[ohlookabird]

Clearly, it can vary a lot what people consider free. And therefore, this statement isn't true in general. The US does indeed have a lot of things I would consider freedoms, yes. But in Germany, for instance, I feel it is a great freedom to not have to worry about most healthcare issues, regardless of their income. A freedom (in my perspective) I wouldn't have in the US. There are other issues that fall into that category as well (free to not really have to worry about school shootings, free to not have to worry about people (including kids) to find a gun in the fields, free to not have to worry about insurance of people when having an accident, etc.).

[dnadler]

That's a commonly made point, but to be a little pedantic you are definitely twisting the definition of the word 'freedom'. Those are benefits to be sure, and they may certainly be better than the US's, but not really 'freedoms'.

[germinalphrase]

Why aren’t they “freedoms”? Increased financial security due to eliminating the possibility of medical bankruptcy increases an individuals’ options/choices in life, does it not?

[malvosenior]

Freedom doesn't mean the same thing as "convenient for me". In fact freedom can often be difficult. Each item listed has an opposition position, most notably freedom to own a gun.

Germany also has some of the most draconian anti-free speech laws of all first world nations, so I really don't think they're a good example to use as a pillar of freedom.

[germinalphrase]

The elimination of medical bankruptcy is a “convenience”?

[otikik]

I think no one has a problem with "elimination of medical bankruptcy for them". The problem seems to be that it also eliminates it for others. With "my money", which "the corrupt and inept government is going to misspend anyway".

I know I am exaggerating and misrepresenting a lot of people with this characterization.

To me the solution seems obvious: you don't need private companies to do the job of the government. You need a less corrupt government, capable of doing its job. With the middlemen you just move the corruption around.

[malvosenior]

Yes, obviously anytime you get something for free that's a convenience. Someone has to pay for that though and that person is not experiencing freedom.

I don't know much about the German healthcare system but it's quite possible that you also don't have as many choices for healthcare as in the US due to increased governmental regulation.

I'd also add that healthcare is one of the least free aspects of US culture especially post-ACA. We are now mandated to have insurance, even if we don't want it.

[anoncake]

> I don't know much about the German healthcare system but it's quite possible that you also don't have as many choices for healthcare as in the US due to increased governmental regulation.

You have strictly more choices. In the USA, chances are you cant afford healthcare and have none.

[shadofx]

It's easy to achieve such "freedoms" in a small ethnostate. Not so easy to do in the racially, economically diverse US.

[petschge]

Ah the popular "the US is too large and too diverse to function" excuse. Not that long ago the size and diversity was seen as a unique strength of the US. When did "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" become "societies only work when they are homogeneous"?

[malvosenior]

He didn't say that the US doesn't "work". Note that he put "freedoms" in quotes in reference to the parent comment that twisted the definition of freedom to include socialist programs. It's true those won't work in the US but as the original poster commented:

> Don't feel sorry, we are fine.

[nl]

Australia is much more ethnically diverse than the US, and also does this successfully.