Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   HHS Secretary Kathleen Shefailedus will explain to Congress what the hell she's been doing for the last three years   (foxnews.com) divider line 282
    More: Fail, HHS Secretary Kathleen Shefailedus, Kathleen Sebelius, obamacare, congresses, Commerce Committee, D-Ill, House Energy  
•       •       •

3231 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Oct 2013 at 6:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-20 12:09:19 PM  
+1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*
 
2013-10-20 12:41:21 PM  
It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.
 
2013-10-20 01:30:25 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.
 
2013-10-20 04:54:32 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*


Yeah, almost as hilarious General BetrayUs
 
2013-10-20 05:13:30 PM  
Good. Heads need to roll.
 
2013-10-20 06:05:41 PM  

BizarreMan: But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


So this must be your first day on the Intertubes...

/I knows that trolls gotta troll, but come'on
 
2013-10-20 06:21:23 PM  
If this wasnt just political theater meant as a soothing balm for teabagger butthurt I would say this is a good thing. A serious conversation about what went wrong and what is being done about it would be constructive. This is witch hunt and nothing good will come of it.

Eric Holder has to be happy the derpers will be occupied with someone else for a while.
 
2013-10-20 06:22:40 PM  
Site wonky, contractors probably told them it was comming along and would be ready for rollout(either they thought they had it under control or lied, there Does need to be an audit), and were believed.

Considering how important this was to the administration, it's the simplest and most human explanation
 
2013-10-20 06:40:12 PM  
The bugs will get worked out. Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days, not sure why the supposedly incompetent federal government is expected to do better than the almighty free market.

Ohhh, right. BECAUSE OBAMA.
 
2013-10-20 06:40:55 PM  
Subby is Mark Levin?
 
2013-10-20 06:41:52 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


I see you've never played any online game on release day
 
2013-10-20 06:42:06 PM  
Where was she when several AMERICAN men, women and children were tortured and killed in Benghazi?
 
2013-10-20 06:44:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*

Yeah, almost as hilarious General BetrayUs


Or Hitlery Clinton.
 
2013-10-20 06:45:30 PM  
She should talk about the death panels.
 
2013-10-20 06:46:01 PM  
Republicans holding hearings about everything Obamacare related? No way.


Compounding the problem is the administration's refusal to delay the law's unfair individual mandate, therefore subjecting Americans to a requirement to purchase insurance despite the exchanges' numerous problems, including unaffordable health insurance premiums and significant security risks. (.pdf)


Going to be tons of new ground covered at these hearings, let me tell you what.
 
2013-10-20 06:46:36 PM  
So now the Teatards are calling for investigations into the glitchy ACA roll out "scandal" and they want Sebelius' head on a platter by dawn bought to them by a freshly washed slave girl?

How about no?

Does "no" work for you guys?

Gawd, they're obvious.
 
2013-10-20 06:46:42 PM  
*Kathleen Shefailedus* Someone has been searching for cutting edge political humor in the Yahoo comments sections.
 
2013-10-20 06:47:51 PM  
Although the contractor who is responsible for healthcare.gov did in fact donate to the Obama election campaign, they donated *more* to Darrel Issa.

So there's that.
 
2013-10-20 06:48:02 PM  

Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.


If only conservatives were as eager to tackle the failures that matter --

Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Where was she when several AMERICAN men, women and children were tortured and killed in Benghazi?


Waterboarding Christians while reading them passages from the Quran while Al Gore and Michael Moore gay married George Soros to a turtle saved by the EPA.
 
2013-10-20 06:49:33 PM  
Can the Dems start yelling BENGAZHI!!! just to throw a distraction out there for a week or so?

Crap happens with any major launch
 
2013-10-20 06:50:03 PM  
Will someone please tell me why we are listening to *anything* Marco Rubio has to say anymore?
 
2013-10-20 06:51:38 PM  

Warlordtrooper: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you've never played any online game on release day


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-26/another-amazon-outag e- exposes-the-clouds-dark-lining
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-apologizes-for-outage-2013- 8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57604379-93/google-were-sorry-for-l at est-gmail-outage/
 
2013-10-20 06:52:32 PM  

Mztlplx: Will someone please tell me why we are listening to *anything* Marco Rubio has to say anymore?


He voted for default and economic chaos. Someone needs to rub his smug face in this fact EVERY SINGLE TIME he comes up for office, is interviewed by the media, and whenever he speaks at Florida functions. He's a part of a rebel alliance and a traitor. TAKE HIM AWAY.
 
2013-10-20 06:53:04 PM  

valar_morghulis: Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.

If only conservatives were as eager to tackle the failures that matter --Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Where was she when several AMERICAN men, women and children were tortured and killed in Benghazi?

Waterboarding Christians while reading them passages from the Quran while Al Gore and Michael Moore gay married George Soros to a turtle saved by the EPA.


You got that FWD. FWD. FWD. email too?
 
2013-10-20 06:53:58 PM  
You'd think that the GOP would be applauding bugs which prevent people from signing up for CommieCare.
 
2013-10-20 06:54:42 PM  

ThunderPelvis: Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days


When Sim City's launch failed so badly that people couldn't play the game they bought for a couple of weeks it was a publicity disaster for EA, one of the factors that lead to them getting voted "worst company in America" in a Consumerist poll.

Pointing out that the Government bungled the Obamacare rollout is a valid criticism. It's freaking rare to see a valid criticism from the modern GOP, but you know the saying about stopped clocks.
 
2013-10-20 06:56:10 PM  

Gunther: ThunderPelvis: Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days

When Sim City's launch failed so badly that people couldn't play the game they bought for a couple of weeks it was a publicity disaster for EA, one of the factors that lead to them getting voted "worst company in America" in a Consumerist poll.

Pointing out that the Government bungled the Obamacare rollout is a valid criticism. It's freaking rare to see a valid criticism from the modern GOP, but you know the saying about stopped clocks.


yeah it is valid, but not to "lets hold hearings" valid.
 
2013-10-20 06:56:37 PM  

Gunther: Pointing out that the Government bungled the Obamacare rollout is a valid criticism. It's freaking rare to see a valid criticism from the modern GOP, but you know the saying about stopped clocks.


But since this is the modern GOP, they were making the criticism while preventing the government from paying anyone to fix it.
 
2013-10-20 06:58:27 PM  

Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.


Bowling?
 
2013-10-20 07:00:05 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.


Medicare Part D didn't exactly have a problem-free rollout, either, iirc.
 
2013-10-20 07:00:10 PM  
The point is, will Kathleen Shefailedus and her allies, Hitlary Klintoon, John Skerry, Little Timmy Geitner, Billy Boy Slick Willie Clintonazi, and her leader - B. Rock "The Islamic Shock" Supperallah Obama ever take America seriously?
 
2013-10-20 07:00:14 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Republicans holding hearings about everything Obamacare related? No way.


Compounding the problem is the administration's refusal to delay the law's unfair individual mandate, therefore subjecting Americans to a requirement to purchase insurance despite the exchanges' numerous problems, including unaffordable health insurance premiums and significant security risks. (.pdf)


Going to be tons of new ground covered at these hearings, let me tell you what.


so, "new ground" - that is the dirt that you get after you've worn all the sod off the oval track?
 
2013-10-20 07:00:15 PM  
They should have brought in Romney's ORCA team to develop this.
 
2013-10-20 07:01:02 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


Gotta ask; were you thread shiatting/trolling and then running?  Or do you legitimately believe this?
 
2013-10-20 07:01:58 PM  

parasol: sod off


This is a family site, bub.  Watch your language.
 
2013-10-20 07:02:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

Gotta ask; were you thread shiatting/trolling and then running?  Or do you legitimately believe this?


do you recall a time where any of those 3 websites were largely unusable for weeks in a row?
 
2013-10-20 07:02:46 PM  

skullkrusher: You'd think that the GOP would be applauding bugs which prevent people from signing up for CommieCare.


Why? I thought the Republican talking point is that everyone who signs up in the exchanges is charged more for medical insurance?
 
2013-10-20 07:03:01 PM  

shastacola: *Kathleen Shefailedus* Someone has been searching for cutting edge political humor in the Yahoo comments sections.


Or the cream of the crop from YouTube commenters.
 
2013-10-20 07:04:08 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: parasol: sod off

This is a family site, bub.  Watch your language.


lol

...can I be Cousin Itt?
 
2013-10-20 07:06:22 PM  

Delay: skullkrusher: You'd think that the GOP would be applauding bugs which prevent people from signing up for CommieCare.

Why? I thought the Republican talking point is that everyone who signs up in the exchanges is charged more for medical insurance?


if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.
 
2013-10-20 07:07:16 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


They didn't have everybody try to sign up all on the same day, and they also have much bigger budgets for their web sites. The "failure" with Obamacare is that so many people want/need it. It's like claiming the latest iPhone is a failure if the stores run out of them in the first week of sales.
 
2013-10-20 07:07:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

Gotta ask; were you thread shiatting/trolling and then running?  Or do you legitimately believe this?

do you recall a time where any of those 3 websites were largely unusable for weeks in a row?


Weeks no, but gmail pulling down companies is kinda a big thing...
 
2013-10-20 07:08:32 PM  

fusillade762: shastacola: *Kathleen Shefailedus* Someone has been searching for cutting edge political humor in the Yahoo comments sections.

Or the cream of the crop from YouTube commenters.


Subby certainly didn't get it from the article's comments - the amount of stupid there is truly staggering.
 
2013-10-20 07:08:49 PM  

Shvetz: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

They didn't have everybody try to sign up all on the same day, and they also have much bigger budgets for their web sites. The "failure" with Obamacare is that so many people want/need it. It's like claiming the latest iPhone is a failure if the stores run out of them in the first week of sales.


I hope they don't sell out of Obamacares.
 
2013-10-20 07:11:28 PM  
I'm sure this is just concerned republicans doing their job and absolutely not a political shiat show. Nope.
 
2013-10-20 07:12:08 PM  

skullkrusher: do you recall a time where any of those 3 websites were largely unusable for weeks in a row?


Yes.

And they weren't in the middle of a shutdown as well at the time.
 
2013-10-20 07:12:50 PM  

sammyk: If this wasnt just political theater meant as a soothing balm for teabagger butthurt I would say this is a good thing. A serious conversation about what went wrong and what is being done about it would be constructive. This is witch hunt and nothing good will come of it.


no shiat. another republican circle jerk feeding the folks at Fox and letting the big three networks pretend that by reporting on this they are being fair and balanced. when are one of the big three anchors going to start this story with "today the republicans tried once more to create a scandal by ...."
 
2013-10-20 07:13:05 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: do you recall a time where any of those 3 websites were largely unusable for weeks in a row?

Yes.

And they weren't in the middle of a shutdown as well at the time.


no you don't, pants on fire.
 
2013-10-20 07:15:50 PM  

skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.


No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.
 
2013-10-20 07:17:18 PM  
BizarreMan:
I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

You don't appear to realize that software development is not a well understood science or even has a standard engineering approach. In fact,

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/software-development-failures
It has been estimated that one-third of software development projects fail or are abandoned outright because of cost overruns, delays, and reduced functionality. Some consider this an acceptable risk-that it is simply the cost of doing business.

Healthcare.gov doesn't qualify as an unfixable failure. There are thousands of true disasters.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/246647/10_biggest_erp_software_failur es _of_2011.html
 UK government scraps the £12 billion National program for IT in the NHS
In September, U.K. officials pulled the plug on what is considered to be the largest public IT project of all time, an attempt to provide electronic health records for all of the country's citizens.
The sprawling effort was begun in 2002 but failed to produce a workable system, despite massive spending outlays that have been estimated at about £12 billion (US$18.7 billion).
 
2013-10-20 07:21:13 PM  

Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.


huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?
 
2013-10-20 07:21:41 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


Yeah because the evolution of those web sites is the exact same thing
 
2013-10-20 07:22:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?


If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes
 
2013-10-20 07:24:10 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes


you mean how politics works in reality today? Yep, I live in reality.
 
2013-10-20 07:25:26 PM  

sammyk: If this wasnt just political theater meant as a soothing balm for teabagger butthurt I would say this is a good thing. A serious conversation about what went wrong and what is being done about it would be constructive. This is witch hunt and nothing good will come of it.

Eric Holder has to be happy the derpers will be occupied with someone else for a while.


What went wrong is simple: in the 1980s, we decided to start privatizing government functions, and we started with logistical jobs. Because of this, the US government has no IT staff that could have run, or at the least overseen, the rollout of a new site for a very important social service, leaving the job entirely in the hands of whichever private systems logistics and website company had the best gov contacts and lowest bid. That, combined with Republican-run States refusing to open their own exchanges, meant the Federal site infrastructure wasn't prepared for the load it ended up carrying, and as a result the site was buggy and slow. With the appropriate staff, we wouldn't have had to do this out of house, and as anyone who has ever played WoW can tell you, private corps 1)always underestimate the job because supervisors are rewarded for delivering under-budget, and 2)never bug-check their code nearly as well as they should.

The Public sphere is about providing a service and the private about shafting the consumer as much as you can to shake money out of the as hard as you can; these two ethics fundamentally do not mix.
 
2013-10-20 07:25:44 PM  
I blame the Red states that waited as long as they could to make their decision as to whether they or the feds would have to pony up on the website. This delayed the development cycle till almost the last minute while the politicians squabbled.
 
2013-10-20 07:26:09 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes


you comment to me is a bit puzzling now. If it isn't a world of black and white, wins and losses, why are you unable to say that the rollout of the healthcare website was shiatty?

Guess what? It was. It was largely a failure.
Does that mean the ACA will be a failure of that it was a bad thing? No. But it is what it is and the initial release was crap.
 
2013-10-20 07:28:14 PM  
The real problem is the constant effort to sabotage the state exchanges. Each state should have created their own exchange, but lots of Red State governors decided we don't want to participate. So, we end up with this mixed bag of state and Federal run state exchanges. The state run state exchanges are largely working well. The Federal Exchange is a victim of red state sabotage, and the failures of the HHS to put together a new program  saddled by Federal requirements for implementing any technical solution. They are not very good at it.

If all the states would have created their own state exchange, taken the Medicaid expansion, and did not actively sabotage the state exchanges, this might be going better.

Of course, if we just went with a public option or single payer, this would have been avoided altogether.
 
2013-10-20 07:28:37 PM  
baka-san:
Site wonky, contractors probably told them it was comming along and would be ready for rollout

Actually, the contractors told HHS repeatedly that there was no way in hell it was going to be ready, that HHS needed to stop making major changes (apparently they were still changing their minds about major features a week before rollout), that the whole thing was not working at all, and that should not be rolled out until at least the middle of next year, probably later. The contractors and government managers have been in panic mode since about March.

HHS pretty much just said "failure is not an option," and... failed.
 
2013-10-20 07:29:27 PM  

Piizzadude: Warlordtrooper: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you've never played any online game on release day

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-26/another-amazon-outag e- exposes-the-clouds-dark-lining
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-apologizes-for-outage-2013- 8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57604379-93/google-were-sorry-for-l at est-gmail-outage/


The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):


thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.
 
2013-10-20 07:30:12 PM  

skullkrusher: huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?


No. Implementation was not the issue. A discussion of how to implement the ACA between the two parties could have been a possible win for the Republicans. As it is the GOP was all about "defund Obamacare" and "Impeach Obama" and "default now" had nothing to do about implementation of ACA.

Therefore it's a complete loss for the Republicans because they are stupid.
 
2013-10-20 07:31:58 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


Do you really think that Amazon and Google were both fully functional on the day they launched?

And even if they had been, commercial sites don't get traffic on day one, since they need to be indexed by search engines. Web sites typically "ramp up", they don't flip on like a switch, and it was not realistic to ever think healthcare.gov would.
 
2013-10-20 07:32:22 PM  

Harry_Seldon: The real problem is the constant effort to sabotage the state exchanges. Each state should have created their own exchange, but lots of Red State governors decided we don't want to participate. So, we end up with this mixed bag of state and Federal run state exchanges. The state run state exchanges are largely working well. The Federal Exchange is a victim of red state sabotage, and the failures of the HHS to put together a new program  saddled by Federal requirements for implementing any technical solution. They are not very good at it.

If all the states would have created their own state exchange, taken the Medicaid expansion, and did not actively sabotage the state exchanges, this might be going better.

Of course, if we just went with a public option or single payer, this would have been avoided altogether.


^^^
 
2013-10-20 07:32:35 PM  
Peter von Nostrand:
If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
BHO, 2009
 
2013-10-20 07:32:53 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: parasol: sod off

This is a family site, bub.  Watch your language.


Bollocks! You bloody wanker!
 
2013-10-20 07:33:56 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: This is a family site, bub. Watch your language


Addams Family.
 
2013-10-20 07:35:18 PM  

Delay: skullkrusher: huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

No. Implementation was not the issue. A discussion of how to implement the ACA between the two parties could have been a possible win for the Republicans. As it is the GOP was all about "defund Obamacare" and "Impeach Obama" and "default now" had nothing to do about implementation of ACA.

Therefore it's a complete loss for the Republicans because they are stupid.


what world do you live in that a failure by the feds to implement the ACA in a useful way is not anything but a win for the party who has fought tooth and nail against in since the beginning?

Do you honestly think that it will matter that they fought it because socialism and not the implementation details if the feds fall flat on their faces rolling it out?
 
2013-10-20 07:36:57 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: Warlordtrooper: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you've never played any online game on release day

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-26/another-amazon-outag e- exposes-the-clouds-dark-lining
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-apologizes-for-outage-2013- 8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57604379-93/google-were-sorry-for-l at est-gmail-outage/

The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):


thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.


Trust me when I tell you it was worse, and it wasnt the only one this year. We also are not just talking about gmail. We are talking about drive and google docs.

If a medium sized company is going with "the cloud" and they cannot get to any documents or records for 2 days, it is kinda a big loss.

Unrelated, but here it is for the conspiracy nuts.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/16/meet-cgi-f e deral-the-company-behind-the-botched-launch-of-healthcare-gov/

I will start it off with: It was a Canadian company, Cruz is Canadian. Cruz hates the ACA....
 
2013-10-20 07:37:35 PM  
This is what they going with as the new big thing? A website with some bugs?

Yep, that will win elections.. full steam ahead on the tardboat.
 
2013-10-20 07:43:57 PM  
Healthcare.gov is still doing better than the F35 program.
 
2013-10-20 07:44:35 PM  
Also, does anybody seriously doubt that there have been massive DOS attacks on the site?
 
2013-10-20 07:44:57 PM  

skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?


When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.
 
2013-10-20 07:44:58 PM  
I'm a dyed in the wool liberal.

If I farked up something as important as this launch, I'd be fired. Don't stoop to teabagger level politics by cheering on your own team through incompetence.

Hold yourselves and your elected officials to a higher standard. This rollout has been a disaster.
 
2013-10-20 07:45:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Do you honestly think that it will matter that they fought it because socialism and not the implementation details if the feds fall flat on their faces rolling it out?


The implementation here in California worked well for me. There were three providers and the plan I chose saved me a lot of money. My assumption is the delayed implementation or deferred implementation in states where the Republican governors fought ACA will fark the citizens they are supposed to represent millions of dollars.
 
2013-10-20 07:45:47 PM  
SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.


If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.
 
2013-10-20 07:46:32 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.


neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct
 
2013-10-20 07:52:14 PM  

cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.


for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.
 
2013-10-20 07:53:09 PM  

skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct


So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?
 
2013-10-20 07:53:23 PM  
In any case, I think we can all agree that "Shefailedus" should at the very least be "Shesbillingus" to match the syllable count.
 
2013-10-20 07:53:49 PM  

sparkeyjames: I blame the Red states that waited as long as they could to make their decision as to whether they or the feds would have to pony up on the website. This delayed the development cycle till almost the last minute while the politicians squabbled.


The thing was, they were given until that late date to make their choice.

I guess the authors of the bill never expected so many Republican governors would turn down free Federal money just to try to sink the ACA.
 
2013-10-20 07:55:03 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?


no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.
 
2013-10-20 07:55:58 PM  
AkaDad:
When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government,

...and that "shutdown" didn't impact their lives at all.

Which means that the next time budget cuts come up in Congress, people won't buy the "we have to spend more money on the government" line quite so quickly.

Most of them are still going to remember the complete fail of the Obamacare website, though - for years - and a helluva lot of them will be paying their much-increased monthly insurance bills. The ones who are happiest about their "reduced" insurance are the folks who are pretty much devoted Democrats in the first place.
 
2013-10-20 07:59:18 PM  

Piizzadude: cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.

for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.


out of the biggest 6 not one is even close to the aca website. i have no idea what your point is. im a big fan of the aca, and im sure thr website will get fixed, but the dems who just want to excuse this clusterfark are as bad as the gop folks that spin everything. this will probably wind up being a partisan witch hunt but honestly everyone should be out raged by this.

as far as the folks blamed states being in or out till the last minute wth? how long does it take to add insurance plans etc? its not like they made a site from scratch for each state.
 
2013-10-20 08:00:31 PM  
Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.
 
2013-10-20 08:00:50 PM  
FTFA: "Though the White House said this weekend that 476,000 people have applied online for health insurance, officials have yet to say how many people have bought a policy. "

I haven't read TFT yet, but I was asking Mr. Dragon about this earlier and we weren't sure if the system can even track that. In MA, the way it's been working is, we apply on the HealthConnector site, they determine you qualify for certain plans, then you pick a plan and enroll. The way we're seeing the federal exchanges described, you use the site to determine eligibility, pick out a plan, and apply for that plan - more like applying for a college. I'm ready to be wrong, since we live in MA i haven't been following the details super closely, but it seems like when you send an application through the exchange, since you've already picked a plan, you're sending your application to the provider who will ultimately enroll you (ie, to BCBS or Aetna or something, not HHS).

So is it even reasonable for HHS to know how many people each provider enrolls in each state in real-time? And even if HHS can do that or is somehow involved, the GOP is gonna point to a discrepancy between "applied" and "enrolled" of >0 as proof of waste and fraud or something - is it actually reasonable to process half a million applications in only three weeks?
 
2013-10-20 08:04:02 PM  

Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.


god damn this so much. as a pretty solid d i like that my party generally doesnt do bullshiat like the gop does. admit this was farked up and try to figure out why. stop digging in the sand and blaming everyone else or saying other web sites have failed. you all spent a hell of a lot of money on this, you should expect better.
 
2013-10-20 08:04:21 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.

for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.

out of the biggest 6 not one is even close to the aca website. i have no idea what your point is. im a big fan of the aca, and im sure thr website will get fixed, but the dems who just want to excuse this clusterfark are as bad as the gop folks that spin everything. this will probably wind up being a partisan witch hunt but honestly everyone should be out raged by this.

as far as the folks blamed states being in or out till the last minute wth? how long does it take to add insurance plans etc? its not like ...


I am just saying that it is not an unheard of thing. I also said, from experience, that it was poorly thought out, poorly built....i can go on all day with what is wrong.

I also agree that it should not be "excused" away, but neither should it be hearing'd to death and held up as the greatest website failure of all time...
 
2013-10-20 08:05:42 PM  

skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.


My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?
 
2013-10-20 08:05:44 PM  

The Bananadragon: FTFA: "Though the White House said this weekend that 476,000 people have applied online for health insurance, officials have yet to say how many people have bought a policy. "

I haven't read TFT yet, but I was asking Mr. Dragon about this earlier and we weren't sure if the system can even track that. In MA, the way it's been working is, we apply on the HealthConnector site, they determine you qualify for certain plans, then you pick a plan and enroll. The way we're seeing the federal exchanges described, you use the site to determine eligibility, pick out a plan, and apply for that plan - more like applying for a college. I'm ready to be wrong, since we live in MA i haven't been following the details super closely, but it seems like when you send an application through the exchange, since you've already picked a plan, you're sending your application to the provider who will ultimately enroll you (ie, to BCBS or Aetna or something, not HHS).

So is it even reasonable for HHS to know how many people each provider enrolls in each state in real-time? And even if HHS can do that or is somehow involved, the GOP is gonna point to a discrepancy between "applied" and "enrolled" of >0 as proof of waste and fraud or something - is it actually reasonable to process half a million applications in only three weeks?


im with you on this. the entire enrolled vs applied seems like largely semantic bullshiat unless im not understanding
 
2013-10-20 08:09:24 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?


sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.
 
2013-10-20 08:09:50 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.


NOR does he remember the early days of EVERY WEBSITE in the universe.
NOR does he remember reading about pretty much every company in the world having problems when 10 million people hit them on the first day they open.
NOR does he remember problems, say like 2 dollar plane tickets or what not

WHY the fark does everyone expect things to be perfect?
FFS, they at least have a website, which at least is useful for answering some questions.

HOW about we spend 100% of the DOD budget fixing the VA paper work problem, rather than making more vets?

LOL
 
2013-10-20 08:09:57 PM  

Piizzadude: SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.

for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.

out of the biggest 6 not one is even close to the aca website. i have no idea what your point is. im a big fan of the aca, and im sure thr website will get fixed, but the dems who just want to excuse this clusterfark are as bad as the gop folks that spin everything. this will probably wind up being a partisan witch hunt but honestly everyone should be out raged by this.

as far as the folks blamed states being in or out till the last minute wth? how long does it take to add insurance plans etc? its not like ...

I am just saying that it is not an unheard of thing. I also said, from experience, that it was poorly thought out, poorly built....i can go on all day with what is wrong.

I also agree that it should not be "excused" away, but neither should it be hearing'd to death and held up as the greatest website failure of all time...


i don't think asking the person ultimate responsible for it to give some explanation is hearing'd to death. id like to know why this went so bad. it could be very benefitial to everyone in the future.

i dont think the web sites problems mean the aca failed or anything like that, but lets figure out what went wrong here. the d's should be more outraged then the r's in my opinion. they actually gave a shiat about this in the first place.
 
2013-10-20 08:10:08 PM  

cirby: AkaDad:
When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government,

...and that "shutdown" didn't impact their lives at all.

Which means that the next time budget cuts come up in Congress, people won't buy the "we have to spend more money on the government" line quite so quickly.

Most of them are still going to remember the complete fail of the Obamacare website, though - for years - and a helluva lot of them will be paying their much-increased monthly insurance bills. The ones who are happiest about their "reduced" insurance are the folks who are pretty much devoted Democrats in the first place.


Notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-10-20 08:10:10 PM  

ThunderPelvis: The bugs will get worked out. Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days, not sure why the supposedly incompetent federal government is expected to do better than the almighty free market.

Ohhh, right. BECAUSE OBAMA.


I'm a supporter of Obama, and I think ACA is a good step forward, and I bristle every time I see this argument.  The amount of money spent on this, compared to the amount of people using it, compared to just the known problems that have been reported means this analogy is not only bunk, it is lying bunk -- that is, it is so unbelievably ignorant to either what goes on for gaming launches or what happened on the ACA Exchange site launch that it's no different that most the folderol young-Earth Creationists spew online.  The site is a technical clusterfark, and short of dropping the process altogether, it's going to be another hundred millions dollars and a year to fix it.  Given the amount of people who were involved and have now been consulted, if you are into tech for business at all, it is not hard to find someone who has worked on the project.  I encourage you to do so and have an off the record conversation.  It is an absolute clusterfark.

That said, trying to take the good with the bad, if you look at something like Kentucky's exchange (KYNECT) you can see something that is well done and should be a model for how the rest of it is operating.  I've tried both sites, and KYNECT worked beautifully (minus the initial launch day crush).

In short, though, stop spreading bullshiat.  There may be people trashing the Federal site BECAUSE OBAMA, but it just means they are correct for the wrong reason: it isn't about "load" anymore -- it's about fundamentally broken architecture, poor planning, government contracting nightmares, and failure of HHS to provide the information they were supposed to on time.

You don't need to be a liar or an idiot to effectively defend against blind theocratic idiots.  You make the rest of the sensible populace look bad when you are.
 
2013-10-20 08:13:21 PM  

skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?

sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.


By constantly playing devils advocate, it's hard to tell with you. It sometimes seems like you take sides just to argue.
 
2013-10-20 08:13:24 PM  

FitzShivering: ThunderPelvis: The bugs will get worked out. Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days, not sure why the supposedly incompetent federal government is expected to do better than the almighty free market.

Ohhh, right. BECAUSE OBAMA.

I'm a supporter of Obama, and I think ACA is a good step forward, and I bristle every time I see this argument.  The amount of money spent on this, compared to the amount of people using it, compared to just the known problems that have been reported means this analogy is not only bunk, it is lying bunk -- that is, it is so unbelievably ignorant to either what goes on for gaming launches or what happened on the ACA Exchange site launch that it's no different that most the folderol young-Earth Creationists spew online.  The site is a technical clusterfark, and short of dropping the process altogether, it's going to be another hundred millions dollars and a year to fix it.  Given the amount of people who were involved and have now been consulted, if you are into tech for business at all, it is not hard to find someone who has worked on the project.  I encourage you to do so and have an off the record conversation.  It is an absolute clusterfark.

That said, trying to take the good with the bad, if you look at something like Kentucky's exchange (KYNECT) you can see something that is well done and should be a model for how the rest of it is operating.  I've tried both sites, and KYNECT worked beautifully (minus the initial launch day crush).

In short, though, stop spreading bullshiat.  There may be people trashing the Federal site BECAUSE OBAMA, but it just means they are correct for the wrong reason: it isn't about "load" anymore -- it's about fundamentally broken architecture, poor planning, government contracting nightmares, and failure of HHS to provide the information they were supposed to on time.

You don't need to be a liar or an idiot to effectively defend against blind theocratic idiots.  You make the rest of the sensible populace look bad when you are.


yep this
 
2013-10-20 08:13:40 PM  

Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.


Well, both sides are bad
 
2013-10-20 08:15:14 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?

sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.

By constantly playing devils advocate, it's hard to tell with you. It sometimes seems like you take sides just to argue.


seems like it? I thought that shiat was farking obvious ;)

In this case I actually believe what I said. And what you said. Maybe you're just assuming we disagree cuz I don't think we do
 
2013-10-20 08:15:38 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.

for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.

out of the biggest 6 not one is even close to the aca website. i have no idea what your point is. im a big fan of the aca, and im sure thr website will get fixed, but the dems who just want to excuse this clusterfark are as bad as the gop folks that spin everything. this will probably wind up being a partisan witch hunt but honestly everyone should be out raged by this.

as far as the folks blamed states being in or out till the last minute wth? how long does it take to add insurance ...


I agree, lessons are there to be learned and sure let's throw a few hearings in there and hold the bosses accountable.

Lets NOT turn this into a 6 month impeachable offense is all I am saying.

I have to swim through red tape all day so I know how it can be tough to get answers, get funding, get most things done. Hell I wanted to make a rather small change to something and totally gave up after learning it would require a hearing because it is a change of established procedure.

That is just too much
 
2013-10-20 08:17:20 PM  

sparkeyjames: I blame the Red states that waited as long as they could to make their decision as to whether they or the feds would have to pony up on the website. This delayed the development cycle till almost the last minute while the politicians squabbled.


Interesting point.
How many were the expected number of users? How many were planned for?
How many actually happened?

Forget people that signed up for a second, how about how many hits per day?

I know TONS of people went there KNOWING that they didnt need to.
Reporters, people like me who already have insurance and what not.

Were they expecting 1 million? 10 million? 100 million?

Plus that whole amazon/google thing is complete bullshiat.
Those website grew over time to hand the traffic that they have today.
They werent magically online one day and able to handle 12 million hits.


Of the 9.4 million unique visitors to the site during the launch's first week, according to the analysis, roughly a third attempted to register, and a third of that number - 1.01 million - completed registration. Ultimately, roughly 36,000 Americans signed up for an insurance plan online, the report said.

I would like to see any new website hand that much traffic in the first week.

PLUS, should they have built a site which could handle 100x the expected traffic once it us up and running?
If they had, I wonder if the complaints would have been, THEY SPENT TRILLIONS BUILDING A SITE FOR only 10 million people. LOLOLOLOL

so yah ....
WHY didnt google contract to build this?
WHY isnt there a process to have professions do these things, rather than the LOWEST bid??
 
2013-10-20 08:18:29 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: i don't think asking the person ultimate responsible for it to give some explanation is hearing'd to death. id like to know why this went so bad. it could be very benefitial to everyone in the future.

i dont think the web sites problems mean the aca failed or anything like that, but lets figure out what went wrong here. the d's should be more outraged then the r's in my opinion. they actually gave a shiat about this in the first place.


It's an unfortunate part of our society that admitting mistakes is no longer tolerated and spin has to be applied to everything.  I am somewhat sympathetic to the administration on this, given what we've seen over the last few months, but some part of me would like for them to just come out and say the truth: "HHS had no idea what it was doing, the government contracting process broke down, and a lot of tax money got wasted and things need to be re-done.  But we will get them done properly."  But there's not a chance in hell of that happening in our political climate.

But for those who aren't aware because the news hasn't done a good job of reporting it (nor the administration a good job telling it), they are actually actively working with knowledgeable people now to get the technical abortion that we spent so much on fixed.  I'm relatively certain the top level people in the administration are well aware of how bad it is, because it doesn't take someone with even an undergraduate level of education to see just how poorly things were done.  If you'd like to see some interesting parts of what needs to be fixed, eschew Fark and CNN and head to some of the tech sites (or some of the sub Reddits) where people are actively pulling apart public parts of the code, and in some cases people are discussing what they've seen of the private code.  Many of the mistakes (and license violations!) there are beginner mistakes -- they remind me of the web code I wrote when I was a good and just trying to slam things out.

There is a lot that needs to be redone, and it's clear that the people who worked on it originally were not up to the task of what they were trying to do, but there are now some _very_ good people involved.  I imagine you will start hearing more from them if the government doesn't NDA them (which would be a shame).

Long story short, it will get fixed, and the website isn't going to take the ACA down.  The website is, though, fundamentally flawed, so don't expect it to happen soon.
 
2013-10-20 08:19:04 PM  

skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?

sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.

By constantly playing devils advocate, it's hard to tell with you. It sometimes seems like you take sides just to argue.

seems like it? I thought that shiat was farking obvious ;)

In this case I actually believe what I said. And what you said. Maybe you're just assuming we disagree cuz I don't think we do


Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to agree.
 
2013-10-20 08:19:52 PM  

Piizzadude: SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: SirVagTheTighty: Piizzadude: cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.

for your last statement I agree, the rest not so much

This kind of thing is not unheard of:  http://technologizer.com/2008/08/11/eight-great-internet-outages/

It is a poor website though, it should have been done differently. In addition it should have been funded and awarded differently and not have to worry about getting its head chopped off every 26 minutes either.

out of the biggest 6 not one is even close to the aca website. i have no idea what your point is. im a big fan of the aca, and im sure thr website will get fixed, but the dems who just want to excuse this clusterfark are as bad as the gop folks that spin everything. this will probably wind up being a partisan witch hunt but honestly everyone should be out raged by this.

as far as the folks blamed states being in or out till the last minute wth? how long does it take to add insurance ...

I agree, lessons are there to be learned and sure let's throw a few hearings in there and hold the bosses accountable.

Lets NOT turn this into a 6 month impeachable offense is all I am saying.

I have to swim through red tape all day so I know how it can be tough to get answers, get funding, get most things done. Hell I wanted to make a rather small change to something and totally gave up after learning it would require a hearing because it is a change of established procedure.

That is just too much


i cant speak for everyone, and im sure the r's will pounce on this, but i dont want to see a 6 month bengazi bs impeachment thing either. i just like to think as a party the d's are above that. id like to know why this failed so badly. all that asside, the folks blames the r's for this seem like they are grasping at straws, and i like to think the d's are above that type of behavior. we crusify the r's on a daily basis for that, as everyone should. lets not make excuses and take some ownership when things go badly.

i think me and you pretty much agree though
 
2013-10-20 08:20:19 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?

sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.

By constantly playing devils advocate, it's hard to tell with you. It sometimes seems like you take sides just to argue.

seems like it? I thought that shiat was farking obvious ;)

In this case I actually believe what I said. And what you said. Maybe you're just assuming we disagree cuz I don't think we do

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to agree.


NO!
ok
 
2013-10-20 08:21:06 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.


It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this
 
2013-10-20 08:21:16 PM  

sammyk: If this wasnt just political theater meant as a soothing balm for teabagger butthurt I would say this is a good thing. A serious conversation about what went wrong and what is being done about it would be constructive. This is witch hunt and nothing good will come of it.

Eric Holder has to be happy the derpers will be occupied with someone else for a while.


Just as who's more likely to dig up the incriminating evidence, the prosecution or the defense, who's more likely to get to the bottom of a catastrophic policyfail, your political adversaries or your supporters? Both the House (Republicans) and the Senate (Democrats) can hold hearings. I know which one my money is on to ask the awkward questions. Anyone who isn't a fan of sweeping embarrassments under the rug should be happy at this development.
 
2013-10-20 08:22:42 PM  

namatad: sparkeyjames: I blame the Red states that waited as long as they could to make their decision as to whether they or the feds would have to pony up on the website. This delayed the development cycle till almost the last minute while the politicians squabbled.

Interesting point.
How many were the expected number of users? How many were planned for?
How many actually happened?

Forget people that signed up for a second, how about how many hits per day?

I know TONS of people went there KNOWING that they didnt need to.
Reporters, people like me who already have insurance and what not.

Were they expecting 1 million? 10 million? 100 million?

Plus that whole amazon/google thing is complete bullshiat.
Those website grew over time to hand the traffic that they have today.
They werent magically online one day and able to handle 12 million hits.


Of the 9.4 million unique visitors to the site during the launch's first week, according to the analysis, roughly a third attempted to register, and a third of that number - 1.01 million - completed registration. Ultimately, roughly 36,000 Americans signed up for an insurance plan online, the report said.

I would like to see any new website hand that much traffic in the first week.

PLUS, should they have built a site which could handle 100x the expected traffic once it us up and running?
If they had, I wonder if the complaints would have been, THEY SPENT TRILLIONS BUILDING A SITE FOR only 10 million people. LOLOLOLOL

so yah ....
WHY didnt google contract to build this?
WHY isnt there a process to have professions do these things, rather than the LOWEST bid??


its worth noting, no website in the history of ever has had 100mil plus dumped into it prior to launch that i can think of. this wasnt some geocities page that went viral. they damn well should of expected the demand and had the funds to prepare for it.
 
2013-10-20 08:23:30 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: i cant speak for everyone, and im sure the r's will pounce on this, but i dont want to see a 6 month bengazi bs impeachment thing either. i just like to think as a party the d's are above that. id like to know why this failed so badly. all that asside, the folks blames the r's for this seem like they are grasping at straws, and i like to think the d's are above that type of behavior. we crusify the r's on a daily basis for that, as everyone should. lets not make excuses and take some ownership when things go badly.

i think me and you pretty much agree though


Yep we pretty much are.

Take ownership of it, find out WTF?, do something to make sure it never happens again, and get it fixed.

Move on
 
2013-10-20 08:25:15 PM  
Still better than any health insurance company website I've ever used.
 
2013-10-20 08:26:18 PM  
I remember a mid-late 90's lawyer movie that offered the advice "if in doubt, object"

"Her refusal to testify and be transparent has undermined her credibility,"

She's had a whole day to assess what went on during your shutdown, and your demands are part of a pile of crap she's dealing with. So she must be refusing to testify. Therefore she must resign or be fired, Obama impeached for PWB, and an immediate resumption of war with Oceania.
 
2013-10-20 08:31:22 PM  

Poppa Zit: Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.

It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this


No, the government makes a reasonable proposal, A, B, and C compete for a job...the lowest bidder wins and as soon as the ink is dry...aaahhh..."Oh, and we also need it to do this, and this, and this, but not this...no wait, we need it to that, not this...".  Government contracts like these are a nightmare for the contractor.
 
2013-10-20 08:36:18 PM  

wildcardjack: I remember a mid-late 90's lawyer movie that offered the advice "if in doubt, object"

"Her refusal to testify and be transparent has undermined her credibility,"

She's had a whole day to assess what went on during your shutdown, and your demands are part of a pile of crap she's dealing with. So she must be refusing to testify. Therefore she must resign or be fired, Obama impeached for PWB, and an immediate resumption of war with Oceania.


Another pitiful sufferer of RDS.

I wonder if RDS and ODS are covered under the ACA?
 
2013-10-20 08:36:37 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Poppa Zit: Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.

It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this

No, the government makes a reasonable proposal, A, B, and C compete for a job...the lowest bidder wins and as soon as the ink is dry...aaahhh..."Oh, and we also need it to do this, and this, and this, but not this...no wait, we need it to that, not this...".  Government contracts like these are a nightmare for the contractor.


THIS! I have worked on both the state and federal level, The requirements sheets are rarely the end point. Hell half the time they are not the start....
 
2013-10-20 08:40:12 PM  
I found this in some comments somewhere.  It has to be fake.

The fact is that the Obamacare web site was attacked by racist teabirthers using The Nile of Surface attacks. The code is good, nothing wrong with it. My cousin DeShawn knows how to program HTML and he did a view sores on the web page and he says it's good code.
 
2013-10-20 08:40:18 PM  
I am starting the absolutely true rumor that the HHS servers were located in Behghazi and our brave diplomats died trying to protect them. I want ten hearings a day every day until we get to the bottom of this.
 
2013-10-20 08:41:03 PM  

Piizzadude: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Poppa Zit: Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.

It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this

No, the government makes a reasonable proposal, A, B, and C compete for a job...the lowest bidder wins and as soon as the ink is dry...aaahhh..."Oh, and we also need it to do this, and this, and this, but not this...no wait, we need it to that, not this...".  Government contracts like these are a nightmare for the contractor.

THIS! I have worked on both the state and federal level, The requirements sheets are rarely the end point. Hell half the time they are not the start....


I was going to go in a different direction.
WHY doesnt the government have an IT department?
LOL
They would have had their top web people build the site and it would have been awesome.

OUT SOURCING only makes friends and family money and pretty much never saves any money.
Not in the long run.

/lol
 
2013-10-20 08:44:00 PM  

Elegy: wildcardjack: I remember a mid-late 90's lawyer movie that offered the advice "if in doubt, object"

"Her refusal to testify and be transparent has undermined her credibility,"

She's had a whole day to assess what went on during your shutdown, and your demands are part of a pile of crap she's dealing with. So she must be refusing to testify. Therefore she must resign or be fired, Obama impeached for PWB, and an immediate resumption of war with Oceania.


Another pitiful sufferer of RDS.

I wonder if RDS and ODS are covered under the ACA?


Another member of Team Fix the Blame speaks out that Issa holding another series of time wasting, costly, pointless, partisan, political witch hunts would somehow help Fix the Problem.

Seems legit.
 
2013-10-20 08:46:45 PM  

namatad: Piizzadude: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Poppa Zit: Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.

It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this

No, the government makes a reasonable proposal, A, B, and C compete for a job...the lowest bidder wins and as soon as the ink is dry...aaahhh..."Oh, and we also need it to do this, and this, and this, but not this...no wait, we need it to that, not this...".  Government contracts like these are a nightmare for the contractor.

THIS! I have worked on both the state and federal level, The requirements sheets are rarely the end point. Hell half the time they are not the start....

I was going to go in a different direction.
WHY doesnt the government have an IT department?
LOL
They would have had their top web people build the site and it would have been awesome.

OUT SOURCING only makes friends and family money and pretty much never saves any money.
Not in the long run.

/lol


Your right about that but do you really want another governmental agency? It would be a clusterfark of epic proportions, and STILL outsource everything
 
2013-10-20 08:48:52 PM  
On further though they really should have just developed for all 50 states from the get go and 20 million hits per day. Then just use a redirect when a state is chosen that has their own site (something that they already do). I think scaling is the major problem here. They just didn't get a big enough pipe and not enough servers. They also seem to be using an external service for identity verification which can slow things down. The biggest problem are that the logins are at best spotty. I managed to get enrolled with an insurer, after many many attempts over multiple days, but since then have not been able to log back in.
 
2013-10-20 08:49:25 PM  

Elegy: Another pitiful sufferer of RDS.


Yes, this is clearly the same as claiming the President is a secretly gay-married communist Muslim who wants to send Christians to concentration camps and kill grandma.  I wonder if stupid is covered by the ACA

/Both sides are bad.
 
2013-10-20 08:50:32 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-20 08:52:33 PM  

sparkeyjames: On further though they really should have just developed for all 50 states from the get go and 20 million hits per day. Then just use a redirect when a state is chosen that has their own site (something that they already do). I think scaling is the major problem here. They just didn't get a big enough pipe and not enough servers. They also seem to be using an external service for identity verification which can slow things down. The biggest problem are that the logins are at best spotty. I managed to get enrolled with an insurer, after many many attempts over multiple days, but since then have not been able to log back in.


blog.thebrickfactory.com

Just putting this here for my own self enjoyment, it in no way reflects on your statement
 
2013-10-20 08:53:16 PM  
Oh and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if conservatives are doing a mass run on the website to slow it down.
 
2013-10-20 08:56:46 PM  

sparkeyjames: On further though they really should have just developed for all 50 states from the get go and 20 million hits per day. Then just use a redirect when a state is chosen that has their own site (something that they already do). I think scaling is the major problem here. They just didn't get a big enough pipe and not enough servers. They also seem to be using an external service for identity verification which can slow things down. The biggest problem are that the logins are at best spotty. I managed to get enrolled with an insurer, after many many attempts over multiple days, but since then have not been able to log back in.


The states were supposed to set up their own exchanges.  Which the Federal government was going to pay them to run.  But they were given a chance to opt out and dump their citizens on the Federal exchange.  Which is exactly what thirty-seven Republican governors did.  In addition, many also refused take Federal money to expand Medicaid to cover their poorest citizens.
 
2013-10-20 08:57:16 PM  
Calling for an official's resignation because a website rollout wasn't smooth as silk? Really?

farking ridiculous. You don't even get fired for that shiat in the private sector, nevermind public.
 
2013-10-20 09:02:51 PM  
Anyone who insists on mangling names into snide puns (obummer, nobama, republitards, demoturds, general betrayus, etc) might as well begin any argument by screaming "I AM AN UTTERLY IRRELEVANT MORON BLINDLY REGURGITATING THINK THANK TALKING POINTS".

I've found it to be an excellent indicator as to wether someone is worth your time and attention.
 
2013-10-20 09:07:29 PM  
Healthcare program.
 
2013-10-20 09:08:34 PM  

Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 576x478]


Posting Hope and Change
All credibility lost.
 
2013-10-20 09:08:51 PM  

jjorsett: sammyk: If this wasnt just political theater meant as a soothing balm for teabagger butthurt I would say this is a good thing. A serious conversation about what went wrong and what is being done about it would be constructive. This is witch hunt and nothing good will come of it.

Eric Holder has to be happy the derpers will be occupied with someone else for a while.

Just as who's more likely to dig up the incriminating evidence, the prosecution or the defense, who's more likely to get to the bottom of a catastrophic policyfail, your political adversaries or your supporters? Both the House (Republicans) and the Senate (Democrats) can hold hearings. I know which one my money is on to ask the awkward questions. Anyone who isn't a fan of sweeping embarrassments under the rug should be happy at this development.


Who's more likely to find out why healthcare.gov doesn't work - the party that wants it to work or the party that doesn't?
 
2013-10-20 09:10:26 PM  

Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.


I agree that heads should roll, but this seems like something that should be handled by dragging a few people into a closed office and screaming at them until shiat gets fixed, and maybe showing a few people the door for not doing their jobs. I'm not sure that "Congressional hearing because a website didn't work the way it was supposed to" is the best use of time and money, especially during a time when Congress has failed to pass a budget in 4 years, just closed down the government for 2 weeks and took us to the brink of default. Maybe they could possibly find something slightly more important to waste their time at. Personally, I'd like to lock the entirety of Congress in an underground bunker and tell them they can't come out until they pass a budget. Then start slowly filling it with water. If they fail to find a solution, well, I guess we'll be holding early elections.
 
2013-10-20 09:11:18 PM  

SirVagTheTighty: The Bananadragon: FTFA: "Though the White House said this weekend that 476,000 people have applied online for health insurance, officials have yet to say how many people have bought a policy. "

I haven't read TFT yet, but I was asking Mr. Dragon about this earlier and we weren't sure if the system can even track that. In MA, the way it's been working is, we apply on the HealthConnector site, they determine you qualify for certain plans, then you pick a plan and enroll. The way we're seeing the federal exchanges described, you use the site to determine eligibility, pick out a plan, and apply for that plan - more like applying for a college. I'm ready to be wrong, since we live in MA i haven't been following the details super closely, but it seems like when you send an application through the exchange, since you've already picked a plan, you're sending your application to the provider who will ultimately enroll you (ie, to BCBS or Aetna or something, not HHS).

So is it even reasonable for HHS to know how many people each provider enrolls in each state in real-time? And even if HHS can do that or is somehow involved, the GOP is gonna point to a discrepancy between "applied" and "enrolled" of >0 as proof of waste and fraud or something - is it actually reasonable to process half a million applications in only three weeks?

im with you on this. the entire enrolled vs applied seems like largely semantic bullshiat unless im not understanding


Beyond that, there really is no reason for somebody to be done with enrollment today when you don't have to be done until December 15th if you want coverage the first day of 2014. Massachusetts saw about two-thirds of their enrollment in MassHealth in the last two weeks before the enrollment period ended. We'll almost certainly see the same thing here. Getting almost half a million applications this early on with a glitchy website is downright miraculous.
 
2013-10-20 09:13:31 PM  

skullkrusher: Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes

you comment to me is a bit puzzling now. If it isn't a world of black and white, wins and losses, why are you unable to say that the rollout of the healthcare website was shiatty?

Guess what? It was. It was largely a failure.
Does that mean the ACA will be a failure of that it was a bad thing? No. But it is what it is and the initial release was crap.


I'm not sure how got to there from my comment. I said it was a win for Republicans
 
2013-10-20 09:15:33 PM  
I hope during one of Mr Issa's investigations the truth finally comes out. That he is suffering from chronic short-term memory loss. Rather than admit it he is forced to hold taped/transcripted hearings to keep up the pretense he can recall at will the "who/what/where/when/why" of events everyone else has been informed of and moved past while he uses crib sheets to make it through water-cooler encounters.

He will continue this approach until the fateful day he demands answers from the Secretary of the Interior why the Mars Rover failed to transmit in a timely fashion.

In the dead quiet of the room following the obvious error, he will bury his head in his hands and mutter in the microphone..."I....I....I...just...don't....know.......about.....anyth ing."
 
2013-10-20 09:17:41 PM  

Krushinator: Anyone who insists on mangling names into snide puns (obummer, nobama, republitards, demoturds, general betrayus, etc) might as well begin any argument by screaming "I AM AN UTTERLY IRRELEVANT MORON BLINDLY REGURGITATING THINK THANK TALKING POINTS".

I've found it to be an excellent indicator as to wether someone is worth your time and attention.


Whatever you say, crotchinator

/I keed
 
2013-10-20 09:21:21 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


They also grew gradually and didn't open to a couple million customers right out of the gate.
 
2013-10-20 09:22:42 PM  
Denying lung transplants for kids?

/not a death panel?
 
2013-10-20 09:23:55 PM  

Mithiwithi: Who's more likely to find out why healthcare.gov doesn't work - the party that wants it to work or the party that doesn't?


Upon reflection, the correct answer to that question is "neither". The question of why a software project fails has to get very deep into the technical weeds - choice of software tools, development process, partner (insurance company) coordination, and suchlike, and requires a level of technical expertise Congressmen simply don't have. Would you expect to get anything useful out of Congressional hearings on why Windows 8's Metro interface sucks?
 
2013-10-20 09:24:26 PM  

LoneWolf343: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

They also grew gradually and didn't open to a couple hundred million customers right out of the gate.


FTFM
 
2013-10-20 09:30:28 PM  
If there's anyone who knows about insurance, it's Darrel Issa

...he described a series of suspicious actions by Issa before the fire. Adkins, who still worked for Steal Stopper, said that Issa removed the company's Apple II computer from the building, including "all hardware, all software, all the instruction books," and also "the discs for accounts payable, accounts receivable, customer list, everything." According to Adkins, Issa also transferred a copy of every design used by Steal Stopper from a filing cabinet to a fireproof box. He also said that Issa put in the box some important silk screens used in the production of circuit boards. Insurance officials noted that, less than three weeks before the fire, Issa had increased his insurance from a hundred thousand dollars to four hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars.

Link
 
2013-10-20 09:32:36 PM  

Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.


So the republicans slashing the budget for this by 4/5ths has nothing to do with anything?
 
2013-10-20 09:33:05 PM  

Warlordtrooper: I see you've never played any online game on release day


It's no longer release day. Tomorrow will be three weeks past release day. Even Sim City at least had a fix in place two days later.
 
2013-10-20 09:35:37 PM  
Computer "glitches" seem massive. USA TODAY reports that "the federal health care exchange was built using 10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system."

Did they hire republicans to build this so to intentionally sabotage it?  God government is incompetent.
 
2013-10-20 09:35:58 PM  

Cpl.D: Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.

So the republicans slashing the budget for this by 4/5ths has nothing to do with anything?


I dont know what the budget was but if it cost more than 25 million, we got robbed.
 
2013-10-20 09:39:03 PM  

cchris_39: Denying lung transplants for kids?

/not a death panel?


ACA insurance doesn't take effect until January. What you're describing is the gop alternative: the status quo.
 
2013-10-20 09:39:16 PM  

namatad: I was going to go in a different direction.
WHY doesnt the government have an IT department?
LOL
They would have had their top web people build the site and it would have been awesome.

OUT SOURCING only makes friends and family money and pretty much never saves any money.
Not in the long run.


There are fundamental flaws with government software development, either in-house or outsourced.  Primarily, the development timelines are set by fiat, without actual consideration for the time needed to properly address the requirements.  The requirements are also mostly mandatory - with little in the way of bells and whistles that could be trimmed if needed.  And the timelines tend to be fairly aggressive.  All of this works together to create a noxious situation.

I work in software development (in private industry).  When an unexpected hiccup takes up development time we wanted to spend elsewhere, there are three basic things that could be considered:
1. Postponing the release - not an option if the release date is written into law
2. Cutting features - again not an option if the law specifies what functionality is needed
3. Adding more resources - this is usually a failing strategy; adding people to a struggling project usually pushes things even further off-track.  Brooks did a good analysis of why in the classic book The Mythical Man-Month; the basic idea is that there are both temporary and permanent decreases in productivity of the existing team members by the addition of a new member, who is initially unproductive until brought up to speed.

The net effect is that a project like this that gets off track is extremely resistant to being brought back on track, because the tools that most software development companies would use to get things back on track are not permitted.  They couldn't cut features, they couldn't push the release date, and adding more people is usually counterproductive.
 
2013-10-20 09:41:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: You'd think that the GOP would be applauding bugs which prevent people from signing up for CommieCare.

Why? I thought the Republican talking point is that everyone who signs up in the exchanges is charged more for medical insurance?

if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.


The logical thing to do upon finding oneself on a dead horse is to dismount.
 
2013-10-20 09:43:09 PM  

SlothB77: Computer "glitches" seem massive. USA TODAY reports that "the federal health care exchange was built using 10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system."

Did they hire republicans to build this so to intentionally sabotage it?  God government is incompetent.


Except the site was built by a private contractors, but don't let reality interrupt the 5 minute hate.
 
2013-10-20 09:50:59 PM  

udhq: SlothB77: Computer "glitches" seem massive. USA TODAY reports that "the federal health care exchange was built using 10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system."

Did they hire republicans to build this so to intentionally sabotage it?  God government is incompetent.

Except the site was built by a private contractors, but don't let reality interrupt the 5 minute hate.


So the base guards raped and murdered your family? LOL, joke's on you. They were from Blackwater, not US troopz.
 
2013-10-20 09:59:35 PM  

ohdoublereally: I found this in some comments somewhere.  It has to be fake.

The fact is that the Obamacare web site was attacked by racist teabirthers using The Nile of Surface attacks. The code is good, nothing wrong with it. My cousin DeShawn knows how to program HTML and he did a view sores on the web page and he says it's good code.


+1 intertubes
 
2013-10-20 09:59:35 PM  

BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.


Yeah, I mean look at how well SImCity did. No online services EVER crash at the beginning. Especially not anything by pros.

Right? If anyone is going to get high-volume down pat, it's the industry that revolutionized the field.
 
2013-10-20 10:00:39 PM  
I am a software engineer, so I am getting a kick, etc.

Seriously though, I went through the entire signup process last week during the early afternoon (GA).  Yes, it was slow, but not unreasonable.  I also tried earlier, and simple decided to wait a week or two for them to shake down the system, which they did.  After seeing the amount of data they had to pull in from disparate systems (some of them owned *not* by HHS... like the IRS for income verification and some of them *not* owned by the government at all, like Experian credit reports and gods know what else).  Succeeding at load management, at that level of usage, is quite difficult when you have direct access to all the systems.  Doing so when you don't is damn near impossible.

I would also expect that there would be a very high load of malicious probing at the outset as well... whether attempted DOS or probing for weaknesses and access to data.  Planning for that is hard, and a large unknown variable for a system this big with potential access to that much data.

Let's also remember that the signup process is the most difficult, most security-critical, part of the whole process.... once your are in and the data verified and all, looking up a data set and displaying plans is not hard.  This is exactly the reverse of most software systems:   there are maybe... a few thousand plans total on the exchange?  Verifying lot's of correct information for millions of people?  Ay, there's the rub.  And with that much sensitive data, it would be hard to do a real, live load test without violating some privacy rule with respect to people's personal information.

It sounds like they fell into a trap of focusing on getting it working at all (and especially getting accessibility features working for the blind, different languages, etc.) than focusing on performance and load.  This is in fact SOP for software engineers: we make it correct, then we make it fast.  There's even a tongue-in-cheek pejorative term for focusing on speed over correctness: premature optimization.   Creating a publicly available nation-wide insurance exchange is not trivial.

I'd expect a few weeks of shakedown and optimization to happen, mostly in working out load planning with 3rd party systems, and maybe changing some things to asynchronous operations (OK, thanks for the information... we'll email you when we've verified things vs. a spinning thingy on a webpage for 2 minutes) when they can't get the load managed properly.  It at least seems to have failed gracefully, and not completely crashed and burned.
 
2013-10-20 10:07:45 PM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.



Um, no, they're not.  They're really not.  Most of the voting public doesn't have that long a memory.  We'll have several other big political stories before it becomes time to vote, and the stories that are closest to the election are what will be remembered.

The shutdown will be remembered, and it will probably have some effect, but it will be minimal at best.

The ACA website fiasco is different, as it affects a lot more of your average voters, and is still affecting them.  There's been, what, roughly 400,000 people who have made accounts, right?  That isn't being enrolled in the system, that's simply making accounts, and that's a pretty low number for the first WEEK of being available.

Unless they get the problems fixed very, very soon, more people are going to continue to be turned off by it and complain.  And that ride will last at least another month or two.  The shutdown?  The media's already moving away from it.
 
2013-10-20 10:10:55 PM  
This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.
 
2013-10-20 10:18:22 PM  

The Numbers: This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.


no its easy.

We pushed it out to get the ball rolling in case the GOP came after it again.

I am not saying its right, or any real answer at all, but there it is
 
2013-10-20 10:18:33 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Republicans holding hearings about everything Obamacare related? No way.


Compounding the problem is the administration's refusal to delay the law's unfair individual mandate, therefore subjecting Americans to a requirement to purchase insurance despite the exchanges' numerous problems, including unaffordable health insurance premiums and significant security risks. (.pdf)


Going to be tons of new ground covered at these hearings, let me tell you what.


Would that be the individual mandate originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation?
 
2013-10-20 10:36:09 PM  

LeoffDaGrate: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.


Um, no, they're not.  They're really not.  Most of the voting public doesn't have that long a memory.  We'll have several other big political stories before it becomes time to vote, and the stories that are closest to the election are what will be remembered.

The shutdown will be remembered, and it will probably have some effect, but it will be minimal at best.

The ACA website fiasco is different, as it affects a lot more of your average voters, and is still affecting them.  There's been, what, roughly 400,000 people who have made accounts, right?  That isn't being enrolled in the system, that's simply making accounts, and that's a pretty low number for the first WEEK of being available.

Unless they get the problems fixed very, very soon, more people are going to continue to be turned off by it and complain.  And that ride will last at least another month or two.  The shutdown?  The media's already moving away from it.


I'm pretty sure, come election time, the Democrats will be reminding everyone in political ads, that Republicans shutdown the government and that it cost us $24 billion. I'm also pretty sure that the ACA website will be sorted out soon.
 
2013-10-20 10:38:04 PM  

udhq: SlothB77: Computer "glitches" seem massive. USA TODAY reports that "the federal health care exchange was built using 10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system."

Did they hire republicans to build this so to intentionally sabotage it?  God government is incompetent.

Except the site was built by a private contractors, but don't let reality interrupt the 5

year hate.

FTFY
 
2013-10-20 10:38:19 PM  
So she'll just come down with a case of Congressional oversight amnesia?

Or just a passive-aggressive, "Fark you, what are you going to do about it?"
 
2013-10-20 10:40:00 PM  

Heliovdrake: Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 576x478]

Posting Hope and Change
All credibility lost.



Believing in Hope and Change
All rational thought lost.
 
2013-10-20 10:42:28 PM  

Brick-House: Heliovdrake: Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 576x478]

Posting Hope and Change
All credibility lost.


Believing in Hope and Change
All rational thought lost.


I certainly hope that this signals a start to change
 
2013-10-20 10:45:35 PM  

Brick-House: Heliovdrake: Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 576x478]

Posting Hope and Change
All credibility lost.


Believing in Hope and Change
All rational thought lost.


As opposed to what?

Despair and stultification?

Hopelessness and unrelenting sameness?

That's rational to you?
 
2013-10-20 10:46:15 PM  

cirby: SirVag The Tighty:
The effect on Gmail users varied, according to Farmer. Around 71 percent of messages experienced no delay. Among the other 29 percent, the average delay was 2.6 seconds. But among the delayed messages, 1.5 percent were stalled by more than two hours. Further, some users who tried to download large file attachments ran into errors. But Gmail itself was available for people to log in, read mail, and send messages.from your last link (i didnt bother reading the others):

thats sounds like exactly what happened with the aca site.

If Gmail had taken hours for anyone at all to log in, 100% of messages experienced days of delay, the average delay was four or five hours, most user accounts were deleted a day or two after launch, and almost all users who tried to use it at all ran into errors, you might have a point.

As it was, the Gmail disruption was external - a network outage - and lasted only a few hours, seriously affecting less than two percent of users. Obamacare? Internal, bad design, and is ongoing, affecting pretty much everyone who tries to log in.


Gmail was in various beta modes for an incredibly long time with invite only for an incredibly long time before fully opening.

Do you not remember the days when fark had special threads for people to post gmail invites to get them from derailing the other threads?
 
2013-10-20 10:48:16 PM  
I think Dennis Miller wrote this headline.
 
2013-10-20 10:54:13 PM  

Piizzadude: The Numbers: This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.

no its easy.

We pushed it out to get the ball rolling in case the GOP came after it again.

I am not saying its right, or any real answer at all, but there it is


Admitting that they knowingly induced significant inconvenience for the public for reasons of partisan politics? Yeah, that answer would get the Dems absolutely shredded.
 
2013-10-20 10:59:08 PM  

BMFPitt: So she'll just come down with a case of Congressional oversight amnesia?

Or just a passive-aggressive, "Fark you, what are you going to do about it?"


Pretty much every answer should be  "Congress mandated it to be this way and left almost nothing in my control.  This is all your fault."
 
2013-10-20 10:59:36 PM  
Yes, yes "Shefailedus", because we all know how much the Republicans have been rooting for the success of Obamacare.
 
2013-10-20 11:00:44 PM  
The fact is that the Obamacare web site was attacked by racist teabirthers using The Nile of Surface attacks. The code is good, nothing wrong with it. My cousin DeShawn knows how to program HTML and he did a view sores on the web page and he says it's good code.

Alright. Which one of you wrote this? This has Farker written all over it.
 
2013-10-20 11:00:45 PM  

Brick-House: Heliovdrake: Brick-House: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 576x478]

Posting Hope and Change
All credibility lost.


Believing in Hope and Change
All rational thought lost.


For those that haven't seen hope and change before, Its Brick-House's most favorite comic, he posts it all the time.


Here's some samples

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

imageshack.us

These comics represents why you should totally take BrickHouse seriously.
 
2013-10-20 11:01:21 PM  

The Numbers: Piizzadude: The Numbers: This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.

no its easy.

We pushed it out to get the ball rolling in case the GOP came after it again.

I am not saying its right, or any real answer at all, but there it is

Admitting that they knowingly induced significant inconvenience for the public for reasons of partisan politics? Yeah, that answer would get the Dems absolutely shredded.


Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.
 
2013-10-20 11:06:06 PM  

Cpl.D: Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.

So the republicans slashing the budget for this by 4/5ths has nothing to do with anything?


You got a source for that buddy? Said source will have to show that such funding shenanigans occurred within the past two years.

Unfortunately for you, I do have sources:
CGI Federal originally received the $93.7m contract in November of 2011. According to the ultraconservative, teatard owned news service known as "The New York Times",the administration didn't pass along the IT specifications until early 2013 for political reasons; they didn't want to release them before the 2012 election cycle. By around April of 2013 the administration realized the site wasn't going to be ready in time and started dumping money into the project with virtually no oversight, at which point costs tripled.

And it's not just the front end that sucks - the back end is buggered all to hell too. The latest wrinkle is that the system is passing along bunk data to the insurers. Which, in case you weren't aware, is going to create an unholy mess that is going to be hell to clean up and fix.

There might have been some initial chicanery about the budget from the republicans; that I will grant you. But that happened more than two years ago; the immediate problems stem from the direct decisions of the Obama administration, and it was the democrats in the executive branch that mismanaged it into the clusterfark that we see today.

The bottom line is that this project has been funded for 21 months, and massive amounts of money have been dumped into it with no oversight. The initial decision not to give CGI Federal the IT specifications until after the 2012 elections was a failure on the part of thr administration, as was the decision to require users to fully complete the signup process to shop so that subsidies could be applied and the perception of "rate shock" avoided.

Just farking own it. If the democrats stepped up and said "we failed, but we are going to audit until we determine where and how we failed, and to ensure that we don't fail in the future" they would come off as farking heroes of government accountability. Instead, everyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala the republicans did this!"
 
2013-10-20 11:08:00 PM  
If there are problems, then it should be the job of the congressional committee to examine those problems, help craft solutions and then followup with their implementations pursuant to their oversight interests. Of course none of that will happen, since 1) these people think the internet is a "series of tubes" and 2) they're just looking for a chance to crucify Obama in absentia in front of a camera for their next campaign ad. Sad, really.
 
2013-10-20 11:14:02 PM  

Elegy: dumped into it with no oversight


Citation please.
 
2013-10-20 11:27:40 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*


Yes. 12 year olds are amazing.
 
2013-10-20 11:28:13 PM  

2wolves: Elegy: dumped into it with no oversight

Citation please.


Perhaps that's why the Congress wants to talk to Madam Secretary. Namely to find out what level of oversight was given to this fiasco and by whom. TFA said that it was the #2 Democrat Dick Durbin that wanted the senate hearings. Another senator made the not unreasonable comment that if she had time to make an appearance on The Daily Show to talk about it then she certainly has time to make an appearance in front of the Commerce Committee and do the same.
 
2013-10-20 11:29:01 PM  
lol
 
2013-10-20 11:29:37 PM  
Hey just because they can't properly design, capacity plan, stress test and implement redundancy for a web site like private sector companies do every single day, doesn't mean that can't be trusted to, you know, keep people alive*.

*I'm a liberal zombie and this is how I really "think."
 
2013-10-20 11:30:33 PM  

2wolves: Elegy: dumped into it with no oversight

Citation please.


Hahahahahaha.

Technically, you are correct: the Reuters article I linked quoted "Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group that analyzes government contracting," so the claim that there was no oversight is unprovable.

But considerer that the same article says this: the initial $93.7m contract awarded in December of 2011 was already reaching its spending limit in August of 2012, and the federal government subsequently dumped in "$27.7 million more in April, an additional $58 million in May and, in its latest outlay, $18.2 million in mid-September."

Saying there was no oversight is quite charitable, because the alternative is "criminally negligent."

Why did no one step in and say "guys, what the fark are you doing, maybe we need to stop and reconsider our approach to this problem before we dump another multimillion dollar payment into it?" The behavior reminds me of people at a casino, thinking that if they just dump some more money onto the table, maybe they'll hit it big.
 
2013-10-20 11:30:50 PM  

Piizzadude: The Numbers: Piizzadude: The Numbers: This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.

no its easy.

We pushed it out to get the ball rolling in case the GOP came after it again.

I am not saying its right, or any real answer at all, but there it is

Admitting that they knowingly induced significant inconvenience for the public for reasons of partisan politics? Yeah, that answer would get the Dems absolutely shredded.

Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.


Piizzadude: The Numbers: Piizzadude: The Numbers: This could get interesting. From what I've heard from people involved in the setup, it had been VERY obvious for quite some time that the site wouldn't be ready to go. If that comes out and the narrative becomes about why implementation wasn't delayed when it was the sensible thing to do in the circumstances, it really could be awkward to explain.

no its easy.

We pushed it out to get the ball rolling in case the GOP came after it again.

I am not saying its right, or any real answer at all, but there it is

Admitting that they knowingly induced significant inconvenience for the public for reasons of partisan politics? Yeah, that answer would get the Dems absolutely shredded.

Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.


And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see of the way this is shaping up, it won't be spinnable. To save face the Dems are likely to need the Republicans to massively over-react and muddy the waters with so much herp and derp that people lose track of the actual issue. I'm sure the Republicans will oblige.
 
2013-10-20 11:33:14 PM  
fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-10-20 11:34:14 PM  
Piizzadude:

Also, congrats on a post so good I quoted it twice :)
 
2013-10-20 11:36:10 PM  

Brick-House: Believing in Hope and Change
All rational thought lost.


yeah cynical nihlism ftw!!
 
2013-10-20 11:36:19 PM  
liberallogic101.com
 
2013-10-20 11:36:34 PM  

enik: Hey just because they can't properly design, capacity plan, stress test and implement redundancy for a web site like private sector companies do every single day, doesn't mean that can't be trusted to, you know, keep people alive*.

*I'm a liberal zombie and this is how I really "think."


Well, good thing the federal government isn't administering the health care, eh?  That's still left to private insurance companies.
 
2013-10-20 11:39:02 PM  
Well, this thread's gone full retard.
 
2013-10-20 11:39:20 PM  
Repbulicans: "Let's commit to a scorched earth policy on expanding health insurance in America."

Everyone: "I can't imagine why it is not working perfectly?"
 
2013-10-20 11:39:44 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-20 11:42:26 PM  

udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.


FTFY

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-10-20 11:45:52 PM  

Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 403x268]


Are you like 12 years old or something?
 
2013-10-20 11:48:14 PM  

Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY


Well you sure showed me there.

Now shut up and pass the bacon.
 
2013-10-20 11:49:50 PM  

nyseattitude: Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 403x268]

Are you like 12 years old or something?


Yep and I am pissed that you and Obama are happy to spend my money which I haven't even earned yet, and so's my baby brother!!!
 
2013-10-20 11:51:20 PM  
I am getting so sick of hearing the Republican's and the Tea Bagger's negativity.
 
2013-10-20 11:51:22 PM  

udhq: Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY

Well you sure showed me there.

Now shut up and pass the bacon.


beatricelevinsonnaturopath.com
 
2013-10-20 11:52:31 PM  
Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.

And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see ...


Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.
 
2013-10-20 11:54:22 PM  

enik: Hey just because they can't properly design, capacity plan, stress test and implement redundancy for a web site like private sector companies do every single day, doesn't mean that can't be trusted to, you know, keep people alive*.

*I'm a liberal zombie and this is how I really "think."


The ACA site got almost 5 million unique visits the first day it launched.

Can you cite a private sector company that has performed a launch of this magnitude successfully?
 
2013-10-20 11:55:08 PM  

Harry_Seldon: Repbulicans: "Let's commit to a scorched earth policy on expanding health insurance in America."

Everyone: "I can't imagine why it is not working perfectly?"


Fark Trolls: "We only care about costs and getting this thing to work properly and are not just cheer leading Issa holding yet another time and money wasting political fishing expedition".

Everyone else: *rolls eyes*
 
2013-10-20 11:55:54 PM  

Piizzadude: Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.

And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see ...

Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.


Oh yeah one more thing, you can count on the GOP to go full derptard and bail the Dems out. UNLESS they try to sweep it under the rug
 
2013-10-20 11:56:23 PM  
Welp, that's that thread then.

brickshiathouse.. this is an obama bashing thread. you are meant to try to kill the other kind
 
2013-10-20 11:59:44 PM  

red5ish: I am getting so sick of hearing the Republican's and the Tea Bagger's negativity.


Party of No = Nattering nabobs of negativism to the Nth degree.

They are like the illegitimate love children of Debby Downer and Buzz Killington only douchier.
 
2013-10-21 12:03:15 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Republicans holding hearings about everything Obamacare related? No way.


To be fair, while the SNAFU going on with the Obamacare signups, and the fact that the contractors and people in charge didn't do basic shiat like have someone load up the website and stress test it even with three damned years to prepare isn't  surprising to anyone that's worked with the government before... it's still entirely appropriate to call her into the boss's office and yell at her a bit for being incompetent.

Just because extreme incompetence is the norm for mid-level executive officials doesn't mean that it's not bad and worthy of reprimand.
 
2013-10-21 12:03:38 AM  

Brick-House: nyseattitude: Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 403x268]

Are you like 12 years old or something?

Yep and I am pissed that you and Obama are happy to spend my money which I haven't even earned yet, and so's my baby brother!!!


Ok, fair enough. However a statement like that makes it obvious you aren't familiar with the program or the mechanics of it.

Can I assume you are really upset over a trillion dollar (and counting) invasion of Iraq that was never budgeted and kept off the books?
 
2013-10-21 12:07:00 AM  

Brick-House: nyseattitude: Brick-House: udhq: Well, this thread's gone full retard Libtard.

FTFY

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 403x268]

Are you like 12 years old or something?

Yep and I am pissed that you and Obama are happy to spend my money which I haven't even earned yet, and so's my baby brother!!!


So I guess you're pretty at those guys that borrowed $6 trillion to pay for a tax cut during wartime, huh?
 
2013-10-21 12:09:45 AM  
They probably should have done a phased roll out and gone from there.
 
2013-10-21 12:13:00 AM  

red5ish: I am getting so sick of hearing the Republican's and the Tea Bagger's negativity.


Agreed!

They are like an endless nag that just biatchs to biatch and has no validity.

I typically donate to multiple parties annually (I know it's not a perfect system however it is what we have and I've been "undeclared" since I registered to vote) because I believe in democracy. Due to the actions of the Republican as a whole I've taken my Republican donations and given them to Democrats and Independents since 2008.
 
2013-10-21 12:16:34 AM  

Poppa Zit: Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.

It goes like this... Company A,B and C compete for a job.... the lowest bidder wins and as soon a the ink is dry... aahhh... we need more money to do this


Close.

A, B, and C compete. As soon as the ink is dry, the winner says, "Oh - you want people to be able to click on every option? Because in the Statement of Work that we wrote and you singed off on, the 1,000-page document that states every single step, it doesn't specifically state under every single one that they were all clickable. And there's the issue of links. The SoW doesn't state that a "link" must be linked. That's going to be extra work. Plus, you'll notice on Addendum A.1.g(2) that any addition to the Statement of Work must be negotiated, and the contractor has the right to stop work if negotiations indicate that the changes will be incompatible with current work objectives. So, it's up to you. Do we stop work or do you take what you get, and we'll sign an agreement that these items will be fixed after roll-out?"

Then in the "fix", the cycle continues, until there have been 3 or 4 rounds, then the Feds will hire another firm to clean up the ness, and they will do the same thing, and so on...
 
2013-10-21 12:17:13 AM  

Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.


In the other thread, you were attempting to compare this situation with Katrina - a disaster in which a great many people actually died.

For the rest of your life, any time you dare to call someone else "deranged" sensible people will laugh at you.
 
2013-10-21 12:18:20 AM  

epyonyx: They probably should have done a phased roll out and gone from there.


They should have done a soft launch.

A website getting as much traffic as it did on day one is pretty much unprecedented in the history of the internet, there's really no way it could have even really been known how the technology platform would react.
 
2013-10-21 12:20:45 AM  

Piizzadude: Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.

And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see ...

Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.


Uhg.. That is really hard to say without knowing exact details of the SOW. "Scope creep" or "scope change" can alter software project dramatically. To the point of having to start over sometimes and it's a complete nightmare from the aspect of a Software developer and all others involved.

www.lolbrary.com
 
2013-10-21 12:31:48 AM  

nyseattitude: Piizzadude: Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.

And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see ...

Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.

Uhg.. That is really hard to say without knowing exact details of the SOW. "Scope creep" or "scope change" can alter software project dramatically. To the point of having to start over sometimes and it's a complete nightmare from the aspect of a Software developer and all others involved.

[www.lolbrary.com image 350x429]


I call it feature creep.

Yeah your right, without the SoW I cannot know for sure, but just from running through it, I can make an educated guess.

CSB: I just entered a project for a government agency. The 3 guys before me sucked. I scrapped the thing and got done in 2 weeks what took them 3 months. /CSB

PS: I stole that graphic
 
2013-10-21 12:33:30 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*

Yeah, almost as hilarious General BetrayUs


No, that was an outrage. Fox News told me so.
 
2013-10-21 12:42:40 AM  

Piizzadude: nyseattitude: Piizzadude: Then you go with we had a deadline and it worked well during our testing. We know now that we should have done further testing and did not factor in he server load as much as we should have.

And you think that would be sufficient to explain away $200m in additional contract costs, tripling the original ceiling?

From what I can see ...

Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.

Uhg.. That is really hard to say without knowing exact details of the SOW. "Scope creep" or "scope change" can alter software project dramatically. To the point of having to start over sometimes and it's a complete nightmare from the aspect of a Software developer and all others involved.

[www.lolbrary.com image 350x429]

I call it feature creep.

Yeah your right, without the SoW I cannot know for sure, but just from running through it, I can make an educated guess.

CSB: I just entered a project for a government agency. The 3 guys before me sucked. I scrapped the thing and got done in 2 weeks what took them 3 months. /CSB

PS: I stole that graphic


"Feature creep"? Nub ;)

From an inside development standpoint a "feature" example would be "the blue screen of death" or some other result that is unintended.

Use this one instead, it's much better
www.a2zmenu.com
 
2013-10-21 12:44:17 AM  

BMulligan: Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.

In the other thread, you were attempting to compare this situation with Katrina - a disaster in which a great many people actually died.

For the rest of your life, any time you dare to call someone else "deranged" sensible people will laugh at you.


Show me where I compared the launch to Katrina, please.

The eye of Katrina went past 15 miles west of my apartment. I would would never, ever make that comparison.
 
2013-10-21 12:47:23 AM  

Elegy: Technically, you are correct: the Reuters article I linked quoted "Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group that analyzes government contracting," so the claim that there was no oversight is unprovable.


"unprovable" you mean "complete bullshiat". If they mention an "oversight group" then it has farking oversite. How is that hard for you to understand?
 
2013-10-21 12:49:03 AM  

BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*

Yes. 12 year olds are amazing.


Welcome to fark.jpg
 
2013-10-21 12:53:43 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

I see you're not familiar with the Federal contracting process.


"Lowest bidder" is not in this person's vocabulary. If the government had paid the experts they needed they money demanded to achieve the perfection this "BizarreMan" seems to believe should be, that cost would run into the gajillions of dollars, and then "BizarreMan" and those like him would be b*tching and crying like little pissbabies that the government spent too much money.

There's no win with these people. F*ck'em.
 You get what you pay for. It will be fixed.
 
2013-10-21 12:56:26 AM  
It was probably a bad decision to hire the same team that did the Orca project for Romney/Ryan 2012.


/You remember Orca? it was supposed to work like Acorn, but without the N.getting involved
 
2013-10-21 01:02:13 AM  

cirby: Peter von Nostrand:
If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
BHO, 2009


He is the master of cruel irony, repeating what W said in 2004.
 
2013-10-21 01:03:44 AM  

Corvus: Elegy: Technically, you are correct: the Reuters article I linked quoted "Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group that analyzes government contracting," so the claim that there was no oversight is unprovable.

"unprovable" you mean "complete bullshiat". If they mention an "oversight group" then it has farking oversite. How is that hard for you to understand?


I just said it's bullshiat quote. That's what "the claim that there was no oversight is unprovable" means.

How is that hard for you to understand?
 
2013-10-21 01:16:56 AM  

nyseattitude: Can I assume you are really upset over a trillion dollar (and counting) invasion of Iraq that was never budgeted and kept off the books?


mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com

I'm sure he is. He probably wrote the famous alliteration for Move On.org too.
 
2013-10-21 01:22:43 AM  
Congress:  What have you been doing the last three years?
Sebelius:  Trying like mad to get a complex nationwide health care exchange set up, a job that is made more difficult by your 42 attempts to repeal the law, your choking off of funds needed to implement and advertise the exchange, your blocking of political appointees needed to fill leadership positions in my department, and your austerity doctrine that prevents me from hiring the people I need.  And oh yeah, your governors refused to set up their own exchanges because they were afraid that Vladimir Putin would kill grandma.  Despite all of your efforts to fark us, we still managed to roll out enough of a system so that hundreds of thousands of people now have health insurance.
Congress:  What do you know about Benghazi?
 
2013-10-21 01:28:38 AM  

Elegy: Cpl.D: Elegy: Lotta republican derangement syndrome in this thread.

I swear, some of you are just as bad about blaming the republicans for something they had nothing to do with as the teatards are about blaming Obama for everything.

Just own the failure already.

So the republicans slashing the budget for this by 4/5ths has nothing to do with anything?

You got a source for that buddy? Said source will have to show that such funding shenanigans occurred within the past two years.

Unfortunately for you, I do have sources:
CGI Federal originally received the $93.7m contract in November of 2011. According to the ultraconservative, teatard owned news service known as "The New York Times",the administration didn't pass along the IT specifications until early 2013 for political reasons; they didn't want to release them before the 2012 election cycle. By around April of 2013 the administration realized the site wasn't going to be ready in time and started dumping money into the project with virtually no oversight, at which point costs tripled.

And it's not just the front end that sucks - the back end is buggered all to hell too. The latest wrinkle is that the system is passing along bunk data to the insurers. Which, in case you weren't aware, is going to create an unholy mess that is going to be hell to clean up and fix.

There might have been some initial chicanery about the budget from the republicans; that I will grant you. But that happened more than two years ago; the immediate problems stem from the direct decisions of the Obama administration, and it was the democrats in the executive branch that mismanaged it into the clusterfark that we see today.

The bottom line is that this project has been funded for 21 months, and massive amounts of money have been dumped into it with no oversight. The initial decision not to give CGI Federal the IT specifications until after the 2012 elections was a failure on the part of thr administration, as was the decision to requir ...


Clearly it's the first software project in the history of ever to exceed its projected budget and fail to deliver expected functionality on day 1.  And of course, this would never happen in the private sector.  Why, take the bank that I work for: I'm just 4 years into a 2 year project and we've only spent 35 million of our project 8 million dollar budget, and nearly half of the promised functionality is working without defect.
 
2013-10-21 01:40:37 AM  
So after 4 years of doing everything possible to make the ACA fail, the Republicans want to know why the roll-out is a little clunky? It's like taking the tires off of a car and wondering why it doesn't drive very well.
 
2013-10-21 01:52:48 AM  
So maybe we should have had some discussions in Congress about getting a functional website running instead of voting 42 times to repeal or defund the program, eh?
 
2013-10-21 01:58:07 AM  

Triple Oak: So maybe we should have had some discussions in Congress about getting a functional website running instead of voting 42 times to repeal or defund the program, eh?


Don't be ridiculous. This Congress is not about solving problems, but creating or exacerbating them.
 
2013-10-21 02:18:30 AM  

Triple Oak: So maybe we should have had some discussions in Congress about getting a functional website running instead of........

i.imgur.com


42 TIMES.

/best part....forever
 
2013-10-21 02:27:34 AM  

super_grass: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: +1 subby.

Shefailedus....*snert*

Yes. 12 year olds are amazing.

Welcome to fark.jpg


Your weird shtick account should be better than this.

/use names you dumb farks.  It's literally the least you lazy bags of cum can do
//If you think it's clever to not, eat bullets.
///EIP I'll farking feed them to you dumb assholes
 
2013-10-21 02:38:02 AM  
The only reason republicans are fixated on this law is because some hyperspastic reporting from Fox got enough people off their couches long enough to make a shortlived hooplah.  Desperate for any signs of life within their party, republicans will remain fixated until given something else to get excited about.
 
2013-10-21 02:42:13 AM  
Look over there!  Lets take God out of the pledge of allegiance.  : )
 
2013-10-21 02:44:23 AM  
SheFailedus?

Really?

I'm quite frustrated with the exchange website myself. And livid that paying more money to private insurers is considered reform.

But I'm done. I'm too embarrassed to say that I read this website, and then for people to see that this is the kind of joint it is. It's been a good 10 years on this site. The last of them have been a literal tea party, though. Seeya.
 
2013-10-21 03:56:03 AM  
You realize that at this point, the remaining people opposing Obamacare are the mentally ill?
 
2013-10-21 04:04:38 AM  
You know what really annoys me about this whole thread? The Federal government has a massive call center operation that is working just fine. Having trouble using the website? Apply by phone. Average wait time? One minute.

I know, Millenials, talking to a person might be the end of the world.
 
2013-10-21 04:16:02 AM  

Harry_Seldon: You know what really annoys me about this whole thread? The Federal government has a massive call center operation that is working just fine. Having trouble using the website? Apply by phone. Average wait time? One minute.

I know, Millenials, talking to a person might be the end of the world.


They don't publicize that enough.  I literally did not know that was an option until I saw your post.  It's not just a call centre for all the blue-hairs where someone making $7.25 clicks on things on the website for you?

If it's actually a useful service, a message on the "our website is broken" page in biggest font saying "In a hurry?  Try our toll-free number at 800-OBAMACARE instead!" would have gone a very long way.
 
2013-10-21 04:27:44 AM  

Corvus: "unprovable" you mean "complete bullshiat". If they mention an "oversight group" then it has farking oversite. How is that hard for you to understand?


The Project on Government Oversight is not oversight. They report on how well or how poorly internal government oversight is working and other problems.

Their mission statement:

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

Sebelius isn't oversight, one can't manage a program and also be the objective outside observer with power to make changes when it's on the wrong track because she probably wouldn't be able to see it because she would be too close to it (the whole you can't see the forest for the trees thing). For example the CBO would be one form of official oversight. The Commerce Committee would also be a form of oversight although they are more of an after the fact form of it, but pretty much nobody in the DHHS can be considered to have oversight.
 
2013-10-21 04:40:25 AM  
Am not gonna get into the why and wherefore's of Congresses latest escapades concerning the Affordable Care Act. Just gonna repeat what I have said on other threads on other sites.

The Affordable Care Act is based on the very successful program instituted by then Governor then Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

This health care law was so successful that President Obama decided to expand it, as to be available to All Americans in need of affordable health care.

Program good when a Republican was involved; program bad when a Democratic President (whose minority origins have never been accepted by many Conservatives) attempts to put it into effect.

The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.

The fact that many of those forced to use the ER as the source of their medical treatment are at or below the poverty level, means that they cannot afford to pay the bills incurred. That cost is passed on to those of us who Do have insurance.

For all the screaming about "Death Panels", please consider, your Private Insurance Company has been doing that for years. Denying care based on their actuary tables and spreadsheets. Profits uber alles. (sp?)

Case in point, I received a call from the HMO which pays for my treatments. Their accountants had determined that they were no longer going to pay for the medications I was taking; which worked quite nicely, because of the cost. When I inquired about the medical expertise of the person who made this decision for me, I found that they had none.

Basically they gave me a list of generic meds, told me to tell the doctor I was seeing, just tape it to a cork board, throw a dart at the list and prescribe the one that the dart hit. IF, after 30 days, it didn't work, they would allow my doctor to return me to the meds which were proven to work for me.

This particular med was a psychotropic used to treat my mood swings and depression. It kept me calm, rational and able to function in any social setting.

At the end of the 30 day "test run" people were tiptoeing around me, afraid, standing as far away from me as they could get, ready to bolt at a moments notice. Needless to say I was put back on my original meds.

All of this simply because my treatment was costing the HMO a few dollars extra a month.

The "Death Panels" people are scared of, is a committee of Medical Specialists who are Forbidden by law to take part in decision making of any type, in regards to medical treatment. Their job is to Advise Congress on changes that can or should be made to make the process work better. It is then the job of CONGRESS to vote yea or nay on these recommendations. They will not be putting Grandma out to the curb.

And Finally (aren't you glad?), Consider, the Politicians and Their Supporters who wish to deny health coverage to FORTY NINE MILLION Americans are the one's who have the Best Health Care OUR tax money can buy.

/have several family members with chronic conditions, which can/will possibly kill them
//under the rules that the ACA is trying to correct, they are not eligible for health insurance
///hard to stay alive without proper medical treatments and affordable medications
////long winded, yes, me needing to say it, you decide
//Farking politics. No One in America should have to do without health care
 
2013-10-21 04:47:53 AM  

sambluesnark: Am not gonna get into the why and wherefore's of Congresses latest escapades concerning the Affordable Care Act. Just gonna repeat what I have said on other threads on other sites.

The Affordable Care Act is based on the very successful program instituted by then Governor then Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

This health care law was so successful that President Obama decided to expand it, as to be available to All Americans in need of affordable health care.

Program good when a Republican was involved; program bad when a Democratic President (whose minority origins have never been accepted by many Conservatives) attempts to put it into effect.

The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.

The fact that many of those forced to use the ER as the source of their medical treatment are at or below the poverty level, means that they cannot afford to pay the bills incurred. That cost is passed on to those of us who Do have insurance.

For all the screaming about "Death Panels", please consider, your Private Insurance Company has been doing that for years. Denying care based on their actuary tables and spreadsheets. Profits uber alles. (sp?)

Case in point, I received a call from the HMO which pays for my treatments. Their accountants had determined that they were no longer going to pay for the medications I was taking; which worked quite nicely, because of the cost. When I inquired about the medical expertise of the person who made this decision for me, I found that they had none.

Basically they gave me a list of generic meds, told me to tell the doctor I was seeing, just tape it to a cork board, throw a dart at the list and prescribe the one that the dart hit. IF, ...


I would have loved to see comment you would have wrote off your meds :->
 
2013-10-21 04:53:05 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Republicans holding hearings about everything Obamacare related? No way.


Compounding the problem is the administration's refusal to delay the law's unfair individual mandate, therefore subjecting Americans to a requirement to purchase insurance despite the exchanges' numerous problems, including unaffordable health insurance premiums and significant security risks. (.pdf)


Going to be tons of new ground covered at these hearings, let me tell you what.


Your not actually required to use the exchange. Your just required to buy insurance, the exchange is just one convenient (or not) way to do so. Many states have setup their own exchanges, but for the ones who haven't people are stuck with this federal exchange or buying on the open market.
 
2013-10-21 04:53:35 AM  
Phone number is on the damned front page of the website.
 
2013-10-21 04:57:43 AM  
I heard Sebelius isn't even A+ certified. clearly this computer issue is all her fault.
 
2013-10-21 05:31:07 AM  

sambluesnark: The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.


To be quite honest, if they can't afford to see a doctor on their own then they shouldn't be living.
 
2013-10-21 05:34:48 AM  

Piizzadude: [blog.thebrickfactory.com image 581x480]

Just putting this here for my own self enjoyment, it in no way reflects on your statement


It's a series of TUBES! TANGLED UP TUBES!
 
2013-10-21 05:40:21 AM  
Well, guess this whole government thing isn't working. Better throw it away and start over.
 
2013-10-21 05:54:31 AM  
Basically they gave me a list of generic meds, told me to tell the doctor I was seeing, just tape it to a cork board, throw a dart at the list and prescribe the one that the dart hit. IF, ...

I would have loved to see comment you would have wrote off your meds :->

True story...After I retired I took the advice that is always given....."You're still young, you're still active, find something to do outside the house, Don't sit around."

The only skills I had outside of my career was delivery driver and some counter sales.
Went to work for one of the Big Box Auto Parts Stores here in town.
Sometimes after the delivery hours had past, I would work the counters until close.
Due to biology, my condition was no longer responding to the meds I had been on and they were changing my scripts.

An unforeseen fark up caused me to be off the reservation medicine wise for a month.

One night just before closing time, the doors come slamming open and a man comes stomping in.."Razzle frazzle @@##@!!!..fark fark,"
He states "I've just come from your competitor up the street and That Boy down there couldn't help me with what I need!! I stood there hollering and screaming and he just couldn't get things right! Am I gonna have the same problem with you?"

Being as I was about 5-10 years older than this "gentleman" it was an interesting way to open the conversation.

I leaned on the counter as he came still stomping toward me; and said "First of all, I ain't no Boy. Second of all, do you know what a psychotropic is?" He came to a very quick stop and stared at me, nodding his head. I continued, "I am supposed to be on one right now, but because of a fark up, I've been off of them for a month." He was not moving or talking, just watching me, as I continued; "as a result, I've been wound up real tight for the last 30 days, and if something goes wrong and sets me off, why I just don't know which way I'm gonna come down."
I waved him up to the counter, "Now, we are gonna have a nice Quiet, Adult conversation, and I am either going to be able to help you, and you'll buy what you need, and leave, or I won't be able to help you, in which case you will leave. But there Will be No shouting or screaming."
Several minutes of polite discussion later, it was determined that his problem was not something we were equipped to deal with.
As he turned to leave, I remarked, "See, it is possible to behave like adults and have a nice quiet conversation isn't it?"
He never raised his head as he went out the door,

/don't recall ever seeing him in the store ever again
//didn't affect the profits for the day or what sleep I got that night
///the new meds kicked right in and I've been good ever since
////my coworker never said a work, never batted an eye
 
2013-10-21 06:23:24 AM  

evil saltine: sambluesnark: The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.

To be quite honest, if they can't afford to see a doctor on their own then they shouldn't be living.


Well you certainly live up to the "evil" in your user name, won't comment on the cracker,though.

I worked in Emergency Response for 25 years, as a Firefighter/EMT. Many was the night.often cold and wet when I would have to get up out of a nice warm bed in a nice warm Engine House and go scrape some poor unfortunate up of the street or carry them down a flight or 6 of stairs and deliver them to the Emergency Room.

The patients that were involved in accidents Generally had health insurance, but not always. Any idea what sort of bills having a full blown Trauma Team giving it a full court press trying to save you generates? It Ain't cheap.

For many of the people we had to evaluate, stabilize and transport for non accidental reasons, many did Not have insurance, but they received the same quality of care as those who did. And the cost of their treatment is the same.

Doctors on a Trauma Team don't worry about money that the patient may or may not have. They're too busy trying to save some poor soul.

And even With insurance many patients found themselves bankrupt and destitute by the end of the day.

Those without insurance started out a whole lot closer to that line.

 And most of the time, the reason we were there was because they had no insurance and the ER was the best last hope they had. They were unable to see a regular doctor on a regular basis. If they could have, they wouldn't have needed me.

And as to your comment about "shouldn't be living" please pay Very Close Attention.

Several years ago it was determined that the "average American household" was 6 months of pay checks away from financial disaster.
Then it dropped to 3 months.
Now it can be just as little as a paycheck or two away from losing everything you have. House, car, food, water. And Health Insurance.

I truly hope, for your sake, that you never find yourself in that situation.
But if you do, you should just remember your sentiment on the subject and keep your mouth closed as one of your children suffers from not being able to seek adequate Affordable treatment
 
2013-10-21 06:29:22 AM  

evil saltine: sambluesnark: The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.

To be quite honest, if they can't afford to see a doctor on their own then they shouldn't be living.


Well, at least we know what Ron Paul's Fark username is now...

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-10-21 06:38:08 AM  

keylock71: evil saltine: sambluesnark: The ACA will give FORTY NINE MILLION Americans who are either uninsured or under insured the opportunity to finally actually be able to see a doctor on a Regular basis; as opposed to waiting until the last minute and going to the Emergency Room for treatment for conditions that regular preventative medical screenings can, well, prevent.

To be quite honest, if they can't afford to see a doctor on their own then they shouldn't be living.

Well, at least we know what Ron Paul's Fark username is now...

*rolls eyes*


He's obviously being sarcastic.

Unless you are referencing a fark user by the name of

*ROLLS EYES*

/cheers
//It's Happening?
 
2013-10-21 06:38:19 AM  
Empty hot air and political theater. Let the Goppers have a good, public cry. They'll feel boner.
I mean "better".
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-21 06:44:41 AM  

jso2897: Empty hot air and political theater. Let the Goppers have a good, public cry. They'll feel boner.
I mean "better".
[i18.photobucket.com image 413x413]


Seems like they've been a bunch of soppy vaginas since 2009... I doubt they're ever going to feel better, at this point.

Well, maybe when a old white guy is president again, but only if he's a Republican, I suppose.
 
2013-10-21 06:55:09 AM  

keylock71: jso2897: Empty hot air and political theater. Let the Goppers have a good, public cry. They'll feel boner.
I mean "better".
[i18.photobucket.com image 413x413]

Seems like they've been a bunch of soppy vaginas since 2009... I doubt they're ever going to feel better, at this point.

Well, maybe when a old white guy is president again, but only if he's a Republican, I suppose.


The fact that you suggest that it is even remotely possible that any of the blind, stubborn, mindless, inexplicable hostility to President Obama has even the most microscopic racial component makes you a self-loathing anti-white racist.
Stop picking on the REAL victims of racism!
 
2013-10-21 07:14:54 AM  
what's the big deal, i just went to the website and was able to view 12 different plans that apply to me, without having to sign up for anything, in about 3 minutes.
 
2013-10-21 07:18:32 AM  

Gunther: ThunderPelvis: Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days

When Sim City's launch failed so badly that people couldn't play the game they bought for a couple of weeks it was a publicity disaster for EA, one of the factors that lead to them getting voted "worst company in America" in a Consumerist poll.

Pointing out that the Government bungled the Obamacare rollout is a valid criticism. It's freaking rare to see a valid criticism from the modern GOP, but you know the saying about stopped clocks.


The difference is the government gets rewarded when it screws up.

Thats how socialism works - rewards failure and penalizes success. Eventually, all you get is failure.

Money is just being thrown at this failure now.
 
2013-10-21 07:25:51 AM  

SlothB77: Gunther: ThunderPelvis: Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days

When Sim City's launch failed so badly that people couldn't play the game they bought for a couple of weeks it was a publicity disaster for EA, one of the factors that lead to them getting voted "worst company in America" in a Consumerist poll.

Pointing out that the Government bungled the Obamacare rollout is a valid criticism. It's freaking rare to see a valid criticism from the modern GOP, but you know the saying about stopped clocks.

The difference is the government gets rewarded when it screws up.

Thats how socialism works - rewards failure and penalizes success. Eventually, all you get is failure.

Money is just being thrown at this failure now.


Dogs bark - but the caravan move on.
 
2013-10-21 07:33:47 AM  

Shvetz: BizarreMan: It's obvious what she's been doing.  She's been collecting a pay check.

I realize that the Federal Insurance Exchange is a big website with lots of intricacies.  But look at Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.  They never had the issues that this site did and there should be enough people out there with experience to make it work.

They didn't have everybody try to sign up all on the same day, and they also have much bigger budgets for their web sites. The "failure" with Obamacare is that so many people want/need it. It's like claiming the latest iPhone is a failure if the stores run out of them in the first week of sales.


None of that is true.
 
2013-10-21 07:36:16 AM  

Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.


Thatis inherent in the "gov ernment cant do anything right" argument. The website wont be the only thing not implemented well.
 
2013-10-21 07:40:25 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

If you live in a world where everything has to be a win for one side, yes


Well, the media is blaming republicans for the website, so we at least live in a world where someone has to be blamed.
 
2013-10-21 07:51:34 AM  
I imagine they were dealing with a hard deadline and part of it is they just released whatever they had.

If they knew it was going to be so bad, they had no business releasing it.
 
2013-10-21 07:56:17 AM  

PanicMan: BMFPitt: So she'll just come down with a case of Congressional oversight amnesia?

Or just a passive-aggressive, "Fark you, what are you going to do about it?"

Pretty much every answer should be  "Congress mandated it to be this way and left almost nothing in my control.  This is all your fault."


So the second one, then.

What should they say when they point out that the phrase "The HHS Secretary shall determine..." appears a few hundred times, some of them relating to the clusterfark we've seen with what is possibly the most expensive website ever?
 
2013-10-21 08:22:49 AM  
She should testify and troll them. "We'll we thought we could get by with only 12 redux inverters, but it kept overdrawing the fundamental backplane and overheating the transmit layer." "So you're saying it could have been prevented if the administration hadn't failed you." "Indeed sir. In fact, we had 8 more inverters we procured from Israel stored at the Benghazi compound, and we all know how *that* turned out, lol, amIright?"

Really though just buy the programmers a 24 of beer and wait an hour, and they'll be perfectly happy to tell you right where to lay the blame.
 
2013-10-21 08:24:10 AM  
So people need to pay their first premium before their coverage starts, and pay every month.

What happens if they cannot make a payment on time? What happens when they can't pay at all?
 
2013-10-21 08:36:26 AM  

finaboy: So people need to pay their first premium before their coverage starts, and pay every month.

What happens if they cannot make a payment on time? What happens when they can't pay at all?


In general low income folks get substantial subsidies for  their insurance, so if you make little money, you only have to pay very little.
 
2013-10-21 08:51:51 AM  

AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: AkaDad: skullkrusher: Delay: skullkrusher: if no one joins because they aren't interested or it isn't implemented well, I'd imagine that would lend credence to their attacks.

No, that's not what I mean. If the GOP would have claimed that folks would not join because the website was not implemented well, the Republicans could have scored. But that was never their argument. The Republicans claimed the Affordable Care Act killed jobs and was Socialism.

See? They were stupid.

huh? If the implementation of ACA sucks, that isn't a political win for Republicans?

When people vote they're going to remember that the Republicans shutdown the government, not how the ACA website wasn't implemented properly, so their small win is basically irrelevant.

neither of those things have anything to do with the other but yes, you are correct

So, political victories and losses have no bearing on elections?

no, whether a rollout failure is a win for the GOP has nothing to do with whether they'll be remembered for shutting down the government. Both are possible and not exclusive.

My point was that their small victory on the ACA wont come close to making up for them shutting down the government. Wouldn't you agree?

sure. In fact, I have already said you were correct.

By constantly playing devils advocate, it's hard to tell with you. It sometimes seems like you take sides just to argue.


This is why I have him farkied as "reasonable sarcastical"
 
2013-10-21 08:52:30 AM  
All members of congress should have to get their health care from this website.
 
2013-10-21 08:57:01 AM  

BalugaJoe: All members of congress should have to get their health care from this website.


It would be hilarious to watch them try to buy insurance on Fark, it would certainly liven up the politics tab.
 
2013-10-21 09:24:08 AM  

Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.


i assume you're a big supporter of obamacare and are upset that its rollout has been plagued with website issues, yes?
 
2013-10-21 09:31:16 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Perhaps that's why the Congress wants to talk to Madam Secretary. Namely to find out what level of oversight was given to this fiasco and by whom. TFA said that it was the #2 Democrat Dick Durbin that wanted the senate hearings. Another senator made the not unreasonable comment that if she had time to make an appearance on The Daily Show to talk about it then she certainly has time to make an appearance in front of the Commerce Committee and do the same.


You realize that's not how linear passage of time works, right.  The fact you have time for something scheduled on a Tuesday doesn't mean your entire Thursday is empty and free when someone asks you do something on Wednesday.

Piizzadude: Nope it it will not explain away jack. People will get their asses handed to them. And they should with budget overruns like that

Give me 2 years and 50M I can have that sucker done.


You don't have two years.  And wake me up when they start caring about billion dollar overruns on Pentagon programs.
 
2013-10-21 09:38:21 AM  
At least the Powerball still works.
 
2013-10-21 09:45:50 AM  

FlashHarry: Elegy: Good. Heads need to roll.

i assume you're a big supporter of obamacare and are upset that its rollout has been plagued with website issues, yes?


Yes, as a matter of fact.
 
2013-10-21 09:50:29 AM  
Shefailedus

This is Yahoo comments-level humor. I'm embarrassed for everyone involved. Don't put this one on your resume, FARK.
 
2013-10-21 09:54:41 AM  
They took down Facebook as well.
 
2013-10-21 09:55:39 AM  

Clever Neologism: I am a software engineer, so I am getting a kick, etc.


As a software engineer, you would be even more horrified by the public code and some of the private code that has leaked than most people.  It's really bad, man.  It looks a lot like if when I'd just started programming someone had handed me a document saying, "Create a Federal Exchange website hooking to disparate sources!"  At least a few of the people doing it didn't understand the basics of programming, much less any of the other considerations you've pointed out.  I'm not one to blame the programmers, because I understand quite well how things like this come about (e.g. I created an awful, demon of a processing site once when I was given ten peoples' work, 1/10th the time to do it, no requisite funding, specs that changed repeatedly (huge specs changing the day before launch!) and no managerial backup -- I know some tasks are actually impossible), but this is going to end up being in classes in school on what "not to do."

I hope people don't miss perhaps the most important point there you made, though -- integrating with disparate data sources is hard work.  It's what I end up spending about 25% of my time on nowadays, because I spent so long dealing with ridiculously bad systems and needing to talk to them that it's become second nature.  I now have the leisure of dealing with those types of things in a sensible time frame, and kicking down doors when I need responses I can't get.  I don't imagine the people working on this site have that ability, and thus I imagine they were trying to do something that is just technically unfeasible.  Either way, this is important enough that someone should have been kicking those doors down.

This is _not_ a load issue.  Flat out, no way in hell is it related to load.  I don't believe there were any use or edge cases tested.
 
2013-10-21 09:57:52 AM  

Harry_Seldon: You know what really annoys me about this whole thread? The Federal government has a massive call center operation that is working just fine. Having trouble using the website? Apply by phone. Average wait time? One minute.

I know, Millenials, talking to a person might be the end of the world.


Good point. But Republicans have been actively telling young people NOT to sign up. So they should be thrilled that the website isn't working well.
 
2013-10-21 10:10:49 AM  
Im sure they are getting a great deal of adverse selection.
 
2013-10-21 10:16:52 AM  

SlothB77: etc.


Man, you're way too late to this threat to start trolling now.

/B for effort though
 
2013-10-21 10:17:33 AM  

Russ Feingold's Brass Balls: SlothB77: etc.

Man, you're way too late to this threatd to start trolling now.

/B for effort though


It's entirely too early in the morning to be spelling correctly.

/fetches coffee
 
2013-10-21 10:44:01 AM  

BalugaJoe: All members of congress should have to get their health care from this website.


Why should they? Congress gets it's insurance from their employer, just like I do.
Problem?
 
2013-10-21 11:07:25 AM  

BalugaJoe: All members of congress should have to get their health care from this website.


They do, as explicitly required by law. Their staffs, too.

Technically the President and Vice President, too, but that's kind of silly as they have their own full-time White House medical staff.
 
2013-10-21 11:14:00 AM  
fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart fart
 
2013-10-21 11:55:10 AM  
C+P'ed:
Let's review:
They scheduled on Friday, 10/18 afternoon a meeting on Thursday, 10/24, without consulting anyone they wanted to attend.
Since she was on the Daily Show on 10/7, Republicans immediately whined on Twitter that she had time for it and not their hearings.
They're complaining that because they had time for a television interview TWO farkING WEEKS before they even scheduled this hearing she should have time for the hearing.
 
2013-10-21 11:57:05 AM  

FitzShivering: Clever Neologism: I am a software engineer, so I am getting a kick, etc.

As a software engineer, you would be even more horrified by the public code and some of the private code that has leaked than most people.  It's really bad, man.  It looks a lot like if when I'd just started programming someone had handed me a document saying, "Create a Federal Exchange website hooking to disparate sources!"  At least a few of the people doing it didn't understand the basics of programming, much less any of the other considerations you've pointed out.  I'm not one to blame the programmers, because I understand quite well how things like this come about (e.g. I created an awful, demon of a processing site once when I was given ten peoples' work, 1/10th the time to do it, no requisite funding, specs that changed repeatedly (huge specs changing the day before launch!) and no managerial backup -- I know some tasks are actually impossible), but this is going to end up being in classes in school on what "not to do."


Probably so.  Not to mention the fact that the external systems they are hitting are just as bad, if not worse.  The only problems I experiences directly was slowness and the website saying "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that, because I'm doing it for 1000s of other people right now" message.  I can only speculate as to what I have directly seen.  It's really quite disturbing the code I see.  People still using global variables, etc.

I hope people don't miss perhaps the most important point there you made, though -- integrating with disparate data sources is hard work.  It's what I end up spending about 25% of my time on nowadays, because I spent so long dealing with ridiculously bad systems and needing to talk to them that it's become second nature.  I now have the leisure of dealing with those types of things in a sensible time frame, and kicking down doors when I need responses I can't get.  I don't imagine the people working on this site have that ability, and thus I imagine they were trying to do something that is just technically unfeasible.  Either way, this is important enough that someone should have been kicking those doors down.

The government shutdown probably didn't help.  Considering that many of the systems involved were not owned by HHS, not to mention the fact that people higher up that could have gotten heads rolling were probably concerned with bigger issues, like keeping their critical services open, I'm surprised anything was able to be fixed at all in two weeks.

This is _not_ a load issue.  Flat out, no way in hell is it related to load.  I don't believe there were any use or edge cases tested.

The problems I experienced were.  I can't speak to others, as I did not experience them.  Being a developer, I have learned that speculation about reported and unverified issues has negative utility, and that's *without* the possibility of willfully malicious bogosity.

I'll bet you they used Agile, had very little design effort, etc.
 
2013-10-21 12:18:23 PM  

rewind2846: BalugaJoe: All members of congress should have to get their health care from this website.

Why should they? Congress gets it's insurance from their employer, just like I do.
Problem?


The GOP proposed a law forcing Congress to use the exchanges, planning to embarrass Democrats for voting against it.

Instead the Dems said, "OK".

So the Reps and Senators and their staff have to use the exchanges.

But the right wingers, including FOX and the Wall Street Journal, are still spreading the lie that Congress is exempt from Obamacare.
 
2013-10-21 12:58:48 PM  

Piizzadude: Can the Dems start yelling BENGAZHI!!! just to throw a distraction out there for a week or so?

Crap happens with any major launch


I kind of wish they would turn this around on them, start looking into who cut the funding for embassy security, call for an investigation, see how quickly Benghazi stops being a scandal when they try to hold someone who actually could be held responsible for it.
 
2013-10-21 01:55:43 PM  

ThunderPelvis: The bugs will get worked out. Christ, the biggest game companies crash their servers on launch days, not sure why the supposedly incompetent federal government is expected to do better than the almighty free market.

Ohhh, right. BECAUSE OBAMA.


This isn't some launch day glitch. We're on week two of fail. This is like being forced to buy SimCity and then be required to login but you can't get logged in. And if you're not logged in by January you're going to start getting fined.

But sure - launch glitch because.... hope.
 
2013-10-21 02:27:18 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: C+P'ed:
Let's review:
They scheduled on Friday, 10/18 afternoon a meeting on Thursday, 10/24, without consulting anyone they wanted to attend.
Since she was on the Daily Show on 10/7, Republicans immediately whined on Twitter that she had time for it and not their hearings.
They're complaining that because they had time for a television interview TWO farkING WEEKS before they even scheduled this hearing she should have time for the hearing.


And Stewart did a better job of grilling her than they will, anyway.
 
2013-10-21 03:41:31 PM  

Clever Neologism: I'll bet you they used Agile, had very little design effort, etc.


I can't really say much (other than I hate all things Agile, for the most part), here.  When I was doe-eyed and new I figured most programs were well designed and it was just the "crappy people" who did a bad job.  Having now seen the source for a great many commonly used large programs and websites, I'm relatively sure 99% of everything out there is poorly designed.

And having designed a few things under impossible deadlines and without the requisite information, I know why.  I still maintain a system I wrote back in mid 2000s that had >2000 changes of scope (as defined in the original document) over the first year or two -- it is the hackiest ball of shiat ever written, despite the fact to the end users its some magical panacea that solves most their problems.

I pity the poor soul who works on it after I die.

/I retroactively apologized in the comments quite a few times
//and recommended suicide if dealing with certain parts
///seriously, may be the worst written program in history
 
Displayed 282 of 282 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report