You can come out from under the bed now.
Who would want to live under Soviet-style communism? I certainly wouldn't. Supposedly that was "socialism": USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It would be more accurate, however, to describe the Soviet system as one of state-governed feudalism. The brutality and deprivation suffered by citizens of the USSR is one of the main reasons that "socialism" has become such an effective scare-word for many.
Pure and absolute socialism by most definitions isn't as scary, but still doesn't evoke warm and fuzzy feelings in most of us. As I understand it, true socialism would put all business enterprise in the hands of all the people collectively, managed by their chosen government. I wouldn't care for that.
But in today's real world, socialism is a characteristic that all advanced nations have to some degree.
Except the United States? No, we have socialism also. Ours is just more limited and tentative than most. The best example of ours is the United States Postal Service, established at the very founding of our nation. The USPS is actually a self-supporting not-for-profit corporation owned by the federal government. Public schools operate on a socialist principle: My tax dollars are used for their support, although I have no children in school, and a child whose parents are too poor to pay taxes is still entitled to a public school education.
The Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, Federal Aviation Authority, and Federal Communications Commission are all supported by tax dollars and function for the benefit of society as a whole. Is that socialism? In my opinion, yes, just as Social Security and Medicare are socialist institutions.
One of the principles on which democratic socialism operates is that providing certain benefits to individuals ultimately benefits everyone, i.e., society as a whole. Life is better when your fellow citizens have at least some basic education. One can easily make the point that life is also better when all your fellow citizens have some basic access to healthcare.
Just as America considers a basic education to be everyone's right regardless of one's wealth, all other advanced nations also consider adequate healthcare to be a right, not a privilege. There are major differences in what is considered "adequate," and in how their systems are organized and operated. What they all have in common is that getting treatment for a major illness needn't bankrupt an individual or a family, and that rarely does someone die because he or she can't afford to get medical help.
American lawmakers are now struggling with the problems in our own healthcare system, especially soaring costs and the widespread lack of access to adequate care. There are serious decisions to be made, and major philosophical differences that influence how one perceives the many issues involved. In a free society, we have a right to disagree, to consider and reconsider every aspect of something so important.
What is not helpful is to use that scare-word, "socialism," as a way of stopping serious debate. It's only a word, and it has no legitimate place in these considerations. Conjuring up boogeymen and werewolves is beneath the dignity of this great nation.
Please feel free to disagree. That's what the COMMENT button is for.