If the only reason employers have for providing health benefits is to avoid paying penalties, why do you think that they now pay more than 11% of payroll in health benefits when there are no penalties at all? The fact is that this provision is directed at employers such as Walmart which provides no employer paid healt benefits to half of its employees. Given that Walmart now pays about 5-6% of payroll for health benefits, but that these benefits are restricted to only some of their employees, I suspect that they will restructure their health plans if the law is passed.
With respect to single payer coverage, there is no proposal to implement that. Why do opponents feel compelled to make up false claims to justify their positions. Are arguments against the actual proposals that weak?
With respect to your proposals regarding universal catastrophic insurance, I believe those have merit. Would the catastrophic plan be a single payer plan?

A pure high deductible plan, as distinct from a plan with significant co-pays and a high out of pocket maximum cost limitation as the tendency to encourage people to defer preventive care and treatment of problems before they become too serious. This actually ends up increasing total health care costs.
With respect to regulation of the insurance industry, the principle sounds good. Unfortunately, the reality is that most buyers of insurance are not able to understand or evaluate policy language and typical marketing materials walk very close to the line of being criminally fraudulent. This is apparent in those segments of the insurance market that are not regulated where policies typically have loss ratios (percent of premium paid out for claims) of less than 50%. To put that in context, most state lottery programs have a higher payout than most unregulated insurance policies.
This level of profit is typically sustained through a mix of gotcha language to exclude claims, cancellation provisions that are exercised as soon as you file a claim, and abusive claim management procedures designed to force claimants to give up and settle for lesser amounts. A policy of "buyer beware" is inadequate when it is not reasonably possible for a buyer to evaluate what they are buying. While it is neither possible nor desirable to protect the consumer fully, a certain level of protection is essential. That's why we have, for example, relatively universal standards governing merchandise saying that a good must be suitable and usable for the purpose for which it is advertised. Services such as insurance require similar csonsumer protections.