In his Oct. 24 My View, Nick Frentz suggests: “Lawsuit cap won’t bring savings.” I think his position is that tort reform should not be included in any national health care reform.

To help make his point Frentz argues: “...Minnesota is a model for the entire nation in this area of the law (often referred to as ‘med mal’).” In doing so maybe (intentionally or unintentionally) he also made a strong argument that health care reform in general should be left up to the respective states; not the federal government.

In their Oct. 27 editorial: “State leads in health reform” I think The Free Press provided an excellent discussion about why health care reform in general might be best left up to the respective states, not the federal government. According to The Free Press, our state’s efforts in health care reform “...has so far developed a good amount of support from providers, insurance companies and to some extent the public.”

Some might argue the “opt out” idea in the proposal the Senate Democrats are floating now, with respect to the so-called public option, is a step in the direction of states rights. I think not. As I understand it, the “opt out” provision would be included in the bill if passed, and we would be taxed as soon as the bill is signed into law even though benefits would not begin until 2013.

The first any state could “opt out” would be 2014, and even if a state took the option they (the citizens of the state) would be taxed as if they were still in. I consider that no option, but simple redistribution of wealth.