Thanks. I think there may be resistance to affordability because if everyone, including the government/taxpayers spend less on health care, then the health care industry makes less money and they don't want to make less money.
So really the game comes down to excluding people from health care as a way of using fear of sickness/death to motivate people economically. Here's how:
If government subsidizes care, that keeps prices/costs inflated, just as it does when private insurance is paying the bills. Providers/pharmaceuticals/etc. don't face as much fiscal pressure to lower their prices to attract more business because the insurance funding (private and/or public) guarantees them sales at a certain price. What's more, AMA and expensive educational costs, malpractice insurance costs, etc. create barriers to entry which prevent more people/businesses from entering the market and providing health care at affordable costs.
Both parties have reasons to want to keep these costs high. The Democrats want to keep the big money rolling in the health care industry because it generates more jobs and more revenues/profits for taxation. The GOP are just placating their supporters who want to use private money to fund private health care privileges so they don't have to wait in line with the masses like in more socialized systems.
So as long as the prices are kept high, the question is who will bear the cross of health-care exclusion? In socialized systems throughout the world, non-citizens are excluded from health care, so they solve the problem of exclusion by drawing the line between citizens and non-citizens. That is where Democrats are headed by expanding public/government health care access, because only citizens are going to qualify for that coverage, the same as in other national welfare states.
Where private insurance and employer group plans put the exclusion is on people who don't work, correction: those who don't work in positions that qualify for benefits. That benefits employers by giving employees the motivation of fear of sickness/death/bankruptcy so that they are more submissive to keep their benefits.
If public/government funded health care co-existed with private insurance, but pricing/affordability wasn't achieved for the uninsured, they would become the sacrificial victims of health care exclusion. That would put people back in the situation that Obamacare put them in, which was to motivate them to all buy health insurance by threat of consequences. In Obamacare, the consequence was an additional income tax for the uninsured, but if health care pricing is kept unaffordable to the uninsured, the consequence will be worse than a fine, because if you get sick, you're going to pay an arm and a leg, so to speak, and maybe even suffer bankruptcy because insurance companies are paying prices that you can't afford as an individual, assuming your income isn't high.