I understand your argument just fine. You have no evidence at all that Obama made any real attempt to compromise with republicans, just evidence that Obama was forced to compromise with other democrats in order to insure their votes. Obama made compromises that were necessary to get the dems to vote for the bill but you've provided no evidence that he'd have made enough of a compromise to get bipartisan support.
To be more precise, I've provided no evidence that you'll accept, which is something else entirely.
There is no Republican counter-proposal with which to compare to the ACA; all of their ideas were wildly insufficient to the scale of the problem. Meanwhile, we have evidence of formerly Republican ideas (remember: Democrats want single payer and an employer mandate, not insurance exchanges and an individual mandate) being included in the bill, and two high-profile Republicans walking back the barest of support (first Grassley, supporting the mandate before being against it, and then Snowe for voting for the bill before voting against it).
So how do we come to the conclusion that it was a lack of bipartisan outreach, rather than naked political opportunism? The ingredients for the former don't even exist. Obama didn't compromise with Democrats, he compromised with conservatives
. The difference wasn't their values, it was party identification.
Which to get back to the point, is why it's hilarious to blame Republican intransigence on the Democrats.
EDIT: Imagine a republican tax proposal that raised taxes on everyone making less than $50k a year and cutting the top tax bracket, but raising the income level where you stop paying social security tax by $20k. Raising the income level that you pay SS taxes on is a democrat-supported idea. Does the fact that the SS tax provision was included serve as evidence that the republicans were trying to compromise with the democrats? Does the fact that no dems would vote for the proposal in spite of the SS tax inclusion mean that the dems are running away from that idea and unwilling to compromise for political reasons?
It's a mark of the inherent unrealistic nature of your position, that the best counterargument you can come up with is a hypothetical example of something that has never happened.
Let me know when the Republicans actually do something like this, and we can talk about what it means for compromise.