The contention was that more people would be covered but quality will be lower. In Hawaii people who used to have health insurance were sufficiently pleased with the quality that they wanted to join in the free program. I don't think this supports the contention- the opposite seems more likely. ;-)
Presumably you've considered Hawaii's position if it demonstrates that it can afford to do this without extra government $?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
