You can do away entirely with medical insurance and the country will be 100% better for it, health insurance is garbage. With medical insurance gone hospitals will have to lower prices, because 1.) The prices are ridiculous because they can make insurance companies pay for it and 2.) people aren't insurance companies and will absolutely not pay for it. Even if they didn't do that for some odd reason, the government can make regulations to require them to lower the price, it's a last resort but it's not something that sees much opposition when you consider the point of a hospital is saving lives not making money and it doesn't need to be profitable, which is actually why you can let the government handle everything. Hospitals are not a major part of the economy, pharmacies actually have a much bigger impact. In reality if you only worked on hospitals to make sure they were cheaper and left pharmacies be, you would find that the economy would be just fine and dandy because for one thing you'd still pay the hospital staff pretty much the same salary overall, because they're already paid fairly, and for another the people who own hospitals aren't doing anything special, either they have other businesses or they do jack-all and if they were to lose hospitals as a source of income chances are they would find something else to make profit with, possibly creating more jobs. Worst case scenario, about 40% or so of them just stop making money period and retire, and I highly doubt 40% of people who own hospitals are going to retire early.

thats the thing though, socialism is ONLY characterized through the democratic ownership of the means of production. any other attempt should not be defined as such. i dont even think socialists would want to be tied to any notion that does not directly involve the means of production. their whole narrative is born through the oppressive nature of the bourgeoisie control of the means of production.

actually socialism is characterized by the democratic control of the means of production and the social ownership of the same.

thats the thing though, socialism is ONLY characterized through the democratic ownership of the means of production. any other attempt should not be defined as such. i dont even think socialists would want to be tied to any notion that does not directly involve the means of production. their whole narrative is born through the oppressive nature of the bourgeoisie control of the means of production.

As far as your point about taxes, you have basically two options:
Option A.) Let the government do it and have it actually be affordable (the government can affect the prices of certain goods and services)
Option B.) Pay for it yourself and get nothing 99% of the time because you don't have 100,000 pocket cash laying around
Funnily enough however, if the government actually cared about the people there is another option.
Option C.) The government eradicates medical insurance and other pointless insurances (stuff like car insurance and flood insurance would remain because there is a legitimate need for car insurance, namely in making sure when someone crashes into you they end up paying for it in a way that actually insures you get the thing fixed within a reasonable time frame). After eradicating such worthless industries, the hospitals will begin to tone down prices a lot because they can't rely on some big company paying for every stupid ass cost they tack onto every patient, and if they make the cost of everything too high people will just avoid paying in general. The nice thing about this is the government can step in and tell the hospitals that x cost for y treatment (for instance IV treatments) is stupid and has to be set to a more reasonable cost, which is helped along by a couple of departments within the government that deal with such issues. This is actually probably the best fix, because it kills two birds with one stone and sets up a situation where you can afford your own healthcare. Plus, the government is just going to tell the hospitals to reduce costs if they pay for it anyway, so I don't see the point in not just doing it this way.

You're seeing the issue through ideological lenses. When the government provides a service, it ultimately voids the aspects of competition in the market. By doing so, any qualities that were previously introduced through the free-market will be nullified.
Every purchase you make is a almost like a democratic vote. Therefore, by stimulating the competition among choices, you create a realm where consumers dictate the production of goods and services (as it should be).
Suppliers only seek to remain active in the long-run, and the only way to do so is to cater to the demand of consumers.

You can do away entirely with medical insurance and the country will be 100% better for it, health insurance is garbage. With medical insurance gone hospitals will have to lower prices, because 1.) The prices are ridiculous because they can make insurance companies pay for it and 2.) people aren't insurance companies and will absolutely not pay for it. Even if they didn't do that for some odd reason, the government can make regulations to require them to lower the price, it's a last resort but it's not something that sees much opposition when you consider the point of a hospital is saving lives not making money and it doesn't need to be profitable, which is actually why you can let the government handle everything. Hospitals are not a major part of the economy, pharmacies actually have a much bigger impact. In reality if you only worked on hospitals to make sure they were cheaper and left pharmacies be, you would find that the economy would be just fine and dandy because for one thing you'd still pay the hospital staff pretty much the same salary overall, because they're already paid fairly, and for another the people who own hospitals aren't doing anything special, either they have other businesses or they do jack-all and if they were to lose hospitals as a source of income chances are they would find something else to make profit with, possibly creating more jobs. Worst case scenario, about 40% or so of them just stop making money period and retire, and I highly doubt 40% of people who own hospitals are going to retire early.

I won't subscribe you. You could subscribe me though. I'll add you to the mentions for this one.