Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptHealth Care

Co-sponsor the State-Based Universal Health Care Act to let states establish their own universal/single-payer health care systems by streamlining federal waivers and funding.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 95%

The promise was specifically to CO-SPONSOR the State-Based Universal Health Care Act, and Adam Smith did exactly that. I independently re-verified via the official GPO record on govinfo.gov: the 116th Congress bill BILLS-116hr5010ih ('State-Based Universal Health Care Act of 2019', sponsor Ro Khanna) lists 'Adam Smith' of Washington among its 14 cosponsors, and the 117th Congress bill BILLS-117hr3775ih ('State-Based Universal Health Care Act of 2021', again sponsored by Ro Khanna) also lists Adam Smith (WA) among its 23 cosponsors. He was not the lead sponsor, but the promise called only for co-sponsorship, which he delivered across two successive Congresses, fully meeting the stated commitment (~100%). FULL, not CHAMPIONED, because the promise text itself set the bar at co-sponsorship rather than leading/sponsoring. Fairness check: a member of either party who promised to co-sponsor a named bill and then co-sponsored it twice would earn the identical label; no partisan leniency. The congress.gov cosponsors page could not be fetched directly (HTTP 403 bot block), but the two govinfo PRIMARY records independently substantiate the outcome, so it is not relied upon.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →