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 (43 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 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?
 
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