Changes are hard to pass and implement because obstructionism by minority party(s) in the legislature seems to have little political cost, at least in some western democracies like the US and Mexico.
Is there a way to change current political systems to make them more efficient, or increase the political cost of obstructing bills solely for political reasons?
I can't speak for Mexico, but the problem in the US isn't necessarily the obstruction of "bills solely for political reasons". The problem is that increasingly, the minority fundamentally disagrees with some of the policies of the majority.
An example of such a disagreement is seen in some of Donald Trump's appointments. Betsy DeVos and Scott Pruitt have espoused policies that are fundamentally anathema to the Democrats. In order to delay their appointments, Democratic Senators did the rational thing and maximized the time until they could take office by drawing out every nomination.
Obviously a simple way to increase efficiency in that particular case would be a way to do the same delay without having to draw out the other nominations. That would increase efficiency while retaining the minority's current power to oppose. Another alternative would be to change the Senate rules to allow the majority to pass candidates without debate. That would increase efficiency at the cost of eliminating the ability of the minority to oppose.
Of course, the Democrats tried something similar. When they controlled the Senate, they changed the rules to allow nominations to pass with a simple majority. Without those rule changes, they could have prevented the DeVos and Pruitt nominations. Trump would have been forced to pick more consensus choices. Some might argue that the Republicans could have made the same rule changes, but they didn't the last time the subject arose.
More efficient does not necessarily mean better. Efficient governments have more capacity for tyranny. In democracies, that's a tyranny of the majority (or plurality), but that doesn't help the victims.
A straight forward solution to the problems that you highlight would be to change the US government from having a nearly directly elected president to a single chamber parliamentary system based on the House of Representatives. Then the 2010 elections would have changed the chief executive as well as the legislature. Of course, in 2011, Republicans could have easily repealed Obamacare. It had no constituents then. And in 2012, Republicans would have won again. Obama won the presidency, but failed to win the House.
A parliamentary system is more efficient, but it has its own problems. With fewer checks and balances, it's easier to make big changes. And there's less need for consensus. This can cause changes to fluctuate back and forth, leaving the overall system less stable. There's some protection from this in that it's also easier to have multiple parties in a parliament. That need for coalition building leads to a certain kind of consensus and stability.
Similarly, a direct democracy is even more efficient at reflecting the will of the people that day. And even more subject to people changing their minds about what they want. Look at Brexit. A plurality of those who did not vote in the referendum say that they would vote Remain in a hypothetical second referendum. Enough to switch the result? Who knows.