In order to survive 2012, the health care law will have to overcome two major hurdles: a Supreme Court hearing on its constitutionality, and an election that could tilt Congress, the White House or both in favor of repeal.

Which pathway do you think will be more likely to bring down the legislation: the Supreme Court's June decision, or the November election?

Or despite these challenges, do you think the health reform law will survive to see 2013?

Believe it or not, we are just one week away from President Obama's fourth State of the Union address, scheduled for January 24. We want to know what you want to hear from the president when it comes to health policy.

Do you think the president should defend his landmark health reform law, especially in front of the Supreme Court justices who are set to rule on its constitutionality this year?

Should the president offer up ways to save money in Medicare and Medicaid, like raising eligibility age for Medicare or changing how the federal government matches state Medicaid contributions?

Should President Obama address Republican efforts to convert Medicare into a program that gives seniors a subsidy to purchase private health insurance?

Or do you think the president should steer clear of health policy altogether?

3 responses: Ethan Rome, John Castellani, Doug Peddicord

The Obama Administration kicked off the Supreme Court case on health care reform Friday with its brief defending the 2010 law's most controversial feature -- its requirement that individuals buy health insurance. The government offered several legal arguments in support of the provision, contending that it is a valid exercise under Congress's powers to regulate interstate commerce and to collect taxes. The legal analysis was no surprise--the government has been making similar arguments for nearly two years in the lower courts, with mixed results.

Will these arguments be persuasive to the justices? Will the Supreme Court uphold the health reform law?

4 responses: Rich Umbdenstock, Henry J. Aaron, Ilya Shapiro, Stephen B. Presser

It's been a busy end of the health care year--with the "doc fix" endgame, the departure of CMS director Dr. Don Berwick, the debut of Pioneer ACOs, rules for essential health benefits, calls to privatize Medicare, and controversial decisions about contraceptive coverage, among many other matters. There's plenty on the horizon too. If you ran the show at the Department of Health and Human Services, what would be your number one priority for the coming year? What should Secretary Kathleen Sebelius set down as her New Year's resolution?

1 response: Doug Peddicord

It's been a long road for the emergency contraceptive pill called Plan B. Its maker, the generic manufacturer Teva, has been trying to get the drug available over-the-counter for buyers of all ages for years. It was stopped by the FDA under the Bush administration, in a decision that prompted resignations and a federal court case.

The Obama administration FDA considered a similar application and was poised to make an opposite decision. A scientific panel and the FDA's commissioner had determined that the drug would be safe for women and girls of all ages to purchase and use without a doctor's prescription. But last week, Sebelius overruled the agency's final decision, arguing that there was not adequate research showing that the youngest girls who might need it - girls as young as 11 -- would be able to read and understand the medication labels. As a result, Plan B will remain prescription-only for girls under 17, and those 17 and older will have to show ID to a pharmacist to buy it. Several commentators have described the move as the first time an HHS secretary has overruled the FDA in this way.

Sebelius denied the judgement was politically motivated, but critics have said it was. Was the secretary right to intervene?

After a year-long reprieve from having to fix the Medicare "sustainable growth rate" formula, Congress is once again scrambling to avoid a 27 percent cut to Medicare physicians pay in January 2012.

Hopes for a permanent fix this year dimmed with the failure of the super committee. That means any "doc fix" Congress passes will last no longer than a year, at most maybe two years.

How many more years will it take before a permanent solution is found? Is a bill from Rep. Alyson Schwartz, D-Pa., a first step to permanently addressing the Medicare SGR? Or is a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission plan, which cuts most doctors pay, a more realistic solution?

If the super committee fails to reach a deal, how badly do you think Medicare and Medicaid will be cut in 2013 and beyond?

The federal health programs, along with Social Security, are projected to grow from 10 to 15 percent of GDP in the next 25 years. Democrats are already looking at ways to hem that in - last week Democrats floated a super committee proposal to cut $400 billion from federal health programs, in part by asking Medicare beneficiaries to pay an extra $100 billion to cover the cost of their care.

Republicans have been pushing for more drastic, structural changes to Medicare, like transforming the entitlement program into a voucher system where seniors would get government subsidies for private insurance coverage. Short of that change, Republicans in the super committee have regularly pushed for significant entitlement spending cuts.

Are the federal health programs destined for the chopping block once the 2012 presidential election is over?

The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale released a report Monday showing children and teenagers remain a big target for soft drink ads. Researchers at the center say their findings show the federal government should do more to regulate the marketing of soda and other unhealthy foods.

Most U.S. children get more than their daily recommended total of sugar in soda, fruit punch, energy drinks and other sugary beverages, something the Rudd Center researchers say contributes to the rising rates of childhood obesity. The beverage industry says it's been unfairly singled out, arguing that sweetened drinks are just one of many sources of calories in the American diet and it should not be blamed for the obesity epidemic.

The food industry has put into place some voluntary guidelines to limit advertising of sweet drinks to children. But the Rudd report suggests that kids are still seeing more ads than they were before the industry's self-regulation. A federal interagency report, suggesting more stringent voluntary standards for food marketers was panned by industry and will be softened before its final publication later this year. Republicans in Congress have said the government shouldn't be in the business of telling parents what to feed their kids.

Is there a role for the government in regulating soda?

1 response: Michelle Bernard

Last week the federal government did its best to reignite enthusiasm around the so-called accountable care organizations, making significant changes that are meant to coax doctors and hospitals to come on board.

Accountable care organizations, or ACOs, are a centerpiece of the 2010 health reform law that aim to get doctors and hospitals to work together to keep patients healthier. The interim rule released in March was panned by doctors and hospitals expected to volunteer for the program.

The revisions include allowing ACOs to operate without financial risk and will let ACOs collect a full bonus once they hit a savings target; the interim rule would have kept the first 2 percent of savings for the federal government.

They also eliminate a confusing and unpopular provision that would have kept patients and doctors in the dark about who was actually included in an ACO, and they slash the number of quality measures doctors and hospitals will have to report from 65 to 33.

Are these changes enough to attract wary doctors and hospitals back to the ACO drawing board? Will ACOs help change how America pays for its health care?

2 responses: Mark Lutes, Jack Lewin

The Food and Drug Administration has been the target of criticism from Republicans and the medical device industry alike, arguing that increased medical device approval times are pushing innovation abroad.

After holding several hearings examining the FDA's approval process, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., last Friday unveiled a package of legislation that Republicans say will "improve the predictability, consistency, and transparency of FDA's medical device review and approval process."

The legislation would require FDA reviewers to provide "scientific or regulatory rationale for major decisions," and reaffirms that FDA should follow "least burdensome" practices to approve devices. You can read more about the bills here.

Do you think these proposals will be useful to getting new treatments to market? Or will these changes put patients in danger with unchecked devices?

3 responses: Meghan McCarthy, Meghan McCarthy, Jack Lewin