Maybe a good place to be is with this:

"A key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform."

I didn't do a count, but did he even mention the CARE aspect of reform nearly as often as he coupled "health" with "insurance?"  I mean, even in the obvious place, where he could have said that the reform would put people in charge of their own health care, he said it would put people in charge of their health insurance.

He mentions the promises of providers to bring down costs, and make drugs more affordable; these are things industry providers could have been doing all along, but they haven't been.  Why would they make that promise now?  What are they getting, what have they been promised that Obama fails to mention?

Invoking the AMA - the organization that opposed Meicare - and making it sound like virtually every doctor and nurse in the country is a member, and that health professionals are nearly universally behind this particular effort is manipulative and misleading.  It just is not so.

Notice, when he gets there, that he doesn't mention that there will be no cuts to Medicare.  I won't be the only one who notices that.

He still does not tell people what their options are if they have health insurance, through an employer, and don't like it.  Obama says people will be in charge of their own health insurance, but does that mean that they will be able to opt out of an employer-based plan for something better, and less expensive?

He never discussed how it would be paid for.

He says insurance companies will not be able to deny people for pre-existing conditions, but did not explain whether acceptance would come with an affordable price tag. The companies won't be able to drop people when they get sick, but will they be able to raise their premiums?  Obama didn't say.

Not one word about "the public option."

Not one word about when reform will be implemented, but saying that we will be "getting it done by the end of this year" is going to make a lot of people think it will start in 2010.  The news that it won't begin until over three years from now is going to make a lot of people feel bamboozled, I think.

The really misleading part of the address concerned Obama's claims that this particular reform effort will be the antithesis of the status quo, in terms of cost and the effect on the economy and in the health of the people affected.  For sure, insurance companies will be getting millions more people to collect premiums from, but Obama is perpetuating the myth that having insurance means you have CARE.  It doesn't: too many people NOW have insurance, but cannot take advantage of it because they still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles associated with getting care.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that Obama made no secret of the fact that we are no longer talking about putting people in charge of their CARE, but in charge of their insurance; will anyone who has had to deal with insurance companies really believe that we are going to be in charge?  

1.  Reigning in costs will not result in a reduction of health care benefits to seniors.

2.  It will not result in the Government deciding what diagnostic tests or treatment procedures a person can have. It will not prevent someone from getting a second or third opinion.

3. Providing health insurance to everyone and eliminating denial of coverage or overcharging those with pre-existing conditions will not result in higher premiums or reduced benefits for the healthy.

4. It will not allow health insurance companies to revise their plans after the law passes so that people get less coverage for the same amount of premiums they are paying now.

If that isn't telling, I don't know what is.  

Are seniors the only citizens needing drug costs lowered?

Drug companies have agreed.  Yes.  They cut a deal with the White House.  The insurance companies didn't, so we'll get insurance reform...reform that will only give them more clients to screw over and bigger profits to hand out bonuses and campaign funds.

This is criminal.

1. Medicare. He needs to reassure American's that it isn't going to be trashed. (Republican's have wanted to do this since the beginning). Aren't seniors still the largest voting block?

2. That employer based health care isn't going to be taxed as income. There are millions of families that are just getting by with the economy the way it is. Taxing benefits could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. How many more uninsured will this create? People will be forced to opt out of their insurance because they just can't afford it.

Otherwise rational individuals can be easily stampeded into panic by agitators on the right.

Weak leadership in the White House hasn't helped.  An opportunity to spell out a clear, simple, easy to understand, efficatious health care plan was declined at the outset allowing the right to dictate the terms of "debate."

A clear effective plan laid out at the start would have rendered the right ineffective and perhaps hesitant to launch much resistance.

They've been handed an opening and now they believe they can kill two birds with one stone, wrest power from the Democrats and kill reform.

As politically well-connected liberal Bob Shrum signaled the other day with his unhesitating embrace of the co-op compromise, the Obama admin appears to be willing to settle just for something right now.  If so, that would be quite a disappointing outcome for a 60 Dem Congress and alleged anti-incrementalist president.

The rather complicated "reconciliation" alternative, requiring only a bare majority, also seems less likely today, if one is to believe former cong'l aide Lawr O'Donnell as he backed Sen Conrad's skeptical view.  Apparently only small pieces of the overall reform package could go through by this method, and beyond that would still need 60 votes to overcome opposition on a given aspect of the bill.  

Dude, she must be allergic to the truth.

Here is the clip.