The time for negotiation was before any of the legislation was passed, not at the moment of implementation. In fact, there really has been no compromise at all. The only "compromise" the Republican caucus was able to extract was more stringent income verification of those people who requested financial assistance paying for health insurance. Considering Cruz and co. wanted complete dissolution or delay of the ACA, I would say that this whole display was a complete and utter disaster. The vast majority of his (Ted Cruz's) own party was not behind him. This was simply political posturing for his own presidential aspirations.
You are correct that we are simply kicking the can down the road, but this sideshow was not the way to handle it. Holding the "non-essential" employees of the federal government ransom is ridiculous on its face. What did they expect the outcome was going to be? That Barack Obama would accept a "compromise" that would neuter his landmark piece of legislation? His magnum opus? Please. This is 110% politics.
Ah, so the only time to discuss a law is when it's a bill before it is passed into a law. That's interesting because I'm quite certain that is in no way how it works. Changes in laws are negotiated all the time. Sometimes willingly by Congress, sometimes forced to by the Supreme Court, and sometimes because the law itself was written to cause the occasional discussion about its own future. Sometimes a law is so badly written it just needs someone to stand up and say it is a bad law. There will be people will attack/defend the law to the last day simply because they have a vested interest in doing so. That's politics.
But having the childish attitude of "its the law of the land" only works for one side as long as we're talking about a law they support. As soon as the opposition pulls the same stunt then all of a sudden that's not a proper defense of discussing problems with a law.
Now, to be clear, I did not support the stunt performed in the Senate. I understood the intention behind it but it was a lost cause before it even started. For one, no matter what happened the Republicans would get the blame for the shutdown because that's always the outcome. The other reason being that the ACA was going forward despite what they would do. Notice how when the shutdown happened federal websites went down almost across the board? Notice how the ACA website was still up and running? Or it attempted to at least. Notice how they were arguing over funding the thing but it moved forward regardless? Interesting how they had to shut down parks that cost them next to nothing to run but could keep working on the ACA website that cost much more. That stunt in the Senate was a waste of time simply because it was going to go forward despite anything the Republicans did. The administration has already ignored rules, regulations, and laws in attempts to get it going, did anyone think that stupid stunt would somehow magically stop it?
As for the President's "I won't negotiate" while accusing the other side of not negotiating, which you seem to support this silly notion, was a mistake. Because one day the Republicans may gain control of the three branches of the government and make a "law of the land" that completely removes the ACA from the books. Will they be able to do so and the Democrats just sit idly by to do nothing? After all, when the Democrats have majority they behave as if the minority should sit down and shut up. "We won", "we have the majority". Those things work both ways. When the Democrats are the minority again, will they advise their members to do what they demanded of the previous minority? I don't expect them to and, in a way, hope that they don't. Regardless, we all know they will take that hypocritical stance. That is 110% politics.
You are correct that we are simply kicking the can down the road, but this sideshow was not the way to handle it. Holding the "non-essential" employees of the federal government ransom is ridiculous on its face. What did they expect the outcome was going to be? That Barack Obama would accept a "compromise" that would neuter his landmark piece of legislation? His magnum opus? Please. This is 110% politics.