As is so often forgotten, just about every socialist state has privately run health insurance operating for profit right alongside its state system. If people want to spend a little more to get a little more they're free to do that, but no one has to do without something as basic and critical as healthcare just because they can't afford private insurance.

But, yeah, the points you made are a lot of the reason I'm a socialist, even if it makes me a pariah to some. For profit non-essential services are fine, because if the price is too high or the quality too low you can do without (the example I normally use is diamonds; De Beers has a virtual global monopoly, but no one's dying for lack of diamonds. ) Socializing basic things like food, housing and medical care just ensures people don't die in the street, because it's hard to say, "your food is too expensive and fattening; I'm not eating anymore!" And all the complaints about accountability and corruption in government programs aren't magically eliminated in the private sector (just ask Enron investors. ) The difference is you get to vote for POTUS; you don't get to vote for President of Prudential.

Socialism isn't communism lite; governments role is, at least ideally, restricted to essential services to guarantee that since everyone needs them everyone gets them as part of the return on their taxes. Private enterprise is still free to flourish, often exclusively in other areas and quite often in competition with government programs where those exist. The people who insist government programs are crap and want to pay for something better remain free to do that, but those without that option aren't forced to do without anything they need to live. That's another key difference between socialism and both pure capitalism and pure communism: Government and private services compete, rather than either getting a captive audience. For those of us who don't trust big government OR big business, requiring both to justify themselves relative to the other is a real plus.