What you refer to as 'Socialism' is really a moderated form of Capitalism. Pure Socialism would be something like an ESOP where employees own the means of production.
Here's where socialism has produced a vibrant, healthy country where people thrive: Britain.
Britain has a form of Universal healthcare that, in terms of availability/access, quality and outcome, is superior to the privatized system in the US. And it costs 40% less per person. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
So there you are. Better care through universal care at almost half the cost.
Unless you like to pay the feudal lords of privatized medicine for their corporate headquarters, CEO compensation, corporate jets, PGA tour sponsorships, and on and on. The privatized system is not working.
Remember where our privatized system of Healthcare has gotten us:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
What? 
One of the top 10 healthcare systems in the world might not be worth all it's hype? 
Far East illustrates the limitations and dangers of universal health care By Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If we in California and the United States had wings and an infinite monies we could fly the best available healthcare to everyone here, there and everywhere.
The ideological concept of "universal care" looks right, sounds moral and feels good. California Governor Arnold deserves some credit for trying something bold. The problem is that history shows these programs do not work. They have failed in Canada, Great Britain, and other European countries (France, Germany, and Sweden). Coverage has become too costly in Massachusetts in less than a year.
The etiology of healthcare fever is always insufficient funds. The Governor's plan is estimated to cost 12 billion a year. But if you believe that number we have a long wide concrete bridge over Newport Bay to sell you for twenty- three bucks.
When the level of money injected into the blood sinks too low the medical outcomes are rationing and restraint accompanied by chronically high moral dilemmas. Medical care will be rationed, one way or another, so long as the government has finite resources and so long as people keep confusing insurance with fee-for-service.
JAPANESE UNIVERSAL CARE FAILINGNow, according to a recent release by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, it is failing in Japan.
If universal care were the genuine cure-all, the one country where it should work is Japan. They have a homogenous population, healthier lifestyle, eat more fish and soy, more vegetables and far less obesity than here. If universal care does not work there why should it work anywhere?
According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000.
Japanese public television showed the stark contrast. In the U.S., multiple specialists meet to discuss a cancer patient¹s care. In Japan, a single doctor usually makes the diagnosis and carries out treatment with minimal consultation.
THREE HOUR WAIT FOR THREE MINUTE VISIT While Japanese patients want American-style treatment, their policymakers are alarmed. With a huge national debt and corporations worried about higher taxes, they say Japan can¹t afford to pour money into treatments that can¹t extend life span by very much.
"America did too much of this and that¹s why their medical costs have grown," said Masaharu Nakajima, a surgeon and former director of the Health Bureau at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
Since Japan enacted universal health insurance in the early 1960s, the emphasis has been on a minimum standard of care for all. People must pay a monthly health-insurance fee, and large companies pay also. Coverage decisions, doctors¹ pay, and other rules are set by the central government.
Japanese doctors complain that they have no time to spend with patients. The experience of seeing a doctor is summarized as "a three-hour wait for a three-minute visit."
"Our rights as individuals are not being recognized," stated lung cancer patient Hidesuke Hashimoto. Mr. Hashimoto, a former math teacher, undertook to study his options on his own, moving along to a different hospital when told there was nothing more that could be done, and sometimes paying out of pocket (Landers, Wall Street Journal 1/11/07).
SHOULD THE STATE OWN YOUR BODY?Commenting on the WSJ article, Craig Cantoni, a columnist in Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: "Like nationalized health care in other countries, the Japanese system is based on the premise that the state owns your body." Therefore, "the state can dictate what medical care can be withheld from you, either by policy or by making you wait so long for care that you die in the mean time. ŠNor is [this] justified by the fact that Japan spends about half as much per capita on health care as the United States, or by the fact that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy."
TWO MINUTE WARNING If rights are seized for reasons of cost or efficiency, no right is safe from do-gooders and busybodies, from lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats, and from the tyranny of the majority.
If the universal healthcare system is failing in Japan it will fail in California, just as in Massachusetts or any other state that experiments with it.
Editor's Note: Michael Arnold Glueck,M.D. wrote this week's commentary 
