In a session marked by so much partisan rancor, why are the UFA bills different? What can Congress learn from this process?

House Republicans have bashed the health reform law as the beginning of the end of the employer-sponsored health insurance market, since it would be less expensive for some employers to drop their plans and pay a fine to the federal government. The House Ways and Means committee released a report last week finding 71 of Fortune 100 companies could save $422 billion by simply paying fines for their employees, instead of the insurance plans they offer now.

But Republicans haven't been huge fans of employers dictating health insurance coverage for individuals in the past. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., proposed getting rid of the employer-sponsored health insurance tax exclusion in his failed 2008 presidential campaign, which could incentivize people to buy their own plans. Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2012, hasn't gone that far yet. But he does want to "equalize" the tax treatment of health insurance, giving individual buyers the same tax breaks that employees get on their employer health insurance.

Should people get their health insurance through their employers? What considerations should lawmakers take into account when writing policies that shape insurance coverage?

The number is well under federal projections from October, which predicted up to 270 groups would sign up to become Medicare accountable care organizations, or ACOs. The ACO program pays bonuses to doctor and hospital groups if they successfully coordinate care and improve health outcomes for certain Medicare patients. The groups can eventually lose money from the federal government if they don't meet those standards.

Does the low turnout mean ACOs are over? Or is the program just off to a slow start? Why?

Several options have been floated-- like auto-enrolling people in health insurance plans or restricting enrollment to certain times of the year--but so far no formal strategy has emerged.

Are there any ways to salvage the health care law that have been missed? What programs do you see surviving if the Supreme Court decides the insurance requirement is unconstitutional?

If you were implementing the law, what would you have done differently? What would you keep the same? In the battle for public opinion, who is winning: Democrats or Republicans?

Ryan told National Journal's Nancy Cook that the budget plan is more important than Republicans winning the White House in November.

"The moral obligation to do something about the debt crisis trumps everything," Ryan said.

For health policy that means one thing: Medicare and Medicaid are once again in for a significant overhaul from Ryan, despite the upcoming presidential election and political challenges of tweaking popular health programs. Medicare and Medicaid make up a huge chunk of the deficit, especially in the long run.

Has Ryan succeeded in changing the dialogue of Washington policymakers when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid? Is a Medicare voucher system or block grants for Medicaid becoming an inevitable solution to the country's fiscal woes?

The 15-member IPAB garners ire on Capitol Hill because it can cut Medicare payment rates to doctors and hospitals without congressional approval. To override the board, Congress must pass its own equivalent cut with a supermajority.

Congress doesn't have a great track record when it comes to Medicare prices. One easy example: the sustainable growth rate that controls Medicare physician payments. Democrats and Republicans want to get rid of it, but can't agree how to do it. Should the executive branch get to control Medicare pricing? The executive branch controls the money supply through the Federal Reserve - is IPAB really that different?

What interesting solutions do you see coming from the states, from the private sector and, yes, even from the federal government? Are there any missed opportunities out there? What will these exchanges look like five years from now? Will states be ready to run exchanges by this time next year?

Did the president's approach strike the right balance?

The planks of the package included medical liability reform, rules to make health insurance purchases possible across state lines, and efforts to ensure that employees could take their insurance with them if they left a job.

Would such policies be a good replacement for the current health care reform package? Would they expand access to health insurance? Would they bring down costs?

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?

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?

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

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?