If we had the open, transparent, and bipartisan (seats at the table for Republicans) process promised then things would have gone quite different.
Now who's being revisionist? We tried that: Every time the GOP was invited to participate they howled about death panels. Every time they were asked for an alternate plan they babbled incoherently about a "Free market system" without illuminating us as to how to implement such a thing in real life. I'm not sure how many opportunities they should have been extended.
It's easy to say they "should have been included," and, indeed, they should have been, but their non-involvement comes from their own choices, though. In effect they essentially eliminated themselves from the serious conversation by saying such radical and easily disproven nonsense, and are now whining about not being included even though they excluded themselves from the proceedings.
I count at least three, maybe four (depending on semantics) major pushes to get GOP support for this law. Two of them were the "Olympia Snowe-job" and the "Grassley Gambit," wherein the named senators entered (in bad faith) into talks about writing a healthcare reform law for the purpose of dragging out the proceedings even-longer-than-they'd-already-gone-on because they knew full-well they 1) Weren't going to vote for anything Obama supported and 2) They also knew the democrats were desperate to get even one Republican to sign-on and take part, and the democrats (somehow, despite being slapped in the face with evidence daily for months) still hadn't figured out that the GOP had no intention of "governing" by reforming healthcare, but every intention of "stymieing" Obama, whatever idea he brought to the table.
There was also the summit, where the GOP basically said "free-market, rah rah!" but didn't offer any plan. Hey, a free market is a lovely idea: How about some concrete suggestions on having it 1) Actually exist int he real world (i.e. "How to get there from here,") without 2) Taking us through a radical "shakeout" period where "the market" decides the best answer to the question "How much does life-saving treatment cost?" is "How much you got?" and 3) Do both #1 and #2 without locking out millions of poor people from access to care.
And, of course, the main evidence that suggests the GOP would have adamantly, vehemently opposed anything the President proposed is their own words, the day after the inauguration. They'd already decided on this course before there was an ACA--they already decided they would lock-step oppose anything the Obama administration tried to accomplish--short of him changing over to the GOP mid-term, anyway.