Bruce,

In simple terms, I think you nailed it as far as forces, but the drag or efficiency really depends on the application.

My explanation was for "normal" flight.

In extreme maneuvers like 3D, the elevator/stab combo is the best because of the "undercambre" that is created when elevator is moved.
An undercambre airfoil is a high drag airfoil, but it is also high-lift, and can withstand higher angles of attack before entering a complete stall.

If you notice, a Cessna's elevator is about 15% to 20% of the total horozontal tail surface, (depending on the model).
On the other hand, a Katana's elevator is about 65% of the total horozontal tail surface.
The small stationary stab of the Katana acts as a leading edge slat much like you find in a large airliner, or cargo plane's main wing, (creating an undercambre airfoil). This enables the wing to create much more lift while being able to obtain higher angles of attack without completely stalling. This also creates a very large amount of drag, slowing the airliner/cargo plane for landing.
A stabilator cannot produce the same forces at lower airspeed because it will stall at extreme angles of incidence. In those conditions you are relying entirely on deflection instead of deflection and dynamic lift as in the elevator/stab setup.
In a model, this can be disasterous, because you cannot "feel" the stabilator about to stall. Stalling the stabilator can cause the tail of the plane to sink, creating a nose-high condition that in a moderately powered model will create a full stall. On an approach it would spell disater []

Crash:
The Cessna's setup is two fold. One is to keep the cost down, the other is the fact that you can stall a stabilator.
This can be fatal to a novice.
Being a "touchy" aircraft has a LOT more to do with overall design instead of just the tail configuration.

A stabilator in a highwing aircraft with flaps, under the right conditions, can induce negative "feel" pushing the controls toward and past neutral , giving a pilot reverse feedback through the controls because the forces on the stabilator may be behind of the pivot point of the stabilator.
Most private planes with stabilators are either low-winged aircraft, or T-tails. This keeps the tail section out of the wash of the main wing preventing the adverse effects of applying flaps.

As Bruce said, both config's are capable of creating a full stall, regardless of velocity, (unless you are talking about a canaard - a completely different scenario).

If you have a touchy aircraft, it can be from several different sources.
CG too far aft.
Short moment arm from CG/CP/CL to tail control surfaces.
LARGE control surfaces that are aerodynamically balanced, (so the forces required to move them are small) - Full Scale ONLY.
Poor design.

Red B:
In subsonic aircraft there is no real reason to use stabilators much in the same way that electric cars have not become mainstream yet.
In "normal" flight, the stabilator is more efficient, but should not be used in certain configurations. It can get pilots into trouble when they use flaps, spoilers, etc.

Also, if you are piloting a sonic or trans-sonic aircraft, I would hope that you have had specific training in its flight characteristics before being put in the front seat, and it is most likely not a model plane.

Ed:
With all due respect, please see my explanation above:
Is one better than the other? I think that in model aircraft it is just personal preference, unless you are building a scale model and require a specific setup.

Bob