As always, the devil is in the details. But it sounds like Congress is punting to the states on more than the public option - and since our states are smaller and our local officials more amenable to bribery contributors, this could be a real disaster. Let's wait and see what's in the final bill, but in the meantime, we'll have to keep a close eye on things:

The debate over whether to let states opt out of any government-run health insurance plan overlooks a key facet of the health-care measures being assembled in Congress: When Washington is done, the shape of any new health-care system is likely to be finalized in Lansing and Boise and Baton Rouge.

Besides the opt-out choice, proposed last week by Senate leaders, health-care legislation being drafted on Capitol Hill would delegate to state officials a multitude of momentous decisions, from what benefits are offered to low-income families to what hurdles to put in front of private insurance companies before they can raise premiums.

"The fact is that state programs are going to look different," said Judith Solomon, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. "Where some people might be expecting national health reform, we're facing the real possibility that what you get is going to depend heavily on where you live."

The prospect of state control over the new system holds both promise and peril, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has advised Democrats on health reform. "The plus side is that states are uniquely positioned to reflect the tastes of their residents and market conditions. Plus, we can really learn from the different approaches states take," he said. The downside "is that states can screw up and not meet . . . minimum standards."

Oy. I'm betting on the downside.

The health-care package unveiled by House leaders Thursday comes closer to national reform, health policy experts said. It would create a national marketplace where those who lack insurance could shop for policies, including a plan designed and administered by federal health officials. States would play a supporting role, helping to design the largest expansion of Medicaid in 40 years and to develop high-risk insurance pools for people in immediate need of coverage.

The package under development in the Senate is a different story. A bill approved by the Finance Committee would leave virtually every major decision to state officials.

Rather than create a central marketplace for insurance, that measure would permit each state to establish its own "exchange" and decide which insurers have access to that market. States could let low-income families shop the exchanges or offer them some other kind of coverage, such as policies already offered to state employees. Under a provision authored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), states could even bypass the exchange mechanism and try to expand coverage in other ways.

The Finance Committee bill did not include a government insurance option; Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he would add one before bringing a package to the Senate floor. But to appease Democratic moderates wary of a big new program, the availability of the public option, too, would be subject to state discretion.

Reid's opt-out plan is opposed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican to support the Democratic-led reform effort. Snowe is pushing for a "trigger," which would create a public plan only in states where private insurers failed to offer policies that were broadly affordable.

Given that the Senate presents the larger political hurdle to passing legislation, political analysts expect its state-choice approach to prevail. That means that a White House signing ceremony for a health-reform bill could become a prelude to 50 state legislative battles over how to expand Medicaid, how to set up the exchanges and how to enforce new insurance regulations, as well as whether to give state residents access to a public plan.