>People do not flee from "free" things they move towards them and only later suffer the consequences.
>
>And if the negative consequences do not materialize, it's because it didn't last long enough because it was too expensive because too many people wanted in. I do understand your argument.

The negative consequences always materialize...Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, Post Office...all broke.

The problem is the recipients of the "free" service are rarely the ones who pay the price...

Of course if we bring items like public education into the discussion, then the recipients are the ones suffering the consequences of failure.

>The simple assumption is that the intention all along was to fully socialize childrens' care. Yet, reality, in the form of a recession, hit them too fast and they were forced to cut their losses before the program began to seriously cripple the State's treasury.
>
>I understand why you want to say that, but where is your evidence? This is supposed to be an example not a coat-hook on which prejudices can be hung.

The Keiki Care program was created to ensure that every child gets basic medical care. Those without private coverage are automatically covered by the State. That's socialism. The fact that the program was "free" to enroll in means that people will immediately make the move to the "free" option and away from private care they must pay for. Only 2 possible reasons can exist for this "free" care without a poverty standard applied. 1) A blatant ignorance on the part of the lawmakers to simple cause and effect. or 2) A deliberate attempt to undercut private childrens' health insurance.