Socialism, democracy and the Constitution

Many consider the charge that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are moving the country in a socialist direction to be petty nonsense.
I'd define socialism as "government involvement with the economy with the goal of evening out wealth and well-being."
By this definition, Obama and many Congressional Democrats, as well as many Republicans do meet the qualifications to be described by the term, as seen in their conditional assistance to financial and auto companies, as well as Democratic attempts to force insurance companies to cover everyone or have the government run the health care system.
While capitalism can have failures that impact a lot of people, at least those people chose to be associated with the organization that failed. Tying up all of the economy together in communism would leave the whole national system at risk.
The government controlling people through communism or socialism is unsettling, but a mild form would be nearly as bad-the government providing health care without making health demands (which it shouldn't do) would just result in wasted money, as many people right now don't place a high value in health now (I'm not perfect myself), let alone with the financial burdens of ill health are removed. Guarantees to the people without demanding responsibility seems wasteful and unproductive; since the American people dislike waste and politicians love to control people, demands would likely be forthcoming ...
Some say that we can have socialistic programs without getting the bad side effects. But the Medicaid and Medicare systems are a major part of the budget and expected to grow, and form part of the justification for government-provided health care system. Who knows what universal health care might be used to justify next?
The funds for government-provided health care would likely come from the rich without benefitting them as much. The typical defense of taxes against the claim that it's robbery is that everyone pays and everyone receives benefits. But if the amount that some pay and others receive is too unequal, the defense seems unconvincing.
Some try to legitimize a move to socialism and unequal taxation & receiving of government simply by saying that it's the result of the democratic process. But democracies are not infallible, and, for instance, 60 people putting a burden on to 20 or 5 so that they can benefit isn't really decision-making by the people, but one faction gaining at the expense of a smaller one.
A far better system is limited democracy, that recognizes that people have rights, including to their own beliefs and property, regardless of what others think or want. Recognizing the dangers of democracy and putting safeguards to prevent them is important, as the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging the freedom of speech or assembly. If Congress or the government was the represented people doing the public will, there'd be no reason to put limits to their power, but since majorities can be unjust, a limited democracy is necessary.