Given that "unrestricted access" is only meaningful for a fairly small number of wealthy Americans, I'd say this one's a no-brainer as to which two to pick.

Ah, comments are working again. The security code field wasn't diaplaying yesterday.

Since the first and third choices are mutually exclusive, as suggested by this Cato Institute article, do we pick (1 and 2) or (2 and 3)?

Both proposals include choice (2) - which cannot be accomplished with socialized medicine. Universal coverage does not mean universal treatment. Nationalizing *any* industry always leads to reducing that industry's output in the long term - which in this case means less medical treatment. The flood of Canadians flocking to US hospitals is a testimony to the single-payer variant at the very least. The UK ration's health care, so its system doesn't achieve goal (2), either. So what will?