Single-payer healthcare systems are government-operated forms of healthcare administration that is funded by taxpayer money. These systems are used in some of the most advanced countries in the world. Some people argue that such a system removes the free market "benefit" from consumers, however the current system in the U.S. consistently spends more for worse patient outcomes than single-payer nations. A single-payer system could increase efficiency and reduce cost for the country and its citizens.
I believe the U.S. should establish a single-player health care system if it means that everyone will get the care they need. I read that it would be funded from the money saved from an inefficient profit-oriented system, which seems like another positive in my opinion. Yes it would be a loss for the private providers, but it would mean a healthier country, which should be the most important thing. Right now, it isn't.
Private insurance companies drive the price of health insurance up astronomically. Many people are unable to access good health care plans because they cannot afford to pay for a plan that covers reasonable medical expenses. By establishing a single-payer health care system, everyone will pay into that system through taxes and have access to better health care. Establishing a system like this will help people be healthier, more prepared, and prevent bigger health care costs in the future.
I'm not quite sure really sure what the difference is between the two, but I can only guess that the latter option is more competitive in terms of pricing (which should in theory place some degree of pressure on the companies to sell themselves and convince us as to why we should be spending money on their 'product')