Is it actually possible for all Americans to receive 'affordable health care'?

Absolutely possible, but not until Congress stops treating it as a political football to get votes. Solving the problem will be like peeling an onion. There must be different strokes for different folks. A free market solution for the majority. Then special incentives for those who choose to spend their money on frills and fads rather than basic health care thinking that that they're not vulnerable. Different solutions are needed for the rich vs the poor, the sick vs the healthy, etc, etc, etc. Once size doesn't fit all...

I think first one needs to develop a problem statement for this issue. I think the term 'affordable' is where the problem begins. I would look at how to provide health care to the largest percentage of Americans first and learn about the health care system in America up until the politicians decided to profit from it. If one looks at health care as Commerce, then why would the Federal Government need to intervene other than placing control measures (regulations) on it. The issue is in the commerce of health care there is no competition or a free market. Somehow we can produce automobiles, distribute them, and sell them throughout the United States. We have not asked for all automobiles to be the same nor all drivers to have the same instrumentation within their cars. Nor are all automobiles the same size, weight, color, or made for the same purpose. So, if we can have commerce of automobiles across state lines, with prices published for like vehicles, I think we can have a free market health care system. I think when one puts artificial inputs into the market then the problem begins.... mandatory, fair share, affordable, ect. Any market will adjust to the principles of supply and demand. Profit margins will adjust and can shift from state to state without any government subsidies. We are where we are today because the Health Care Industry has convinced politicians that they need a monopoly and the government is the front man. Lastly, I would add choice. Which health care plan gives the consumer the greatest choices on their own care? I would take choice over any of the other current feel good terms. Just look at the family in England that lost their baby. They had no choice. That is what single payer gives you. That is the Complete Life System that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel created for use in the Affordable Care Act.

The term "affordable" is indeed very important in your question. However, two other big issues are "To whom is that healthcare affordable?" and "Over what time frame?" Is it affordable to the individual(s), or to society? If the former, I'm not sure we'll ever get there under a market-based system where healthcare is viewed as a good/service that is openly purchased on the market (with whatever means you have at your disposal). That seems to be the prevailing notion within our country, which is not unreasonable considering that we identify strongly with having/maintaining a capitalist, market-based economy. If we searched for something more affordable to society as a whole (while accepting that there will be financial winners and losers), then we may make some headway. Also, are we talking in the near-term, or over the long-term? Seems like any proposal that involves someone losing money in the short run, even if they may gain in the long run, gets immediately blocked. Americans only seem to focus on the "here and now".

Every developed country in the world has per capita healthcare costs that are at least half of what it is within the U.S. They primarily do that with health systems focusing on health promotion, prevention and early detection/intervention, all of which involve short-term costs in order to reduce long-term spending. In essence, they focus on reducing long-term demand. In a capitalist society, businesses want to drive up demand, both in the short run and over the long run. The main exception might be the not-for-profit hospital sector, but in many ways they still operate in a similar way ("No margin, no mission"). Most other developed countries leverage single payer, socialized medicine, or two-tiered health systems that shift the focus towards keeping people healthy. And, many of those same countries have equal, or better, health outcomes than the U.S. Basically, most developed countries get far better value by having moved away from a true capitalist, market-based healthcare system. Quite bluntly, there's just no money in having a healthy society.

As a country, we are simply facing a tough choice between a) paying higher costs to stay as close as possible to our capitalist roots and b) abandoning those roots in order to save money. We're struggling to find a pathway that gives us the best of both worlds (lower costs through capitalism), when that approach may very well be impossible for healthcare. After all, I think the health industry has demonstrated that it won't reform itself. The states have shown no willingness to tackle reforming the industry (with the exception of Massachusetts). And, the Federal Government has shown itself incapable of effectively reforming the industry through legislation. We just may be stuck with this scenario unless we're willing to completely blow up the system and give up a piece of our national identity.