Bad: Countries with socialized medicine tend to regulate consumer products.

[Democrats_win]

They have better regulations because those regulations keep down medical costs which the government pays. For example, if a product severs a child's finger, then someone must pay for it to be repaired. When the government is doing the paying, they figure, we might as well try to PREVENT the child from losing his finger. In walks, regulation so that negligent businesses must spend money to make sure that their products are safe BEFORE they sell them.

In America you can put unsafe products, made in China, on Wal-mart's shelves. If it severs your child's fingers, everyone declares bankruptcy before the child's finger stops huring. Your bankruptcy is because you spent all your money fixing your child's finger since the insurance company found out your kid was once treated for acne thus invalidating the insurance policy. The company that made the unsafe toy goes bankrupt because they didn't want to lower their profits by paying for their negligence.

So you see, it's a slippery slope, this socialized medicine. Once you start, who knows where it will stop. Worst of all, you and your family might be a whole lot safer and who would want that. It would be bad for the economy. Every little injury adds to the GDP.

[Karenina]

1. . .

[anonymous171]

2. I want draconian punishments for corporate screw ups (like minimum sentencing, death penalty, etc.)

Regulations are irrelevant

[surrealAmerican]

3. It's a collateral benefit of socialized medicine as are ...

... more comprehensive environmental regulations (and enforcement of existing regulations). If lead in the drinking water is going to cost the government more in health care expenses than it will to remove it in the first place, it makes it rather more likely they'll remove it.