The use of the term "slavery" here is pretty standard rhetoric used for emphasis by the American libertarian movement; its use descends from the vocabulary deve

The use of the term "slavery" here is pretty standard rhetoric used for emphasis by the American libertarian movement; its use descends from the vocabulary developed by the body of anti-Socialist thinkers in the early to mid-20th century. A more sophisticated rhetorician would argue that the various bodies of your society (those who pay for the universal medical services via taxation, those who partake of the medical services offered, those who actually provide the services (i.e. the doctors), and those who administer and regulate the provision of service) have all internalised and unconsciously accept a worldview which debases and discredits the right to free action of individuals in society. You may not be slaves in the classical sense of being enslaved by a third party, but from the perspective of someone with a "strong" view of personal liberty, you are in a sense enslaved to your own lowered expectations and faith in liberty. So while you might all claim that you are perfectly content with your current system, your critic would view your opinions as hopelessly biased, and point to what they would classify as numerous instances of the poor results of socialised healthcare (incessant arguments about over-spending and budget problems, claims of corruption in service administrators, complaints of high wait time and low quality of service, low morale and satisfaction among service providers) as evidence to strengthen their claim.