As New York Times columnist Charles Blow argued the other day, while "Conservatives speak in bumper stickers," the President, on the other hand, "speaks in thesis statements."

But last night, the President forcefully and effectively took on the catch-phrases spread by health care reform combatants -- death panels, government-takeovers. He cut through the confusion that grew this past summer about the true meaning of health care reform.

President Obama encouraged Americans to listen closely to facts and pay no heed to the "partisan spectacle," "bogus claims" and "scare tactics" that interfered with an "honest debate."  And he implored Republicans to take part in that debate. "l continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead.  If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen.  My door is always open."

A recent report from the Urban Institute is a useful guide to the facts.

Stan Dorn and Stephen Zuckerman of the Urban Institute explain that none of the bills being considered in Congress could be construed as socialized medicine or a  "government takeover" of health care. All of the major bils would include some version of the following proposals (although the status of the public insurance option is uncertain):

1. The low-income uninsured would receive subsidies.
2. A health insurance exchange would offer diverse health plans.
3. Consumers buying coverage in the exchange could select a publicly-administered health plan.
4. Individuals would be required to obtain health coverage, unless they cannot afford it.
5. Employers above a threshold size would be required to help finance health care.
6. New requirements would apply to health insurers.
7. Various policies would attempt to slow the growth in health care costs.
8. Increase costs would be fully funded by new revenues and policies that slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending. 

Dorn and Zuckerman  explain that the public plan would not wipe out the entire private insurance business. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only a few million would choose the public option.

The report argues that comparative effectiveness research is not a disguise for rationing, and that the organizations doing the research would not be the same ones making the coverage or reimbursement policies.. Instead, it quotes the president describing comparative effectiveness research as providing:

... objective, credible information on the likely clinical outcomes of different strategies to treat the same medical condition. The information produced and disseminated would be intended to better inform clinical decision making and to help design sensible reimbursement strategies.

By the way, that wasn't  President Obama they were quoting on the research. It  was the former president, George W. Bush.