It makes sense with some extra punctuation: Great. Socialize healthcare. As it, is blah blah.
If you want even cheaper car insurance, you can even go beyond socialized healthcare. You can have socialized car insurance! Or in some cases a hybrid system where you insure your vehicle but not all trauma and damage to the other party. But I don't think Americans would be a-okay with seeing a government employed doctor when they make their injury claims. Even if outcomes are better than a purely private system.
If a large portion of the cost of auto insurance is to pay for potential injuries to someone that you hit, then we can conclude 1) single-payer healthcare would significantly lower the cost of auto insurance, and conversely, 2) the lack of single-payer healthcare is a significant contributor to the current state of auto insurance markets/pricing.
I completely agree with your assessment and logic, but the parent posted suggested that socialization of healthcare (e.g. ObamaCare) is contributing to auto rates. That I don't understand.
Looking again, I think their comment can be parsed in multiple ways.
> Socialize healthcare as it is forcing all sorts of market distortions in unrelated markets
I interpreted that as a call to socialize healthcare, not a description of market effects that "socialized healthcare" has to the extent that exists in the US.
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Can you explain?