One of the probably benefits of socialized health care is that the focus would be more on prevention, rather than medication and treatment of symptoms. In a capitalist society, where the larger medically-oriented corporations are pharmaceutical companies, where MDs are getting kick-backs from the drug companies, and where there are no incentives for an individual to pursue a healthy lifestyle, it's about what will make the bucks. Let's face it, drugs are HUGE money makers for both the P-companies and the doctors.
If there is a government-run option, then the government would actually make more money by encouraging people to actively engage in their own health, incentives for staying healthy and getting regular routine medical exams and tests, and less money on drugs. It's a win-win situation, IMO.
So if the general population are encouraged and supported in living healthier (no matter the class of the individual), it means less money on treatments and health care in general and a healthier population in general. How could that be a negative?
I'm sort of rambling here, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
"Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you earn it and win it in every generation."
Coretta Scott King