>It is not FUD, it's perfectly relevant to the current health care debate.
>
>It is FUD unless you can substantiate it. I asked for an example. The one you provided does not support *any* of the three referenced objections to a socialized scheme.

Quality : 7 months is not enough time to appraise the quality of the new service in relation to private coverage. This is a non-issue.
Choice : Offer someone one thing for $55 or free and exactly how many people are going to pay the $55? As it turns out the entire state was going to pay and dearly to keep this "choice" available to people who are perfectly capable of providing their children with care but "chose" the "free" option. What a surprise.
Cost : The cost of the program is the main reason the plug was pulled. Claiming that it's a planning issue doesn't change the fact that the implemented program cost significantly more than was originally expected, intended and budgeted. The Hawaii experiment stands perfectly well amongst bad examples of public-option health care.

>Of course lots of things *might* happen. But do you refuse to ride in an aeroplane because it might crash? Do you refuse to use a granite kitchen bench because it might be radioactive? Some people really do behave that way. I do not believe they are the majority.

The most dangerous thing any person can do is drive daily. I choose to drive daily for work, but I do so in a 5000 lb vehicle which can withstand impact with most of the other vehicles on the road. It's not a black or white, do or do not question. It a matter of mitigating risk. I can look at the carnage wrought of government sponsored programs, Fannie, Freddie, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrack, USPS, and understand where a public health option will lead and Hawaii provides one, but not the only example. Waiting lists, limited prescriptions and lack of medical devices in other countries provide further evidence.

>Many of us prefer to rely on experience, evidence and substantiated expert opinion/standards to decide what is best for us.

Personally, having dealt with State bureaucracy a great deal in recent years, I do not want them anywhere near my family's health care decisions. I'll take the crappy HMO bureaucracy over the State every time, because at least the HMO has to answer to customers, the State bureaucracy does not.

>And others don't really care as long as they get to educate their kids or buy a new widescreen TV. When you see talking heads on both sides presenting their arguments in the media it's dismaying to see how many of them seem to be targeting Groups 1 and 3. If this means that Group 2 has become too few or too disempowered to be worth addressing, maybe it's time to assert political rights again.

There is great risk in a socialized State run program and I'm not willing to take it just for the sake of doing "something". Real reform starts with tort reform, eliminating the 3rd party payor model and encouraging competition. Anything that moves towards a State run health bureaucracy is a step backwards towards less innovation, greater costs and a further deterioration of our rights.