DLaurentius, the term is socialised not socialist. I am not sure if that makes a difference. It's a question.
.
Almost all my experience is of socialised medicine and I have been satisfied with the treatment I have received. I am not a person to frequent hospitals, and only go when it is necessary, like in the case of heart attack, ruptured appendix, stroke. I have found our hospital system to be as efficient and responsive as can be expected considering how many go to hospitals if they have a cold or kick their toe (thus clogging the system). Of course many have other non-medical needs that are not attended to, but that is another topic.
.
I say almost all, but haven't time to go into my experiences of being a paying customer.
.
I have been in quite a few emergency situations. In an emergency there has been virtually no waiting time and I have been seen promptly and got good treatment. I do not pay any insurance. Our daughter, who worked as a nurse in two hospitals, told me that the treatment given to public patients is similar, or better than, that given to private patients. There is also the risk that doctors are inclined to give unnecessary treatments if they know that you are covered by insurance. One simple example is the greater amount of intervention in obstetrics for private patients compared with public patients with the same or similar risks. See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27430/ .
Incidentally, I have used the health systems of Australia, Italy (where I am even entitled to free medications), U.K., Mauritius and Madagascar, so I have quite a wide experience of health systems.