I would also add that the media-portrayal of conservative perspectives if in multiple instances further to the right than that of the electorate. I'm happy to go into examples if you care (one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats).
The ACA is not "health care." It's an insurance regulation. The conflating of the two is a useful narrative but it is not accurate in any way.
In the pre-ACA insurance marketplace, pre-existing conditions either precluded individuals from coverage or forced them to pay for more expensive plans. Self-employed individuals were in a similar position.
Without insurance, health care, ranging from the mundane to emergency room coverage, was/is exorbitantly expensive. What rhetorical clarity, then, do we gain by explaining that the ACA is not health care?
I don't agree with you on the media-portrayal point, because I think your premise is way off. There is no unified conservative perspective in the way that there is with progressives. This last election has made it very clear that the old conservative guard, the ones most similar to progressives, who called for universal healthcare before Obama, are in a minority position.
I'm not likely to be the one you want to discuss this with though, as I'm an anarchist.
Consider the conservative position, and what strategy would work for conserving what is important to them. Any sort of compromise is a long term losing strategy, so of course they'll block progressive moves if they're capable. I'm not aware of any real trade ever being offered, something like: we want full on no joke equality of outcome for every flavor of the rainbow, and in exchange we'll give you the abolition of federal income tax.
Imagine if someone demanded you eat a sandwich made of human waste, and then they got upset when you refused to compromise and only eat half of it.