This is all old news.
If you really want the old links, most likely they're at the Wayback Machine - http://www.archive.org Link rot is not a MediaMatters conspiracy. ;-)
The "rather benign" posturing by Grassley was a political stunt that was designed to embarrass the Democrats and make then vote against the bill. It does nothing productive, doesn't hurt him and his colleagues, but makes their staff take a huge financial hit (by removing the employer contribution to their health insurance). It's stupid and spiteful and would be removed if the House majority were a sensible group.
You know as well as me that there were years of hearings and votes on all sorts of aspects of the ACA. The bill that passed was not "rammed down our throat" by Pelosi. The House had their version, but when it came down to the deadline, what mattered was what could get 60 votes in the Senate. So that's the version that passed. If Pelosi had allowed any amendments (Republican or Democratic) at that point, then at least one of the prima donnas in the Senate would have threatened to vote no, killing the bill. Since majority rule is a foreign concept in the Senate, she had to go along.
Distilling all of that into something like "Pelosi was a tyrant and didn't allow Republican amendments" is disingenuous, and you know it. The other party is the one with a history of ramming. She didn't stop time and make a 15 minute vote last around 2 hours as Republicans did for the Medicare Part D vote. ;-)
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.