It seems some people have forgotten the rhetoric of the time. The opposition had a wide variety of arguments against universal health care, such as government death panels[0], increased wait times for essential care[1], government control over 1/6 of the economy, free medical care for illegals, etc. I particularly remember a claim coming out that Stephen Hawking would have died under a universal system like the NHS[2].

As such, Obama proposed the ACA as some kind of middle road[3], with the goal of having something that both sides would be in favor of, and to hold the moderates that were against single payer[4]. After the better part of a year of negotiation and multiple efforts to reach out to the opposition, the ACA was passed without any Republican votes, who then spent the following eight years running for office on the idea of repealing it (with at least 50 attempts in a four year span).

Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have any plan for healthcare themselves, resulting in a failed repeal attempt three years ago even after taking control of the house, senate and presidency.

It should be fairly obvious at this point that logical arguments for or against policies are irrelevant, even more so than they were ten years ago - and yes, a great many people would vote against it. They spent the last decade doing just that.

[0] https://www.politico.com/story/2009/08/palin-doubles-down-on...

[1] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/28/s...

[2] https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/passing-the-bat...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text....

[4] https://www.newsday.com/business/single-payer-health-care-pl...