that such a massive overhaul couldn't be done without a mandate. Also, don't forget that he had nothing to do with scrapping a PO. I think that he had to learn to live without that as well. Just because legislation doesn't wind up looking the same as when it started doesn't necessarily mean that the "fix was in" the whole time and that it was all just a bunch of lies used to get us on board so that we'll vote for somebody. Do you think that he would have signed a bill that didn't have a mandate (if he believed it could work without one)? If he was handed a bill that contained a public option, do you believe he would've vetoed it? If he was even somehow handed a bill that was single payer and/or Medicare-for-all, do you believe that he would have vetoed that?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read