No they're not,
Step 1: So you can understand what you're talking about, Google "socialism". I've already done it for you to save us a bit of time. Here's what Google says:
[a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole]
Therefore, in order to be socialist, something has to be both politically and economically oriented towards achieving the goal of regulating the means of production, distribution, and exchange solely by the community (via the government).
Step 2: Now that we've defined what a program has to be in order to be socialist, let's compare it with these countries. What you'll find is that they indeed have a higher degree of government involvement in, and regulation of, certain sectors of the economy. But, what you're failing to realize is that these are not being put in place or maintained so that the populace looks to the state, not the private market, for all solutions to all of its problems. In many other ways these countries are in fact MORE capitalist than the U.S.A.
Gasp! The U.S regulates more heavily, and has more government involvement in, some things than they do? Could they possibly think we're in fact a socialist country??? [This is the idiocy of your claim, just inverted and presented so that you see why it's flawed.]
What we have then in these countries is clearly a desire to see the private market control the economy and a high preference of personal choice vs state conformity. They just have different social attitudes as to the place of government in the quality of life of its citizens than we do. This is NOT in line with the definition of a socialist program, as we determined in Step 1, and therefore the only possible conclusion (also known as 'reality') is that these are NOT socialist countries.
