In other words, you want the gold-plated system that you think will work best for you—as you claim not to care about costs—and you don't care how many others must be deprived of the more reasonable levels of care which they could actually afford to get it.
It's not often that you see someone deliberately out themselves publically as a self-centered sociopath, but I do commend you for your honesty.
This isn't an argument for the one-size-fits-all socialist solution. Both options should be available. If all you can afford is the back-alley physician offering hand-mixed medication only marginally more likely to heal you than to make your condition worse, there shouldn't be anyone standing in your way of getting that treatment. (If someone wants to offer you a better option out of their own resources, of course, that's fine too.) On the other hand, if you can afford top-notch care from the finest doctors and are willing to spend the money, no one should interfere with that, either.
The single-payer system doesn't take away the cost; it just redistributes it less fairly. If you make an average income and require the average amount of medical care over the course of your life you'll end up paying just as much in the end, in the form of taxes and/or inflation rather than health care. What it does eliminate, however, is choice. When someone else is being billed for your treatment, the level and type of care you qualify for becomes their decision, not yours.