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  
•       •       •

3230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Oct 2013 at 6:40 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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??
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report