Second, Missouri voters on Aug. 3 overwhelmingly approved aproposition looking to nullify the insurance mandates.

These are not isolated protests. Arizona and Oklahoma residentswill vote on a measure similar to Missouri's later in the year,while five other states are taking steps to defy the federalmandate. And nearly two-dozen states are challenging the law incourt.

The question now is where will this titanic legal battle end? Myguess is that the last word will inevitably come after what appearsto be an unavoidable showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This outcome would be entirely appropriate not only given theweighty constitutional issues at stake, but also because the nationneeds a sense of finality on the health care reform law that only aSupreme Court ruling can provide.

That's not to say that even a high court decision would end thedebate over whether Uncle Sam can force people to buy healthinsurance or pay a fine—decades after Roe v. Wade, we arestill debating and litigating abortion rights, after all.

But once the Supreme Court weighs in on the jurisdictional andconstitutional disputes over federal health insurance mandates, atleast we can get started actually implementing this controversiallaw—or, if the ruling goes against supporters of mandates, tolegislate an alternative to cover the uninsured.

There is time to sort this out, since the law on mandatedcoverage does not go into effect until 2014. But meanwhile, we areall trapped in a sort of legal limbo, not knowing whether themandate will survive—and with it, the reform law as a whole.

The insurance industry in general is normally against federalmeddling in the free market, at least on principle. But inpractice, mandates are not always a bad thing for this industry.Forcing drivers to buy auto insurance is a good thing for society,right? Requiring business owners to purchase workers' compensationcoverage is also a plus for safety and liability certainty, is itnot?

You would think the industry would favor a mandate to buy healthinsurance as well. For one, it will bring tens of millions ofuninsured individuals into the insurance market. And it wouldprevent adverse selection by forcing healthy people to sign up,thereby spreading the risk more efficiently and lowering premiumsfor all.

There would likely be less cost-shifting to workers' comp aswell, with fewer people having to lie about non-work-relatedinjuries because they lack health coverage.

Stripping the mandate out of the law on constitutional groundswould gut the reform program and be bad news indeed for theinsurance industry. If insurers must cover all comers—but noteveryone is required to buy coverage—that means people could gamethe system, waiting until they get hurt or become ill to signup.

Honestly, however, I don't expect this debate to come to that. Ibelieve the Supreme Court will back the federal government onmandates.

What do you folks think?