So you score very high on you don't need to work hard to succeed and if you want to be lazy you don't deserve to starve?

Nice of you to leave out the important part, which I bolded for you.

Back in their heyday, if you were a hard worker you would eventually rise up the ranks and get well payed for it. But that's not true anymore. Today, an increasing amount of people are working well over 40 hours per week and yet are dependent on foodstamps and live paycheck to paycheck since upward mobility has all but vanished and the wages are not keeping up with inflation. People who are poor are not lazy, they are so poor they can't even afford to be lazy.

And don't need to work hard to succeed? Perfect description of most CEOs, Analysts and Stockbrokers, especially high frequency traders. All you need for those is enough money to get it starting, not be an idiot and being fully devoid of any empathy.

Who isn't afraid of socialism?

Its a facism regime that killed hundreds of millions of people. Everyone should be very afraid of it.

Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed to each other. That's like calling a republic a monarchy.

If you meant Communism or the Nazis with that remark, you should be aware that:

1. Communism had deviated so far from Socialism that there was little left of it, and the way it was ruled was definitely outside of what socialism aimed for. Stalin was kicked upstairs to General Secretary because they wanted him out of the way as he was a corrupt Autocrat, but he used his new post to great degree as it gave him tabs on every in the party - especially his political ennemies. What the soviet Union had become was not because of socialism, but because of a crazy autocrat with delusions of grandeur. Stalinism has much more in common with fascism than actual socialism. Hence why actual socialists declared themselves the third camp after WW2, with the first one being the US and their capitalist allies, and the second one the Soviet Union and their subordinate states. 
2. Nazis have socialism in their name, but in their own words that was just to attract voters and has nothing to do with what socialism really means. And if you go by that standard and that goalpost, then you could stay democracy and republics stand for totalitarian state that tracks your every move, lets it's people starve to death all the time and being decades behind the rest of the world. Why? Well, because of the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of North Corea. Just like they took democracy and republic and made hollow, meaningless words out of them, so did the Nazis with socialism.
3. Neither are a direct result of the economic system in place. The "socialist" states that cropped up were mostly financed by the Soviet union and were thus to follow their doctrines. But again, that has nothing to do with socialism as an economic system.

What have increased most in western countries is purchase on frivolous stuff. And sorry but paychecks only increase when you increase productivity, any other way just mean creating inflation.

Would you like to live in Brazil where we get 5-10% increase every single year? But that is basically ate by inflation (and/or generate inflation) while the tax isn't corrected the same speed.

These weak dictators of nowaday. 

It's the same as in Japan.

Less educated Americans can't tell marxism-leninism from social democracy, the former is always totalitarian and accepts also violence as an instrument to seize power, the latter is by definition democratic, social democratic parties govern when they win the elections and they typically realise a social democracy when they govern a country for enough time, but typically people stop or pause them electing liberal democrats or other centre, centre-right or right wing parties when they feel social democrats are going too far with expenditures and/or taxes or bureaucracy or excessive interference of the state in private life.

As someone who lives in a country with a public funded health system, I can definetely see Why many americans are against the implementation of anything similar in the USA.

The thing is, there is no "right" that government intends to guarantee people, that does not mean taxation, and when it comes to public health system, it's usually high taxation. People are heavily taxed for a service, that often doesn't work. If they need long term treatments or more specialized exams, they better be prepared to pay for them in the private sectors, meaning that, despite having paid many times for these things in the form of taxes, people will have to seek a private services if they don't want to wait a year or more before it's your time in the line. Sometimes, depending of the type of help people need, they just can't wait.

I mentioned the "line" that contributors need to take before using the services they have paid for (many times, often) and that's another aspect of the problem with public funded health. The "social" character of the public system, guarantees that, even people who don't pay taxes and live of social programs, have the same right to use the system as people who actually contribute, meaning that the ones who do pay the taxes, also pay for the exams, medicine and treatments of others who never contribute, and usually these people who don't contribute have priority in the use of the benefits of the system (Called SUS here, which means: Unified Health System). Another thing, the costs to maintain a public health system can only up, when we consider the trend of western civilization of having an aging population. Govern often has to cover the losses of the system, increasing taxes or taking money from somewhere else (more taxes too).

All in all, I am not against some sort of public health system. I just see the need to reduce the scope of services the system can offer. Maybe just concentrating on emergency treatments, distribution of medicine and imuzation through vaccines. Contributors should keep the money they would pay to the govern for themselves and seek treatment wherever is better for them.

Worse yet in Brazil sometimes we pay 3 times... the tax for health, a health insurance, but sometimes you even have to go and pay private consult because the plan doesn`t cover or the line is also big.

To add to injury if you have a health insurance plan and use a public service you have to show your health insurance coverage so the government will charge your plan for the use of the public hospital that you already paid through taxes. I don`t doubt that if your plan is of collaboration on cost the plan will charge you back a part of that.