I'd love if we did. But it's not "wherewithal" that conservatives need to find -- it's 218 votes in the House, and 50 in the Senate.
Maybe a bigger hammer would help you get this point across?
Nobody -- except perhaps @Jazzhead -- is disputing that getting the entire loaf is the preferred result.
That all depends on who you mean when you say, "nobody." I'd say that in the country as a whole, probably more people would disagree than agree with the goal of "getting the entire loaf." So you're probably not referring to them; nor could you be referring to the entirety of the GOP in the House and Senate.
Around here, even, I suspect the enthusiasm for the entire loaf has a lot more to do with fact that it's a lot easier to type boldly that we want it, than it would be to actually have to cast a vote that affects real people - reference the change in outlook by those who voted for full repeal last year, when they knew it wouldn't be signed into law.
The dispute is 1) whether or not it is possible to get those votes, and 2) what should be done about if the votes aren't there.
The dispute is more basic than that: it's a question of whether or not there's a problem in the first place, and if there is, how best to address it.
The "full repeal" position relies pretty heavily on the idea that there's not really a problem -- at least, not a problem for which government action is needed.
The truth is that there is a problem -- people who cannot afford access to proper health care -- and I think honest people can at least acknowledge that it exists, without diving into particular suggestions for fixing it.
Obamacare was an example of the old saying that the best lies are built around an element of truth. The problem really does exist, and they used it as a pretext for achieving a much different goal.
And so the debate about goals and votes circles once again back to the underlying problem, and what to do about it. The moderates, and perhaps even a fair number of the less moderate Republicans in the House would probably tell you that there is room for a government role in solving it.
As such, the debate would probably not center around strategies for achieving full repeal, but rather the extent to which the scope of Obamacare can and should be reduced.