Yes, it is, by some.
Of course, the "alternative" (leaving aside Marx here) is Capitalism. If we define the above policies as "socialism," then we must infer that under capitalism:
Some members of society will be (must be) too poor to live.
Health care is available only to those with the means to pay for it; the rest must die.
Education, as well, is available only to those with the means to pay for it; the rest must remain ignorant and unproductive.
Housing will not be available to all; some must remain homeless.
Concern for the welfare of the citizenry is not the proper role of public policy - which presumably must be limited to national defense and little else. (Yes, that excludes public role in the development of infrastructure; publicly maintained ports, roads, railways, airports water and sewer systems - all these are, at bottom, not capitalist but socialist.)
So... if you want to treat "socialism" as a dirty word, and expunge it entirely from American society, you have a lot of work to do. You'll need to abolish public schools (and school districts - no taxing authorities funneling money to private charter schools); you'll need to privatize all water and sewer systems, all highways and airports. You'll need to eliminate all public housing, all "welfare" programs (Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP) public mortgage support programs, federal flood insurance, all agricultural support programs. The National Science Foundation and NIH? Gone; in a capitalist system, research is the province of private enterprise, period.
You're left with the Department of Defense, and the Department of Fatherland Security/Expansion. Well, unless we want to privatize those, as well. Is it necessary to provide for a common defense? Or can wealthy individuals and/or corporations handle that as well? I mean, they certainly wouldn't take advantage of such a situation to infringe on peoples' liberties, would they?