He did say that line (of BS) more than once -- I mainly meant it was one line he delivered to try and sell the program (if I recall it was several times in 2013 but not after but may be wrong about that -- regardless I agree it was not true and was at best a misleading sales pitch). It was along the lines of "read my lips, no new taxes" or "Saddam had WMD" or "tax cuts for the rich create jobs" other garden variety bullshit, but not true nonetheless. Moving on as I did years ago.

Your last paragraph shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how healthcare works. You think "repeal and replace [with something that works better for Americans than the baseline ACA] is on the right track because they cowardly repealed the mandate -- the one part of it aimed at pushing us to universal coverage and driving participation in the exchanges or alternatively funding the subsidies -- with no backup plan at all? That's the second worse alternative to just repealing it and reinstating the status quo that left 40 million Americans uninsured and tens of millions more dangerously underinsured. Hard to see how anyone with a UVA degree could think that is a sign of progress and not just a chickenshit move in the wake of a failed public debate at repealing the law. If they had done what they said and come up with a better way of doing healthcare and passed it they would have something to go on. But now they're just hoping they can screw the exchanges out of existence and then what? Have all the people who used to be uninsured go back to being uninsured and those of you who gambled by having crappy coverage full of loopholes go back to paying less for virtually nothing? The various problems with the ACA aside, that sure as heck doesnt sound like a step in the right direction to me. That sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite his face.