Not sure where to start... so I will regress. Not even the most socialist countries take it as far as you are advocating.
For the most part, I'm neutral on privatization of government services. It is not inherently good or inherently bad. In some instances it is great, in others it is an utter disaster. Sometimes those norms hold over industries or services, sometimes one government can provide a service way better than private industry while another government cannot. Examples:
The American hybrid system for electric utilities works fairly well. We get more power, more consistently, to more people, more affordably than any other nation. It is relatively efficient and the overall service is spectacular. Yet private industry absorbs the risk and is allowed to make a marginal profit. Same for our refuse collection.
Water systems are largely government run. We have among the best water in the world - BUT, political pressure has caused those systems to degrade as a cost "saving" measure. The result is the need for massive investment in the near future to avert additional crisis like we saw in Flint. Or, for that matter, frequent ruptures and costly repairs like we see in Tulsa.
Most of our infrastructure is built by private contractors - allowing many entities to bid on a job. Lets see who can do it well and the most efficient. If the government was given a monopoly on such projects, the efficiency inevitably declines.
Healthcare is messed up - I readily acknowledge that. We are really bad at preventative care, healthy lifestyles, and at keeping costs reasonable. But the US private healthcare industry does a better job on the technical and innovative aspects of medicine than anyone else r (yes, universities and grants do a lot of good work also. But private dollars overwhelm public ones). Cuba or Canada, with their excellent healthcare services, are not providing technological or pharmaceutical innovations.
In fact, the US far and away spends more money on R&D than the rest of the world in most fields. Certainly internet innovation is a great example of the private sector taking a government idea running away with it. Without government research, there would be no internet. Without the private sector taking it up, the internet would remain a research and military curiosity. The actual utility aspect of it is more complicated, and I agree with the Obama administration that it should be treated like a utility and carefully scrutinized for abuse of monopoly power. I have no problem with municipal coops entering the marketplace if that's what it takes to keep competition moving forward. (Two or three companies coming to dominate their respective exclusive zones is bad for innovation, bad for progress, and bad for consumers)
Some things I am extremely leery about being private: security at the Courthouse for example (either there is a real need for real security, or there isn't), I think private "security contractors" in war zones or to protect US military basis is a horrible idea, and I think private prisons are an idea worth examining - that have now been examined and turned out to be bad policy. It creates a profit motive to lobby for mass incarceration. When closing a prison is "bad for business" there are business incentives contrary to public good. So the idea should be rolled back. That business incentive vs. public good applies to many, many areas of privatization (see, e.g., privatizing Social Security).
So private/public is a debate that needs to be had, and needs to be updated frequently. But historically, when the government monopolizes something it becomes inefficient and stagnant. That holds true over and over, and it isn't likely to change. So if/when the government monopolizes something or decides to enter the marketplace, there needs to be a good reason and close inspection.
You start by saying these ideas are the most socialist you have ever heard...then agree with most of them! Closet Commie??
Water - as seen by their lead pipe fiasco...the big problem was NOT that it was government entity - it was who was running that entity. And guess which side of the aisle the "cost cutters" were from? Notice how Corpus Christi is having issues this week. The "fails" in these systems are very easily directly connected to the umbrella concept of getting government less involved. Flint directly because of "business" principles applied with NO regard for the human part of it. Cut costs, cut taxes. Corpus will be found to be from dumping by some industry that has been allowed to run rampant due to the overall 'gutting' of the EPA and the lax creation but most especially enforcement of regulations. Similar issues with electric grid - old and decaying much faster than being repaired/replaced. So we can cut taxes some more....
Electric. At one time that was indisputable, but since we have moved more and more toward deregulation, big problems are starting to arise. It does work fairly well, and it also is very much a case of corporate welfare/socialism. And one of the reasons it still works as well as it does is because regulators are still pushing back just a little bit. Relatively efficient - well, that is really open to discussion, since the grid automatically loses about 30% right of the top before one single electron flows in someone's house. That just disappears into the ether as heat. And it is allowed because it is "cost-effective", even though the cost of the extra generation capacity required is hidden not to mention the fact that 30% of the coal and natural gas used is just adding environmental problems without contributing anything to the effort. Hidden cost right up front of 30% - actually more, because of unknown mitigation costs further down the line. As for marginal profit - well it is virtually guaranteed profit and it is obviously good enough that some very big players are drooling all over themselves to get into that guaranteed market.
"Same for our refuse collection." Definitely a hybrid. $15 a month or so for city. Don't know what private costs - haven't used one for longer than I can remember. Some family does and are happy with it. Broken Arrow seems to be very close to that and they provide trash bags for people to use! Owasso $15 a month. Cities do a fine job in the areas they serve - goes again to the whole idea of growth for growth's sake - extending the city beyond where the infrastructure can reasonably be provided....big fail.
Other infrastructure - roads, etc. While much of it is built using contractors - not a problem to me - we have the same issue that affects so much of our life in this country - cut costs for the sake of cutting costs just so we can cut taxes. Trying to run government as a business - just plain stupid. That means lousy Oklahoma style roads. Bridges with holes opening up on a regular basis. Police, fire, etc in decline. While we save our 1/4% on our taxes...Sorry trade, but it's more important the richest among us get the biggest break!
Bottom line - when Bush took over, he gave away the store to the tune of more than half a trillion dollars a year! WAY beyond anything their "saviour" Ronny ever did! We went from roughly a $300+ billion surplus to more than $300 billion deficit after his first round of tax cuts! That's way over half a trillion! And it continued for 10 years because Obama didn't have cojones enough to do what he and every real economist in the world knows to do - let those cuts expire! And they continue in only slightly different form today.
Not even mentioning - well, I guess I will - the several more trillions given to big banks, automakers, and others for bailouts. Oh, yeah, let's not forget the $90 billion given to Halliburton in NO BID contracts just because their CEO happened to be VP. We have the "business plan" of what is gonna happen the next 4 years with Trump. It's what was done during the Bush regime. Only there will be even more of it.
So, if we can afford to give more than $6 trillion dollars to the richest people in the country, then we can spend a few hundred billion on the rest of us for some of the things I have mentioned. It ain't socialism at all. Nor is it communism. It is exactly what I stated in the first post.
"Anything that directly affects the overall well being of the population and adversely affects the concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." for more than 50% of the population."