1) it doesn't reflect the 5.9 million that lost coverage
If they lost coverage, it's not because of the ACA as that did not remove anyone from whatever insurance they had. If employers removed coverage, that's on them.
2) It doesn't reflect those who lost hundreds of dollars a month because of the price hikes
For the 10 years prior to the passing of the ACA, medical inflation was a tad over 9% per year, literally doubling in the previous 11 years. Up until 2016, medical inflation slowed to 5% but then was jacked-up to around 15% in that year, which is pretty suspicious as to why the insurance companies would want to do that in an election year.
3) It doesn't address the fact that that the Supreme Court Justice that gave the swing vote did twist the interpretation
Since there were four others who agreed with him, and the four who didn't were all Republican appointees, maybe it was the latter element that was playing games.
5) It doesn't reflect the reality that many would have gotten insurance anyway through their job places and indeed millions did.
The actual reverse was taking place as more and more companies were eliminating their insurance coverage or dramatically having much larger co-pays to get reduced rates from the insurance companies, and this is still happening.
So IMV, political activism is still political activism that SHOULD NOT be done by judges.
My experience is that when people make such a claim, it's usually is because it's "their ox that's been gored".
Not having insurance is a life & death issue, and to not provide basic insurance for all is simply unethical as far as I'm concerned. We have the highest medical rate (19% of GNP) in the world and yet we don't provide universal coverage as every other industrialized country does. Maybe we should swallow our pride and learn from them what seems to work out the best.
Anyhow, have a most blessed weekend, my friend.