In a recent TNR article about the Citizens United decision, “Roberts versus Roberts,” I argued that the chief justice has so far failed to achieve his goal of promoting narrow, unanimous decisions rather than ideologically polarizing ones. After the piece came out, Ed Whelan claimed that Roberts had never promised to try to lead the Court in such a fashion.

Timothy Jost is a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He posts regularly on the Politico health reform arena and on Georgetown University’s Legal Issues in Health Reform blog.

Although President Obama's primary health reform message in his State of the Union was "do not walk away from reform,” “finish the job” and “let’s get it done,” he also said, “But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.” At this invitation, congressional Republicans rose to their feet with John Boehner waving his hand, as Newsweek reports, “appearing to almost expect being called upon.” 

So what are the Republican’s “better ideas”?

In November, 2009, the House Republicans submitted to Congress HR 4038, “The Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act.” It weighs in at 220 pages, less than one tenth the size of the current Senate bill. It is mostly a compendium of the same tired health reform proposals that Republicans have offered for years: association health plans, interstate insurance sales, limits on the ability of people injured by medical negligence to obtain justice, and more tax benefits for health savings accounts. It also repeals the federal comparative effectiveness council established by the stimulus bill, repeals the individual market guaranteed issue provision of HIPAA, undermines HIPAA’s group health plan health status discrimination prohibition by allowing reductions in premiums of up to 50% for participants in wellness programs, and adds yet one more prohibition against federal funding of abortion (which is already illegal). 

It does include a few newer ideas: support for state reinsurance programs, incentives to the states to reduce premiums in the individual and small group markets and to reduce the number of uninsured, internet “health plan finders” to help people find and compare insurance, and a handful of insurance reforms.

Let's take a closer look at these proposals, one by one:

Timothy Jost is a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He posts regularly on the Politico health reform arena and on Georgetown University’s Legal Issues in Health Reform blog.

Last night’s Massachusetts shocker dramatically narrows options for health care reform. Until last night, House and Senate leaders were working together toward amendments that would improve some of the worst features of the Senate bill to resemble more closely the House provisions, with an eye toward both chambers enacting final legislation two to three weeks out. With the loss of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, this option is no longer viable. 

Indeed, at this point, there is only one viable option--the House must adopt the Senate version as is, but demand from the Senate a commitment to improve it through budget reconciliation and from the White House a commitment to vigorous implementation. All other options seem worse. The Senate is not willing to fast-track House amendments to a vote before seating Brown, which would probably be politically unwise in any event. Starting over again would prolong a debate that has already gone on far too long, and final legislation would still need 60 votes in the Senate. Peeling off a Republican to get a sixtieth vote is pure fantasy. Trying to cobble together a new bill through reconciliation would mean giving up the health insurance reforms in the bill and much else. Abandoning health care reform totally would not only mean abdication of responsibility for fifty million uninsured Americans, it would mean abdicating the 2010 and 2012 elections to the Republicans.

One afternoon in October, a blue and white jumbo jet flew high above the Pacific Ocean, approaching the international dateline. On board was the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who was on an around-the-world trip that would end with a summit of NATO defense ministers, where the topic of the day would be Afghanistan. Gates was flying on what is often called “the Doomsday Plane,” a specially outfitted 747 that looks like a bulkier Air Force One and was built to wage retaliatory nuclear war from the skies.

Editors's Note: Timothy Jost is a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He posts regularly on the Politico health reform arena and on Georgetown University’s Legal Issues in Health Reform blog.

With controversy swirling around Obama's selection of Leon Panetta for CIA chief, we approached a few respected intelligence experts for perspective. Those we spoke to were supportive of the choice and the theory that intelligence experience is not an absolute prerequisite for a good director. Paul Pillar, a professor at Georgetown University and former CIA officer, explained why he feels so confident:

Once upon a time, the Democratic family consisted of two basic types of politicians--those who supported the Iraq war and those who were against it. As the war dragged on and the political climate changed, however, varied new species began to evolve, with all manner of ideas and opinions about the occupation. For months, these different Democratic factions lived more or less in harmony. But Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha's dramatic call last month for a fast U.S. exit from Iraq was like a climate-altering asteroid event.