Although President Obama had early requests for a bipartisan approach to health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 passed with no Republican votes in either the House or the Senate. Strong criticism accompanied its passing, stating that the bill was “rammed through” the legislative process by the majority party, whereas the administration stressed the extensive, year-long debate over health reform and argued that the final bill represented a compromise of good ideas from both parties. I examine these conflicting claims, drawing on both books Heath Care Reform and American Politics by Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, and Overreach by George C. Edwards III. My analysis proposes a more-nuanced balance between majority and minority party influence. I will also debate the nature of presidential power in the passing of this bill. In March 2010, Congress enacted and the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act- bringing to a close a year of active political debate over health reform, not to mention nearly a century of health reform efforts (Jacobs and Skocpol 2010). Critics claim that this bill was “rammed through” the legislative process by the Democratic majority party despite the minority party’s disapproval. Jacobs and Skocpol (2010) describe how “only Democrats were to be found among the 200 or so lawmakers in attendance at the bill signing” (pg.6). Along side this; Republican officials were filing lawsuits to proclaim parts of the law unconstitutional. This divided partisan reaction to the bill was not surprising considering that the final bill received no Republican votes in either the House or the Senate. Further, in order to overcome the of opposition of Senate Republicans, Democrats in the House and Senate forged an informal arrangement- relying on a procedural maneuver. Democrats avoided the need for