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

It is agreed that the Hawaii socialized scheme did not demonstrate higher, similar nor poorer quality as 7 months is not enough time to get a proper understanding.

>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.

The cost to the taxpayer was much higher than expected as is typical of government programs. Using the terms of your example it would be like passing a bill where the cost is based on 10 hamburgers and then ordering 100 regardless. Typical governmental budgeting. That's why I assert that this is a cost issue. The citizenry was once again lied to about the costs, both actual and potential.

>You still seem to assert that choice is reduced because people can be expected to prefer the new system.

I asserted that if people are offered something for "free" they will prefer it to something they pay directly out of pocket for. As Hawaii found out, people who could afford their own childrens' care "chose" the "free" option. The State does not adhere to the same standards as a private company as they can borrow or print money to make up for any shortfall. Look to California to see what over bloated government services create. The state is bankrupt, had it's credit rating reduced to BBB, yet we're printing IOUs that many banks wont accept and still do not have a budget. Yet the services are still there, instead of cutting with chainsaws as should've been done years ago.

The very essence of government provided services is that the actual costs are hidden from the user of those services. This is also a major problem with our current private insurance system. The actual health costs are hidden through a third party.

>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?

The key word is "free". Of course most people will "choose" the free option. That's not valid competition. Do people without children get to opt out of paying for the children of wealthy parents who enroll their children in the "free" scheme? Where's their choice?

>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.

It is not FUD, it's perfectly relevant to the current health care debate. Once a government option is introduced, it can manipulate the market through mandates, price caps and an unlimited taxpayer supplied budget. With those tools it will undercut the private market pricing models and people will switch both voluntarily and as a result of private businesses dropping their health coverage due to cost considerations. As a result the government rolls will swell, and costs will balloon. Since Congress simply allocates more debt printed money to cover all cost overruns, the government option is never held to the same accounting standards as private coverage and the private companies will go out of business. This will complete the actual, occasionally stated goal of government health care for all. It will bankrupt us through "unintended" cost overruns. Hawaii learned this lesson in 7 months and the example is very relevant to the current health care debate.