It is agreed that the Hawaii socialized scheme did not demonstrate poorer quality.

You still say that the cost was higher. That's like saying that 100 Wendy's hamburgers cost more than 10 McDonalds hamburgers so Wendy's hamburgers are more expensive. Others might assert that buying 100 hamburgers when you have only budgeted for 10 is a story about planning, not about the price of hamburgers. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You still seem to assert that choice is reduced because people can be expected to prefer the new system. But isn't that the essence of choice? And if you deny people a scheme you know they will prefer, aren't you deliberately limiting their choices?

Lets not forget that this was your example. Sure lots of things might have happened with government doing this and that and quality might have got worse and choice might have been reduced, but unless it actually happened in the example you selected, it's still FUD. Sorry if you perceive that as an insult rather than a request for an example that does support what you say about socialized schemes.