Every voter will determine for him or herself how they interpret a campaign promise, but replacing Ocare, warts and all, with total chaos (which some predict and there is no question that all they're trying to do is get something passed before the end of next week, so it is not exactly a considered process for something as momentous as health care in the US) is unlikely to meet many definitions of "promise kept". It is all political and it is about trading short term pain of embarrassment for the wrath of voters if its the disaster some think it will be if it passes.

On what planet does scrapping something flawed and replacing it with something worse amount to a promise kept? If Grassley wants to defend the plan as better than Ocare if not perfect, do that. If he thinks it is a plan that has no business being enacted, then it has no business being enacted. Nobody votes for promises to pass legislation that will make their lives worse than the flawed status quo.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 09/22/2017 10:21AM]