It seems to me that there's an assumption in the OP that doesn't really seem correct. Before I say exactly what it is, consider an entirely different situation. Suppose me and my friends decide to take a road trip, and prior to leaving, we agree about who is going to be doing the driving when, and how we're going to pay for things. On the road, half the entourage decides they don't like the arrangements, and they take the keys and hide them. Then, they demand changes to their way, and blame the lack of progress on the other half who, insisting that things proceed according to the prior agreement, are cast as inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
This seems almost an exact analogy to the current situation. The sticking point is the ACA. But that already passed into law. Attempts to repeal it have failed multiple times. Saying that the current kerfluffle is about whether we should give Obama what he wants or not is pretty disingenuous. There is an established and recognized means for repealing a law, and again, that pathway has failed. Congress should do their jobs at this point and send a clean funding bill. Ditto the debt ceiling. The assumption that it's back on the democrats seems to violate the usual manner of human interaction, though admittedly I don't and haven't sat in on the meetings that various washington politicians have held over this.