The executives of all large organizations (including socialist healthcare systems) must make tradeoffs when deciding whether to spend money to save lives.
For example, suppose a medical intervention would save 20 lives, but costs $200 billion. Is it worth doing?
Remember that the $200 billion that goes toward saving those lives is then not available for other goods, such as saving lives via other means. If $200 billion would save 100,000 lives if spent on say, childhood vaccination, then spending that $200 billion to save 20 lives is not worthwhile.
Car company executives must make similar tradeoffs. If they try to address every risk with a recall, the costs of their cars would skyrocket, almost no one would be able to afford to buy their cars, and they would go out of business.
If regulations make cars unaffordable, that too has many large impacts on the length and quality of one's life, such as not being able to get a much more lucrative (but more distant) job. Less income means less healthcare, less healthy food, lower quality shelter, etc.
In order to make rational decisions when faced with these tradeoffs, executives have to assign a monetary value to human lives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
Obviously, people of good will are going to disagree over how these calculations are made.
Some people are much less risk tolerant than others, for example.
Some people prefer greater pleasure at the cost of greater risk: motorcycle riders, swingers, psychedelic users, etc.
Some people still mask and self-isolate two years after the Covid 19 pandemic "ended".
Some people would rather save $50 and face a 1:100000 increased risk of death from ignition failure.
It's typically impossible to negotiate these risk/reward tradeoffs 1:1 with customers, so executives have to guestimate what the average buyer of their product would want them to do.
Due to these differences in risk preferences, many customers will think they made the "wrong" decision, no matter what decision they make.
For example, suppose a medical intervention would save 20 lives, but costs $200 billion. Is it worth doing?
Remember that the $200 billion that goes toward saving those lives is then not available for other goods, such as saving lives via other means. If $200 billion would save 100,000 lives if spent on say, childhood vaccination, then spending that $200 billion to save 20 lives is not worthwhile.
Car company executives must make similar tradeoffs. If they try to address every risk with a recall, the costs of their cars would skyrocket, almost no one would be able to afford to buy their cars, and they would go out of business.
If regulations make cars unaffordable, that too has many large impacts on the length and quality of one's life, such as not being able to get a much more lucrative (but more distant) job. Less income means less healthcare, less healthy food, lower quality shelter, etc.
In order to make rational decisions when faced with these tradeoffs, executives have to assign a monetary value to human lives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
Obviously, people of good will are going to disagree over how these calculations are made.
Some people are much less risk tolerant than others, for example.
Some people prefer greater pleasure at the cost of greater risk: motorcycle riders, swingers, psychedelic users, etc.
Some people still mask and self-isolate two years after the Covid 19 pandemic "ended".
Some people would rather save $50 and face a 1:100000 increased risk of death from ignition failure.
It's typically impossible to negotiate these risk/reward tradeoffs 1:1 with customers, so executives have to guestimate what the average buyer of their product would want them to do.
Due to these differences in risk preferences, many customers will think they made the "wrong" decision, no matter what decision they make.