You're missing the point; any government funded tax revenue is already socialist. I.e. --Denmark/United States didn't "go semi-socialist," it already was socialist.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of *public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to *citizen ownership of equity. In other words, socialism can be either capitalist or communist. Or to put it more bluntly, socialism does not equal communism even though there are elements that would have you swallow that lie.
Take a corporation like let's say Morton Salt (yes, I'm looking at the salt shaker on the table): president, vice-presidents, board of directors, under-secretaries (sort of) stock holders, etc., all of whom are focused on profitability...pretty much as capitalist as it gets, right? But it's also a socialist construct by definition because the assets are collectively owned by citizens (the in-name owners as well as the stock-holders)--and yes, if you own stock in a company, you have a percentage-based ownership of that company. If that wasn't the case, hostile take-overs would be impossible. So long story short, if a nation doesn't operate under a command economy and instead collects taxes to cover the costs of its governmental administration, it's socialist.