> Which is more likely to affect any given individual?

That metric is hilariously wrong. Consider a country with universal healthcare, but where only a single political party is allowed. You're much more likely to face medical issues in your life, than wanting to start your own party and being prevented.

Does that make the one-party-state more free than every country without universal healthcare?

In other words, by phrasing it as "freedom to live in comfort and safety", you are conflating comfort and safety with freedom.