You phrased it as an economic argument. I'm glad you're being honest that it's not one. However, it's not taking your freedom away -- it's trading one kind of

You phrased it as an economic argument. I'm glad you're being honest that it's not one. However, it's not taking your freedom away -- it's trading one kind of freedom for another: the freedom to not pay for collective welfare for the freedom from your (or your dependent's) health being used coercively during labor negotiations or to extract rents. On balance, I think that the freedom to have less social responsibility is less useful than the freedom to be healthy regardless of employment status or job transitions, particularly since it saves me money. I have more money to spend (because of less rent extraction from healthcare) and am freer to pursue my economic goals (because I am less dependent on an employer for my health). To me, it simply sounds like I'm freer by having socialized medicine.