And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).
It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books.
Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.
> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that.
Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.
My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.
Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.
(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".
