Neither the Senate plan nor a short-lived House GOP proposal defunded or postponed Obama's health care law, which was the center of tea party Republican demands for re-opening the government.
And even more modest concessions put forward by Boehner -- for example, to repeal the unpopular tax on medical devices and repeal government subsidies for congressional and administration staffers' health care -- could not get enough Republican support to pass.
Either way, however, Republicans now face the reality that they will not get any major concessions from Democrats in exchange for raising the debt limit and re-opening the government.
It ends a saga that has ravished the party in public opinion polls and has raised doubt in financial markets that the two political parties are capable of resolving their differences.
So was the strategy worth it?
Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., told ABC News that, despite the "pain and suffering" Americans felt during the shutdown, Obamacare was a bigger threat.
"I think that the strategy was a good strategy," he said. "I felt from the very beginning that the pain and suffering of a lifetime of Obamacare with the government taking over our health care system -- which eventually will lead to a single-payer system -- is not good, and it's permanent, and we'll continue to fight the good fight to try to get rid of the most egregious aspects of that bill."
With this compromise, there are now three more deadlines facing Congress -- in December, January and February -- when conservatives could once again attempt to force major changes to Obamacare.
At the same time, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who was among those who pushed to roll back Obamacare, acknowledged that there are not enough votes in the Senate to approve legislation that would defund or delay the law.
"Obviously, we can't defund or delay Obamacare. The votes aren't there in the Senate," Lamborn said. "That's been crystal clear to us, but we'll try to do other things wherever we can."
ABC News' Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.