Can someone who holds it still support the concept of the government running major industries like health care or others?

You say that like you think you've caught me in a contradiction, but not hardly. What you've done, in fact, is work your away around to the rationale for preventing businesses from becoming "too big to fail".

There probably was some truth in the argument that the failure of those huge businesses would be catastrophic in an interlocking economy. It was unpalatable, yet reasonable, to respond by bailing them out. And I'd rather we at least got ownership than to simply give the money away ("bailout" is too simplistic a term to describe buying a distressed business).

The way to keep it from happening again is to figure out how prevent such huge concentrations of wealth and economic mass in the future, so that we don't end up with the government owning businesses; we can let "creative destruction" work with a clear conscience. And doing so is philosophically consistent with the roots of free-markets, which in their original and purest conception work well because of their diversity and fine granularity. The idea that every business is an experiment and the owner should be free to try and fail only works when you can confidently assume that the failure won't drag down otherwise healthy businesses. Small is beautiful, and all politicians just love small business.

Adam Smith would understand the concern over "too big to fail" quite well, and he'd see how it fits with the idea of neutral marketplaces administered by a third party.