: I agree, I don't think we should get so hung up on labels. However, allow me to explain my position on many "socialist" issues, for one, such as nationalized health care. Essentially, I follow my hierarchy of values. I subordinate the lesser values to the greater ones. Just because I say that I oppose national health care does not mean that I do not care if people get sick and die, what it means is that I value a persons individuals rights above all else. That means that I do not believe it is right to tax people to death in order to pay for nationalized health care. It is a very painful stance to take, believe me.
Do you trust capitalist Health Services though? They arent accountable to anyone other than their shareholders and since health insurance has been tied to health services in America to try and counter perverse incentives to over supply or over consume, there are certain catergories of high risk illness that corporate america wont insure or treat, as they say in the lottery, that could be you.
I understand if you dont like high taxation or wasteful taxation or tax and spend policies, neither do I, but that is one side of the coin.
High taxes on the well paid and middle class would be the case if the Health Service aimed at the simplist means of funding state health, hypothecated taxations (ring fenced revenue, revenue earmarked specifically for health, not for the military or politicians or rubbish) or funding from general taxation, but their are alternative means of funding, such as, national insurance or reimbursement schemes.
You wouldnt want an essentially redistributive health service, neither would I services for poor people are often turned into poor services.