The mental gymnastics being executed as part of the political oratory in favor of changing health care as we know it into something very, very different is part of the “reform” ruse being perpetrated by government.

Seeded originally by President Obama prior to inauguration, the U.S. House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the lead in Congress and gave birth to the obese legislation of more than 1,000 pages and named HR 3200.

At the same time, over in the U.S. Senate, the charade unfolding under Harry Reid includes the media darling “gang of six” on the Finance Committee, who we are told, purportedly, search for a legislative compromise.

In this instance, such compromise only compromises individual freedom and choice in one of the most private arenas of one’s personal life.

Make no mistake, this is not reform. Instead, it is a determined effort to “de-form” health care.

Put succinctly, the so-called “public option” (Plan A) that liberal incumbents want — and would prefer to push through in one swoop of hurried legislation — clearly undermines personal choice.

If majority incumbents are forced to compromise in the short term, liberals are insisting (Plan B) that an automatic “trigger” mechanism be included in the legislation. Be glad about that apparent Freudian slip. “Trigger” suggests a coercive government automatic weapon is in the works.

Last Wednesday President Obama addressed the Congress on national television. He said, “The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

Which begs another question: “What is the ultimate goal”?

But, for now, back on point. On Sunday, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated “the president prefers the public option … however, he (the president) said what’s most important is choice and competition.”

That’s interesting.

The White House had four days to think about what the president said (the prior Wednesday) and they felt it necessary for his spokesman to clarify … or is it change … what the president said … or meant?

Still, “choice and competition” is exactly what American citizens want. Vast majorities tell us that in public opinion polls. And, extraordinary numbers of constituents have shown up at district town halls during August to tell congressional incumbents “no” to government involvement in private health care.

Previously, Obama has said he wants to “make sure that any overhaul imposes strict measures to ban companies from refusing insurance to people with existing medical conditions” or “dropping coverage …”

While intrusive in a free enterprise system, such a requirement — applied to all market suppliers — could promote competition and lower costs relative to those individuals who have pre-existing conditions. Of course, individuals with pre-existing conditions, understandably, would and should incur a higher premium compared to those individuals without a pre-existing condition.

Continuing the saga, Sunday evening on the television program “60 Minutes,” the president added, “I would be willing to … consider any ideas out there that would actually work in terms of reducing costs, improving the quality of patient care.”

That sounded promising. But, moments later, President Obama said that he “did not back limits on court-ordered rewards for malpractice.”

“Rewards?” No, the president must have misspoke, must have meant court-ordered “awards.”

In any case, one of the biggest cost side drivers to health care delivery — malpractice insurance costs — will not be addressed if the president and incumbent congressional liberals get their way.

Despite President Obama’s repeated talk about reforming health care, and “bending the cost curve,” increasingly, it appears to be more about bending the will of the American people and de-forming health care.

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications, a professional member of the National Speakers Association and founder Citizens For Change. He can be reached at Rich@Olivastro.NET or 877.RichSpeaks.