To the Editor:

Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote in the Supreme Court's determination that the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) was constitutional. The crux of Chief Justice Robert's opinion in his decision was that the Affordable Care Act offered people a choice: those who decided not to obtain health coverage have to pay a tax which plainly is a constitutional exercise. The accepted definition of the word "choice" is: the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option; selection. One of the options offered by Obamacare as presented by the President was that if you currently were insured and were satisfied with your plan you could keep it.

Also presented by the President was if you liked your doctor, you can keep him (her). These latter presentations were made to the American people at least two dozen times.

Well, according to the latest presentations by our President on this subject, there is an "if" caveat attached to his promises. So what he said he said is not really what he said. So the choices offered were not the choices considered in Chief Justice Roberts swing decision which found the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

Now, does the Chief Justice have the right and obligation to re-enter the issue for a reevaluation of his initial determination? I'm sure there are some lawyers out there that could respond to this question.

Perry Green

Manchester