Recently The Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board spoke out against my proposed state constitutional amendment allowing Utah to "opt-out" of the national health care legislation working its way through Congress. The Tribune blames my view on "conservative ideology" rather than a well-thought-out, deliberate plan of action. They could not be more wrong.

Concerns are growing throughout the nation that whatever health plan comes from the federal government, Americans will be at the mercy of what politicians think is best, rather than the doctor.

The current health care system may not be perfect, but it is the greatest health care system in the world. Why turn it over to Washington bureaucrats?

While I highly regard our governmental system, one cannot argue that the government is excruciatingly inefficient on almost every level. I can see the slogan for the public health option right now: "Health care, as fast and efficient as calling the IRS on tax day!"

The public health option should cause concern for most Americans. Although President Obama loves to say that "no one will lose their private health insurance," he is only telling a partial truth. A government-controlled plan that is meant to provide a low-cost health insurance option will inevitably eliminate all other options.

Private carriers will be unable to compete with the "lower cost" option that is subsidized by taxpayers. Employers will have no incentive to provide insurance benefits if the government is doing the job with taxpayer money. Eventually, everyone will be out of options and will have no choice but to enter the government-run public option.

What happens then? Although you would not know it by looking at Congress recently, dollars are indeed finite. Eventually, in order to cut costs, critical procedures will be denied. According to a publication by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the average wait time for hip-replacement surgery is four months in Norway, a nation with "Obama style" health care.

Is this what we want for the United States? Is this what we want for Utah? Is this what California or Ohio or Nebraska want? Maybe, maybe not. That is where state sovereignty comes into play.

If a state chooses to implement government run health care, that's fine, just don't expect all 50 states to do the same. Why do the feds believe they are the only ones who can solve the health care problem when they have not solved much of anything recently? Utah has already begun comprehensive health care reform and we didn't need Washington to tell us how to do it.

Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, states are free to regulate themselves, within reason. This has not been happening, and thus the balance of power has shifted drastically. We now have a large, centralized national government, and smaller, subservient states. This lack of balance is indeed one of the primary causes of the bitter political divide we have in this country.

Much of the discontent could be alleviated if states simply had more authority to determine their own destiny. If states could set certain reasonable policies for themselves, each individual state could better reflect the value structure of the people who live there. James Madison said, "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite."

This is not about "radical ideology"; this is about true balance in government. This is what the Founders intended when they implemented the 10th Amendment.

Rep. Carl Wimmer , Republican from Herriman and co-founder of The Patrick Henry Caucus, represents District 52 in the Legislature.