House Republicans took their symbolic stand repealing the health care overhaul law. But it's the next step Americans ought to examine closely: their centerpiece solution.

The current battle in the House boils down to this: How to provide affordable, quality insurance for the 50 million uninsured – and the millions who don't get insurance from their employer and currently have to buy insurance on their own in the individual market?

The law signed by President Barack Obama provides one solution: Beginning in January 2014, these folks will be able to buy coverage through a state exchange, where individuals can comparison shop in one place for a health plan – thus taking advantage of having a large pool and ensuring that insurance companies offer coverage with minimal coverage and cost standards.

House Republicans provide a very different solution: Allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., well-known for doing the bidding of the insurance industry, has introduced a bill to that effect.

The concept sounds appealing – why not promote competition across state lines? But the actual proposal takes states out of the picture and puts the insurance companies in charge.

Under her bill, insurance companies get to designate which state "shall govern the health insurance issuer" in the sale of coverage. Translation: The insurer has to follow only the laws and regulations of that one state and is exempt from laws in other states.

Blackburn is open in admitting that sales across state lines would free insurers from providing "coverage of some services or benefits mandated" by many states. It also would free them from "all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes" in those states.

Here's how it would work. An insurance company could designate Alabama as the one state to govern its sales and then sell policies in California without following California law.

You'd be on your own if you had a complaint or dispute; California's insurance commissioner could not enforce California's laws on an insurance company choosing to follow Alabama's laws and regulations.

If you had breast cancer and needed to have surgery to remove a breast and lymph nodes, you'd have to pay for it on your own. Alabama doesn't require insurance companies to cover mastectomies, as California does. It's one thing for Californians to debate what extent of health services insurers should be required to cover. It's quite another to have insurers alone decide by picking one state's laws.

In short, individual states would lose the ability to regulate health insurance and there would be no minimum federal standard. It would be set by the one state that bows most to health insurance industry demands.

So Americans now have a clear choice on solutions. The 2010 law offers a real fix, providing a base upon which to build. The House Republican solution is a sham and a giveaway.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.