Of course it's more relaxing. You don't have to worry about researching your insurance options because the choice has already made for you. I don't think "more relaxing" is a very compelling reason to choose a policy on its own, especially when the cost of that relaxation is a slowed pace of advancement in medicine.
If the U.S. government stops incentivizing the connection between employment and insurance, starting a company wouldn't need to have any effect on your health care. No single-payer system required.
I'm starting in the UK and I'm more relaxed because I don't have to worry about health care - I'm covered come rain or shine. I'm not relaxed because of avoiding researching options.
Also, you assume a slow in advancement in medicine. This can't be further from the truth. Small example: all of the patients registered in the UK (i.e. residents) are getting digital patient records.
I don't assume a slower localized advancement in medicine. There is a global market for medical technology, and it will be sold wherever it is profitable enough to do so. The fact remains: the further the price of health care is forced down by insurers who comprise the bulk of their respective insurance markets (usually governments), the less money will be available to incentivize people to produce medical technology.
Americans will be covered rain or shine once the healthcare reform bill kicks in. If you can afford it, you have to by insurance. If you can't, it will be subsidized so you can afford it. That's the goal, anyway.
Markets require choice to function properly. I think the American approach is less likely to result in unintended consequences.
If the U.S. government stops incentivizing the connection between employment and insurance, starting a company wouldn't need to have any effect on your health care. No single-payer system required.