If I was to choose to buy a better plan
I suppose I don't really get your conundrum. You don't pay any premium, which means you're liable for costs only if you get sick or injured--which, on its face, is relatively fair, I would think we can agree.
If you're a single person, by law the most you can spend out of pocket is $6,600 this year. Not an insignificant sum, to be sure, but if you've exhausted that amount of cost-sharing that means you've incurred health expenses in excess of that. Perhaps significantly above that. Maybe you incur $100,000 in hospital bills and are liable for only that $6,600, I don't know. The point is, you're protected.
So what is a "better plan"? If you pay that individual OOP max because you have considerable health expenses, that's the equivalent of $550/month.
I gather (perhaps incorrectly) you're not a particularly young guy. If you're looking at the full premium of a health plan--with no employer subsidy--coupled with the assumption that you're going to max out whatever out-of-pocket limit your plan has, it's every unlikely you're going to find a better deal than what you've got.
Frankly, the people who are supposed to be complaining under the current system are people like
me--those who use virtually none of their deductible in any given year because they don't incur any health expenses (knock on wood!) but still have to pay premiums anyway. Not people like you, who don't pay any premiums but expect to use or even max out their deductibles and cost-sharing because they have health issues.