>IMHO it is crucial to break down the FUD into individual assertions so they can be examined.

Ah so my opinions based on experience, fact, history and logic are FUD, but yours, theoretically garnered in a similar fashion, are supposed to dispel the rhetorical "myths" that I'm putting forth. Thanks for not insulting me with your opening statement. Oh wait...

>Lets start with quality. The Hawaii experience was that "quality" was sufficient in a publicly funded scheme that people who can afford insurance are more than happy to go for the public option.

That is not the experience. The experience is that the public option was free and people were coerced, read forced, into taking a health option for their children, so they "chose" the free one. Quoting Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services, "People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free. I don't believe that was the intent of the program." Good intentions, failure to execute.

>It was suggested that this represents lack of choice. The Hawaii experience is that once given the choice, people flock to the public scheme. Ironically some people who say they want freedom of choice are the ones wanting to deny this particular choice.

Once again this is not choice, people were forced to enroll their children in a health insurance plan. Given the choice between paying and "free" the majority "chose" the free one. It has nothing to do with the quality, as 7 months is hardly enough time to evaluate.

>How about cost? The cost was less than half the cost of equivalent cover in the current system. By the time of the canning, 85% of kids in the public scheme were from families that used to pay $55/month for the same care. The cost to government for providing it was about $27 per child- less than half what parents had to pay in the current system.

The government doesn't compete on a level playing field. They have the ability to mandate doctors fees, prescription costs and when they still fall short, take out loans. The government doesn't play by the same rules that private business must and as such, there is no true competition. If there was true competition with government entities competing in the private sector, the post office and Amtrak would've gone bankrupt decades ago.

>It cost *government* more than expected not because the care was expensive but because most families opted in, not just poor families. That's a funding and social issue, not a cost issue,

More people opted in because it was free. That's a personal funding issue. The social impacts are vast but not really in the scope of this discussion. The cost overruns were explosive and inevitable.

>and not a surprise: expert evidence is that funded options will crowd out paid options 60% of the time just as occurred with policing and fire.

Sure, because they're seen as "free". Actual costs are hidden in the budgets. Take a quick glance towards what's happening in California thanks to budgetary shenanigans involving costs of public services. Not to mention the death grip that the unions who control those services have on the politicians of this state.

>Whether that's fair depends on whether people think the current system does a good job delivering care for kids and/or whether a socialized scheme might be better for society. Even if people refuse to contemplate this, offering affluent families $27 tax rather than a $55 premium still seem a no-brainer.
>
>BTW, did you know that families with <$72K income are entitled to Medicaid in Hawaii anyway, meaning they already had free care? Yet they and the more affluent families all flocked to this program. Why?

I need a citation for people "flocking" from Medicaid to this program as I'm not finding it. As for the affluent, see "free".

>>>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.
>That is not what happened in Hawaii. Where is the evidence of protest or dismay at being coerced or forced to join in? They *wanted* to join in! The only dismay was when the scheme was scrapped.

It was, say it with me now, FREE! People will opt into a free option rather than paying out of pocket. They will be dismayed when their free ride comes to an end because someone else stopped paying for it. That's the obvious outcome of the entitlement society we've created.

>Seems to me that people with access to a public scheme generally are quite happy with it- as was shown in Hawaii. When you pluck apart the arguments of those who want to prevent this choice, words like "quality" and "cost" and "coerce" and "choice" seem to take on strange new meanings.

Quality : We have no basis for discussion. 7 months is not enough time to evaluate.
Cost : In as little as 7 months the total cost overruns forced the shutdown of the program.
Choice : Government options do not compete on the same playing field as the private sector. In addition, people who previously were free to choose whether or not to have insurance, were forced into one. That's not choice, that's coercion.