Slashdot Mirror

• Company pays you a salary of $x/mo, and provides you with $y/mo in health insurance. You quit your job so your salary drops to $0, and you have to pay $y/mo out of your savings to continue your health insurance (which I've done).
• Company pays you a salary of $(x+y)/mo, but doesn't provide you with health insurance. You pay $y/mo for health insurance. You quit your job so your salary drops to $0, and you continue to pay $y/mo for your health insurance out of your savings.

Your error is in assuming that your salary would be the same if your company didn't provide health insurance. If they didn't offer health insurance, you'd have been less likely to accept the job, so they'd have had to pay you a higher salary to get you to accept the job. This failure to take opportunity cost into account results in you erroneously comparing two non-comparable scenarios (company pays $x/mo and provides $y/mo health insurance, vs company pays $x/mo), causing you to arrive at your erroneous conclusion (that quitting a job is harder if the job provides health care as a benefit, because you'd lose $(x+y) in salary and benefits, instead of just $x in salary).

No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.

Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.

Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.

The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.

Interesting, because the first real attempt at US laws on any form of healthcare were in the 1930s with the New Deal, and the AMA forced the removal of universal health care.

What we have had was an attempt at (2) but it failed again and again, with the ACA just being the latest instance of that failure. So, (1) and (3) are the only options; good luck selling voters and the AMA on (1).

The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.

Well, you certainly give an excellent example of the kind of beliefs and vitriol that are so common on the left these days. And that's why people like me (classical liberal, gay immigrant) have left the Democratic party and the progressive movement, and we won't be coming back.

I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left, although I hold some opinions in common with them. I also hold some opinions in common with the current right. Being a realist and seeing what's happening in the world today and where it's going in the near future, I see that our past course is no longer sustainable and that different things need to be tried here.

And, no, you don't live in the real world, you live in an economic fantasy world that inevitably will come crashing down around you; the question is only whether it's a little sooner or a little later.

And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures. What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?

That's not true at all. From: https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/pre-existing-conditions/ "No insurance plan can reject you, charge you more, or refuse to pay for essential health benefits for any condition you had before your coverage started." It's one of the reasons health insurance is so expensive since you can just wait until you need it.

While the ACA did indeed mandate features that were beyond some bare-bones plans that were already in existence, those plans were grandfathered in for people who already had them. The reason people didn't get to keep (some of) them was that the insurance companies stopped offering them. Obama made a promise that was beyond his power to keep, but he didn't lie.

I see a Trump supporter resorting to cuss words, which means they know they can not support their argument with logic and reasoning.

Fact: The ACA requires that insurance companies spend 80% or more of premiums they receive. Reference

Which means, insurance costs more because it's covering more. The ACA stopped all kinds of games insurance companies paid: Lifetime coverage caps, not insuring sick patients, refusing to insure people they thought might become sick, stopping insurance once people got sick, etc.

Facts matter. Truth matters. And, yes, Trump voters are the most idiotic paranoid conspiracy theory believing nutcases out there. Pizzagate, anyone? Or do you still believe Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya?

You are a moron.

You're not required to have health insurance

Yes there is a fine - 2.5% of your Gross Income

The range over which ACA tax subsidy phases out depends on the size of your tax household: Someone with income at the federal poverty level gets the full subsidy, decreasing toward 4*FPL which gets none. (Below FPL, you instead get either Medicaid or an exemption from the ISR tax, depending on how red your state is.) So it mostly depends on how many dependents you have. If AC #53339571 is single with no dependents, 4*FPL is close to $48,000. But if you're married with two dependents, it's about twice that. So if your spouse has no significant income, and you have two dependents also not earning (especially due to child labor laws), a $65,000 income still qualifies for a subsidy.

As if Regan, Bush and Bush's son epitomize credibility and didn't one actual traffic guns and drugs to fund rebels in a foreign state.

And Bush II shut it down - because it didn't work.

Of course, given Obama's love for things that don't work/he can't do, like resetting relations with Russia and red lines in Syria, Obumbles restarted it.

So now, you're going to vote for Crooked Liar Hillary!, because why? She has a vagina? You so sexist!

Oh, yeah, here's a picture of Donald Trump grabbing a pussy.

Horribly, horribly wrong. He got screwed by his employer. Any actual marketplace plan has an out-of-pocket maximum (not deductible) of $6,600 for an individual or $13,200 for a family.

Viewing these words as a mistake is the simplest interpretation of the law. The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted.

The writers of the law clearly wanted to establish state exchanges for any state that wanted them, and a federal exchange for any state that didn't want to roll its own, and that all of these exchanges do the same thing. This might not be apparent in that little snippet, but it's very much apparent in the text of the law itself.

It's not as though the SCOTUS majority is pulling meaning out of nowhere for just this passage. Quite the contrary, they'd have had to re-interpret a lot of text to infer that the law was written so as to exclude subsidies for the federal exchange.

It looks like we-re *both* correct. (Though I'm more so.) According to this Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions:

Being sick won't keep you from getting coverage

Your insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your pre-existing health or medical condition like asthma, back pain, diabetes, or cancer. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition.

This is true even if you’ve been turned down or refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the past.

One exception: Grandfathered plans

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you have one of these plans you can switch to a Marketplace plan that covers pre-existing conditions.

So your relative, who has worked in a doctor's office for many years and "damn well knows what she's talking about", should know all this and tell patients with grand-fathered insurance plans to switch to a Marketplace plan that does.

Funny how those who got services/money/product from the ACA legislation are happy about??

Yes, it's really strange that those who needed healthcare are glad they were finally able to get it, isn't it? Weird! Gosh! Huh! How in the world??? (cough)

And the huge fucking mountain of folks that now enjoy $5k deductibles or insurance they did not need or want are not happy about it?

There are various deductibles. You choose the one you want. If you choose a 5k deductible, you're responsible for that choice. As far as insurance that's "not needed" goes, we don't know what we need because we have no way to tell what the future brings. The only way to determine what we probably or may need is via statistics. I trust the actuaries more than I trust my own judgement. Because I'm just that smart.

Are YOU getting other peoples money?

To directly answer your question, no, thus far and at the moment, I have not and am not. I've eroded my deductible a bit, probably won't work my way through it by the end of the year, barring unseen problems. Didn't last year, either. But of course I might very much benefit from "other people's money" at some point in the future.

That said, everyone in any insurance pool anywhere, ever, who makes a claim, is "getting other people's money." That's how insurance works. Similar for taxes. We all pay in, and in the case of the ACA, those who get the subsidies get the advantage of the payout. We do that when the loads are too great and/or too random for individuals to bear: infrastructure, military, healthcare (finally!), fire services, etc.

Why the fucking hell should my doctors have to be in some "POOL" anyway?

Well, for that, you want to look to your insurance company -- not the ACA. You can get plans where the doctor doesn't have to be in a network. The ones where they do use in-network doctors are generally less expensive though, so that may effectively be your answer. But it isn't the ACA that mandates pools. It's the insurance companies, and it's always been the insurance companies.

If you prefer to pay for other peoples medical care, great. Can you help me pay for mine?

If you're in my pool, then yes, I can and do help pay for yours. Again: That's how insurance works. If I'm not paying for you in the pool (different state, or different pool) even so I'm paying for other people's there -- and I have no problem with that. Likewise, in your state, in your pool, other people are paying for you. To the extent that my federal taxes (quite significant) are paying for your subsidy, I'm happy to do that as well. It's sure oodles better than thinking about what I'm paying for WRT various other government programs.

$1400/month with a $1500 yearly deductible for each family member.

The ACA requires that insurance costs are specifically limited for low-income individuals and families and there are tax credits. If you want me on your side here, you'd have to demonstrate that your income was low and your insurance costs were high and that the ACA didn't arrange for a circumstance to reasonably ameliorate your costs. Can you do that? I'd be very interested to learn the details, short of personally identifying data.

So yeah, you are happy about getting my money, and I am an asshole for providing it to you. thanks man.

Insurance is the way that congress decided this was going to operate. Given that, yeah, I'm happy to put the related money into insurance and into taxes as it lets me know that you and yours will be covered if that's needed. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. I am pleased, however, that your feelings, as you expressed above, do not get to determine if other people get adequate healthcare.

Funny how those who got services/money/product from the ACA legislation are happy about??

Yes, it's really strange that those who needed healthcare are glad they were finally able to get it, isn't it? Weird! Gosh! Huh! How in the world??? (cough)

And the huge fucking mountain of folks that now enjoy $5k deductibles or insurance they did not need or want are not happy about it?

There are various deductibles. You choose the one you want. If you choose a 5k deductible, you're responsible for that choice. As far as insurance that's "not needed" goes, we don't know what we need because we have no way to tell what the future brings. The only way to determine what we probably or may need is via statistics. I trust the actuaries more than I trust my own judgement. Because I'm just that smart.

Are YOU getting other peoples money?

To directly answer your question, no, thus far and at the moment, I have not and am not. I've eroded my deductible a bit, probably won't work my way through it by the end of the year, barring unseen problems. Didn't last year, either. But of course I might very much benefit from "other people's money" at some point in the future.

That said, everyone in any insurance pool anywhere, ever, who makes a claim, is "getting other people's money." That's how insurance works. Similar for taxes. We all pay in, and in the case of the ACA, those who get the subsidies get the advantage of the payout. We do that when the loads are too great and/or too random for individuals to bear: infrastructure, military, healthcare (finally!), fire services, etc.

Why the fucking hell should my doctors have to be in some "POOL" anyway?

Well, for that, you want to look to your insurance company -- not the ACA. You can get plans where the doctor doesn't have to be in a network. The ones where they do use in-network doctors are generally less expensive though, so that may effectively be your answer. But it isn't the ACA that mandates pools. It's the insurance companies, and it's always been the insurance companies.

If you prefer to pay for other peoples medical care, great. Can you help me pay for mine?

If you're in my pool, then yes, I can and do help pay for yours. Again: That's how insurance works. If I'm not paying for you in the pool (different state, or different pool) even so I'm paying for other people's there -- and I have no problem with that. Likewise, in your state, in your pool, other people are paying for you. To the extent that my federal taxes (quite significant) are paying for your subsidy, I'm happy to do that as well. It's sure oodles better than thinking about what I'm paying for WRT various other government programs.

$1400/month with a $1500 yearly deductible for each family member.

The ACA requires that insurance costs are specifically limited for low-income individuals and families and there are tax credits. If you want me on your side here, you'd have to demonstrate that your income was low and your insurance costs were high and that the ACA didn't arrange for a circumstance to reasonably ameliorate your costs. Can you do that? I'd be very interested to learn the details, short of personally identifying data.

So yeah, you are happy about getting my money, and I am an asshole for providing it to you. thanks man.

Insurance is the way that congress decided this was going to operate. Given that, yeah, I'm happy to put the related money into insurance and into taxes as it lets me know that you and yours will be covered if that's needed. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. I am pleased, however, that your feelings, as you expressed above, do not get to determine if other people get adequate healthcare.

The login page at: https://www.healthcare.gov/mar... includes at least 8 third-party scripts, any of which could potentially harvest your username and password: https://stats.g.doubleclick.ne... https://www.googletagmanager.c... https://cdn.mxpnl.com/libs/mix... https://static.chartbeat.com/j... https://connect.facebook.net/e... https://platform.twitter.com/o... https://c1.rfihub.net/js/bcP.j... https://www.googleadservices.c...

I can't resist but to feed the troll. This guy claims to pay '$12,000/year in deductibles', but the federal silver plan is about a fifth of that. Even the federal bronze plans don't have deductibles that high. Once again..another republican moron that didn't graduate high school trying to run the company... Before you mod down, educate yourself: https://www.healthcare.gov/how...

A quick check of https://www.irs.gov/ and https://whitehouse.gov/ failed SSL Certificate validation (for different reasons.)

And https://www.healthcare.gov/ is using SHA1

Wait... I thought Healthcare.gov was coded long ago. Are you working on version 2?

> almost every large project during my 30 year IT career had the same issues and reasons for failing

They spent a billion dollars to post lorem ipsum https://www.healthcare.gov/med...

If almost every large project you're involved with is similar, we've learned one thing: Don't hire Chadster!

Google translate thinks it's English, but it's Latin. Here's what I found it to mean:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet pretty easy. Unfortunately, lots of orange gear, but every time a commercial truck.
Gets certain warm-up is a lot of life from which the film's style is. I'd now look at a wide range of law enforcement.
Residents drink
Currently, my, lump in the throat, it's the sauce.
To learn how Warren financing, but the emotional temperature, the element of surprise.
Tomorrow protein recipes. He was smart, maybe he was always in need of a lake in Japan.
No matter who or how inexpensive and easy-to-time only. In order that on Monday, but the laughter of a wide range of airline, travel agency employee is the ugly, and not before or it's just the likelihood of the company. In fact, it has been said it is in the interests of the quiver.
Unfortunately, the keyboard of the United States in the very soft impact.

So it looks like this page, a page that many would go to looking for advice on what to do since no doctors take medicaid now (Many are no longer accepting obamacare at all), is left blank (feeling that perhaps what's there is some default junk included with whatever web-hosting software they use). Seems like someone would have done something to fix this by now.

You think the democrats don't have contractors and cots.

Not necessarily.

"We’re making our source code freely available on GitHub" and it's a promise they made good on... until the site launched.

so... is it time to post the code again... or ever?

Right, because insurance companies never get it wrong: http://www.healthcare.gov/

http://www.healthcare.gov/logi... - Access Denied
http://www.healthcare.gov/aww!...? -Access Granted

http://www.healthcare.gov/logi... - Access Denied
http://www.healthcare.gov/aww!...? -Access Granted

Watching the home page load, this shows up:
[17:06:07.510] GET https://stats.g.doubleclick.net/dc.js [HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified 40ms]
[17:06:06.192] GET https://cdn.optimizely.com/js/166688199.js [HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified 40ms]

Hm.

#1. you have to register just to use healthcare.gov search

The site's got enough problems, quit spreading FUD. You can find premium estimates right here without creating an account.

It seems that fear and paranoia drive Americans to give up liberties in trade for some vague promise of security.

Indeed

She has no idea that the tools exclusively marketed as cyber weapons are nothing more than window dressing for existing things.

Government bureaucrats do not understand technology, and should best leave it alone.

When a government tries to fiddle with technology . . . you get something like: https://www.healthcare.gov/

Hell, if you tasked most parliaments in the world with building a campfire, they wouldn't be able to figure it out:

"I propose a 5-year flame-thrower research project to be funded in my constituency, which would provide a stimulus for the fire industry . . . "

no single person has ever read the whole thing

Here's someone who has.

Here's a link so you can do it yourself.

Why the lies?

the house shut down the govt for 3 weeks and then a week

The shutdown — whosoever's fault it was — began on October 1st — exactly the day, the site was to open. Sorry, try again.

Dumbasses like you

Be sure to include more insightful arguments like this one, please.

Actually, those who have worked in development of parallel and distributed systems can do pretty good job at making sure they can predict the reaction to 10,000,000 logins (part of this is, of course, designing the system to be predictable and to degrade gracefully under load). Of course, there were almost certainly never anywhere close to that many concurrent unfinished login attempts to this website anyway (eventually, the Administration will tell us what the load was -- the system design and review seems to be so bad that it will take them six weeks or more just to tell us how busy it was - amazing).

Predictions about the reaction to load are not, of course, 100% accurate because getting them close to that is just too expensive. However, stress testing is how you verify the predictions and then fix the system to meet requirements. Somehow that little step appears to have been missed as everyone in the Administration was, supposedly, completely surprised by the failure.

Little that I've read about the healthcare.gov problems suggests to me that the problems are substantially load related unless the design just didn't take into account the fact that it would have many users. If you have the infrastructure to handle the expected load, it takes a very small fraction of that to simulate a load in a case like this.

"And how hard would it be to post an example here for our edification?"

You can get the file yourself HERE. It has been improved somewhat over the last week, but it's still full of errors.

Here is an example (from line 49, if the code is properly formatted):

resources['ffe.ee.shared.error.reviewInformation'] = 'Review the information you entered. If the information you entered is correct, select the 'Continue ' button. If the information you entered isn't correct, make any necessary changes, then select the 'Continue' button.';

Note that single-quoted strings can't contain single quotes. It doesn't work. The JIT compiler will end the string at the first internal single quote, and the rest of the line will be a syntax error. The file is full of these.

Down at the bottom of the file is the start of a function:

signIn: function() {
mixpanel.track("Log In");
var passwordStatus = "expired";
//for testing purposes... (this is a block of about 80k bytes of minified code, all commented out by those two slashes)...

... with no ending bracket. Another obvious and rather serious syntax error.

Those examples are by no means the only errors. And I only looked for syntax errors. I didn't try to analyze the code for runtime errors; I'm not a masochist.

How many failed Supreme Court challenges did the Slashdot comment system face, Mr. Non-sequitor?

We can have a discussion about the merits of the law anytime you want. This is a discussion about the difficulties of designing and implementing a website. In particular, we are discussing whether "government" (however you want to define that) is inferior to private enterprise when designing and building things. In this discussion, I pointed out a way that private enterprise we're all familiar with struggled to do something kinda similar.

No one is facing the threat of fines for not using the healthcare.gov website. The exchanges are open. The website is working. If you have a state with a functional government, your state exchange is probably working quite well. If you don't want to use a website you can sign up by phone or with a printed application. You can also get free in-person assistance from organizations in your area. Of course, if you already have insurance from your job, you don't need to do anything.

How many failed Supreme Court challenges did the Slashdot comment system face, Mr. Non-sequitor?

We can have a discussion about the merits of the law anytime you want. This is a discussion about the difficulties of designing and implementing a website. In particular, we are discussing whether "government" (however you want to define that) is inferior to private enterprise when designing and building things. In this discussion, I pointed out a way that private enterprise we're all familiar with struggled to do something kinda similar.

No one is facing the threat of fines for not using the healthcare.gov website. The exchanges are open. The website is working. If you have a state with a functional government, your state exchange is probably working quite well. If you don't want to use a website you can sign up by phone or with a printed application. You can also get free in-person assistance from organizations in your area. Of course, if you already have insurance from your job, you don't need to do anything.

How many failed Supreme Court challenges did the Slashdot comment system face, Mr. Non-sequitor?

We can have a discussion about the merits of the law anytime you want. This is a discussion about the difficulties of designing and implementing a website. In particular, we are discussing whether "government" (however you want to define that) is inferior to private enterprise when designing and building things. In this discussion, I pointed out a way that private enterprise we're all familiar with struggled to do something kinda similar.

No one is facing the threat of fines for not using the healthcare.gov website. The exchanges are open. The website is working. If you have a state with a functional government, your state exchange is probably working quite well. If you don't want to use a website you can sign up by phone or with a printed application. You can also get free in-person assistance from organizations in your area. Of course, if you already have insurance from your job, you don't need to do anything.

So apparently while the website's not working you can call the Healthcare.gov help line at 800-318-2596. That's easy to remember as 1-800-F1UCKYO.

That's so funny I thought it was urban legend, but as far as I can tell it checks out. If that's an elaborate prank, I stand in awe of the prankster!

If Forbes (or anyone else) is saying that they are incompetent boobs.

Healthcare.gov provides a way to browse the plans without creating an account.

https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/

Oops.

"It just goes to show: It doesn't always pay to contract everything out to the private sector..."

This website is not even what I would call "private sector". A couple of days ago I looked at some javascript from the registration page. You can look at it yourself HERE, direct from healthcare.gov.

This javascript is hopelessly broken. Even simple string values are completely messed up. I just checked it again, straight from the website, and even the most basic (literally first day javascript student level) mistakes have not been changed!

This is a complete mess. 70% my smooth, shapely, lily-white ass. It ain't even close to working.

Well, when the American public fucking whines about having to pay tax dollars, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (law by the way) stipulates that certain contracting tactics must be used. One of those, and i suspect this was the case for hiring the idiots that coded this system, is something called firm fixed price. there are little to no incintives to do a good job, but by god, it's cheap isn't it? you are a dipshit.

Oh give me a break.

This information is already available on multiple sources and on Healthcare.gov. I am fucking tired of these articles that have NOT been researched or are published with the intent of misleading people.

Plan information from Healtchare.gov without signing in:

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP ... /ba45-xusy

Example of plan information from 3rd party sources:

http://www.valuepenguin.com/

The actual fact is that healthcare.gov. in the first two weeks of operation has made plan price comparisons FAR easier than it has ever been. This could be a major consumer positive event in healthcare.

Oh give me a break.

This information is already available on multiple sources and on Healthcare.gov. I am fucking tired of these articles that have NOT been researched or are published with the intent of misleading people.

Plan information from Healtchare.gov without signing in:

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP ... /ba45-xusy

Example of plan information from 3rd party sources:

http://www.valuepenguin.com/

The actual fact is that healthcare.gov. in the first two weeks of operation has made plan price comparisons FAR easier than it has ever been. This could be a major consumer positive event in healthcare.

There's this. Enter your zip code, and they give you a bunch of places where you can go to get help signing up in person.

I don't know how you would find that information if you didn't have access to a computer, however...

I do not feel so great for Obamacare at all.

I mean, the code itself ( as referred to the following link: https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js ) is hopelessly broken.

The code looks more like a primary school coding project than a government project.

Or does this signify the quality of (or rather, the lack thereof) : care Obama wants give the US citizens ?

"It just goes to show: It doesn't always pay to contract everything out to the private sector..."

This website is not even what I would call "private sector". A couple of days ago I looked at some javascript from the registration page. You can look at it yourself HERE, direct from healthcare.gov.

This javascript is hopelessly broken. Even simple string values are completely messed up. I just checked it again, straight from the website, and even the most basic (literally first day javascript student level) mistakes have not been changed!

This is a complete mess. 70% my smooth, shapely, lily-white ass. It ain't even close to working.

This site is so crappy that Drudge actually linked to its Javascript:

https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js

That's some high-quality crap right there.

Where were the stress tests? Not sure about the rest of you who are web devs, but when we're putting out a new product, we hit it with around 2-3x of what we expect our capped demand to be ahead of time to see what happens. I work in the financial industry so we -do- get in trouble if our new web apps fail, and we're still contracted under a certain amount of money so if we go over what we give as an estimate, we eat the loss(which directly changes what our profit-sharing take will be, which is motivation to not screw up).

And if I ever put out something like this, I probably wouldn't be working here much longer. Though a file like that would never make it into production anyways because somebody else would see it and go 'WTF'.

Here is one of the .js files I happened upon...

On your phone 1-800-318-2596 spells 1-800-F1U-CKYO. https://www.healthcare.gov/contact-us/ I'm guessing no; that number will stick around for a while.

Your post is speculation, based on wrong information.

The fact is the national mall doesnt require park service (you can call 911, yes?). The fact is that they are also trying to shut down private parks (Mount Vernon is the closest one I know of), and scenic overlooks.

And the issue with the internet-exposed websites is garbage. Obamacare's website went live, and is still live ( https://www.healthcare.gov/ why is it the exception to the rule? Why were other organizations not permitted to set up static copies of their webpages with a notice that things may break (not really a big task)?

Has anyone found a answer to why https://www.healthcare.gov/ is the only US federal government web page that is not shut down?