>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 $?

Tracy wrote : Not at all what I have read or heard on the news. The fear is not about a mandatory government run plan, but rather once the optional government plan comes out, businesses will find it more cost effective to stop providing health insurance and contribute to the government plan instead so in effect, there will be very little good plans that are affordable because the employer will no longer contribute to one that is provided to the employee. Instead, most folks will get lower benefits because they will be forced to join the government plan when their employer stops providing one. In essence, people will have lower benefits, but more will be covered.

You've taken the contention out of context. The argument is not that people will want to join the free program, but that they will be coerced due to business' dropping their coverage en mass as a cost benefit. That is what happened in Hawaii. The rolls swelled, costs exploded and they shut it down in 7 months. Lesson learned.