The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has seen quite a lot of analysis in recent news. You may agree with President Barack Obama and many of his fellow Democrats that it was a comprehensive package of needed reforms. You may also think, as some individuals spanning the political spectrum do, that Obamacare is a train wreck of a law that was thrust upon an unsuspecting and unwilling American people.

Whether you think the changes brought by Obamacare fall far short of what we need in our health care system or you subscribe to the notion that the recent developments are a manifestation of a socialist agenda, it can hardly be argued that Obamacare is a relatively comprehensive set of reforms.

By comprehensive, I do not suggest that it deals with all of the problems it could have, but rather that it meshes solutions to multiple problems into a single bill, each of which could feasibly have been separated and considered individually.

For example, the act includes the rather unpopular establishment of a small tax on medical devices, yet includes a widely supported provision which allows children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until the age of 26.

These two issues, while both dealing with health care or health insurance reform, do not actually need to be linked. While it is not unheard of to conflate two separate yet related issues in order to gain political support (as historically was the case with food stamp programs and agricultural subsidies) these provisions do not bring together two recognizable special interest groups.

Instead, they embody a relationship more akin to piggybacking: The medical device tax gets to pass only because dislike for it was overshadowed by support for other portions of the bill and it helped to keep down the total cost of reform.

The number and nature of distinguishable provisions in Obamacare is far greater than could be commented upon briefly — in fact, they are so numerous and complex that a sizable portion of Congress failed to inform themselves before voting for or against the measure — so I will simply say that there are many, and they vary greatly.

Some now ask, as they did at the time of the bill’s passage, why so many different reforms needed to be packaged into one mega-bill.

Defenders of Obamacare might claim such a packaging was necessary, lest the Democrats lose their majority and the Republicans, who were assumed to be deaf to the overwhelming demand for health care reform, would forget the issue. It could also be argued that by grouping different solutions together, the bill saved time and effort, honing the wide array of debates down to one yes or no vote.

A more mischievous reason instead might have nothing at all to do with getting a better product for the American people. Perhaps Obama and the Congressional Democrats did not make Obamacare so extensive because they thought it would bring about needed reforms that could be created in no other way.

After all, how would Obama have looked if instead of sweeping health care reform, he presided over a number of smaller, less grandiose changes? Even worse, how would the Democrats have looked if they had in fact lost one or both of their majorities before all needed reforms had been passed and Republicans presided over several small reform bills (oxymoronic as it may sound to some) in Congress?

That’s right, there was far more at stake for the Democrats on Obamacare than simply what was best for the nation. The passage of a giant bill — even if it had to be mutilated and twisted far from the original vision of those taking credit for it — was, at the time, a resounding political win for the Democrats.

By taking the individual measures of the Affordable Care Act to separate votes, the Democrats would very likely have lost some temporary political points, but they could have completely avoided the disastrous effects that the “repeal/defund Obamacare” counter-movement has had on our nation and our politics.

That is not to say that Republicans did no wrong. By dragging their feet on the issue and then by childishly refusing to be part of a legitimate legislative process, they all but dared the Democrats to steamroll a colossal bill through the government and take all of the credit.

Looking back, they could have both played nice and done what was really best for the country: passing meaningful, helpful health care reforms. That is what should have been the goal of our president and Legislature, even if it had to be done in incremental measures.

The mess that has been created by Obamacare and the push-back against it, no matter who you think is to blame, could have and should have been avoided entirely.