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.

(NPR)   You will be shocked to learn that the problems with healthcare.gov were caused by politicians, not programmers   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious, obamacare, meltdown, stages, Ezekiel Emanuel, exchange program  
•       •       •

4028 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-22 08:14:19 AM  
According to programmers interviewed for the story "the needful was failed to be done and requirements not clear site must actually work"
 
2013-10-22 08:21:06 AM  
Lots of blame to spread around. Certainly all the republitards fighting tooth and nail to kill the ACA did not help matters. I cringed when I heard Obama say something along the lines of, "Nobody is more pissed off than I am. So it will get fixed." So very naive.... Don't make promises you cannot keep. As if a pissed-off POTUS could quickly fix a bloated mismanaged underfunded disorganized unfinished software project that went live too early.
 
2013-10-22 08:22:29 AM  
Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.
 
2013-10-22 08:26:03 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.
 
2013-10-22 08:33:54 AM  
FTFA: When it became clear that to build the federal exchange than had been allocated in the original law, Republicans in Congress refused to provide it.

Didn't they reduce funding for Embassy security before Benghazi, too?

Hmmmm.
 
2013-10-22 08:36:10 AM  
"The administration bent over backward to accommodate the states; the administration begged states to cooperate"

Yep, and those that did are running just fine, keep that in mind when listening to the media narrative.
 
2013-10-22 08:41:19 AM  
Fits the standard MO:

1/. Break government.
2/. Complain government is broken.
 
2013-10-22 08:41:59 AM  
They couldn't stop F5ing?
 
2013-10-22 08:42:10 AM  
I know there are a several NPR haters out here but that was a really good segment.
 
2013-10-22 08:45:01 AM  
FTFA: But much of that time was spent in limbo. First there was waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn the law in the summer of 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-la r gely-stand.html">It didn't.) Then there was waiting to see if Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate would be elected that November to repeal it. (They weren't.)

I don't understand.   Why would the feds wait for these things?   I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?
 
2013-10-22 08:45:43 AM  
We obviously need a takeover of all the states, by the Feds.

Apply the standard of unlimited debt,  and voila....Obamacare for all.

There is nothing that new taxes can't solve.
 
2013-10-22 08:45:56 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


Which is pretty much the formula for most work on a government project. Unless of course, it's a military contract, or a building project for infrastructure...
 
2013-10-22 08:46:21 AM  
Politicians: We want the website to do this and this and this.
Programmer: That can't be done.
Politicians: Here's $50 million.
Programmer: Ok, give me the money first.
 
2013-10-22 08:46:37 AM  
Which led to the first big problem - money. When it became clear that to build the federal exchange than had been allocated in the original law, Republicans in Congress refused to provide it.  As a result, said Angoff, officials "had to scrape together money from various offices within HHS to build the federal exchange."
[...]
"The administration bent over backward to accommodate the states; the administration begged states to cooperate," said Angoff.


B-b-but Steve Jobs?
 
2013-10-22 08:46:48 AM  

kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.


Wait, half a billion dollars is too little $ to build a website?
 
2013-10-22 08:47:03 AM  

kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.


This is simply proof that private enterprise will always be more pro-active and efficient than government.
 
2013-10-22 08:47:10 AM  

wrs1864: but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?


they were probably denied the funding until it was deemed constitutional
 
2013-10-22 08:47:15 AM  

kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.


Mitch McConnel already gave his analysis. "Of course it's broken. Government can never do anything right."

With good American "can't do" attitude like that, how could it go wrong? As long as failure is you goal, success is assured.
 
2013-10-22 08:47:34 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


Except that it went 3x overbudget. So the Republics who refues to give it more funding according to this article, kept giving it more until it cost 3 times what it was supposed to and then decided to cut it off from more. 3 times over budget is called strangling it with too little money, thats called incompetence. Great trolling.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-websit e- cost/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452404/Obamacare-website-co st -394-MILLION-doesnt-work.html

You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.
They gave it plenty of funding, I don't blame the programmers, I blame the DHHS who was in charge of the project. But don't blame congress who gave it all the money it wanted and begged for
 
2013-10-22 08:48:52 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-10-22 08:51:05 AM  

wrs1864: I don't understand. Why would the feds wait for these things? I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?


Yeah I'm not sure I believe that's what actually happened.

RIDETHEWALRUS: Wait, half a billion dollars is too little $ to build a website?


I'm sure there was top-to-bottom problems with requirements, schedules, and cooperation with various involved parties, but I wouldn't wager funding was part of the equation..
 
2013-10-22 08:51:18 AM  

monoski: I know there are a several NPR haters out here but that was a really good segment.


It's helpful, but it does rely heavily on just one source. A few more well placed sources would have strengthened it considerably.
 
2013-10-22 08:53:13 AM  

jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.


so a much simpler piece of software that had several years of relatively light traffic and could be developed at a natural pace and without political interference works better and was cheaper to build than a very complex one with constantly changing requirements that had to work perfectly and at high traffic loads on day one? Good call.
 
2013-10-22 08:57:46 AM  
Ah the joys of being a programmer and having a customer that doesn't really know what the hell they want
 
2013-10-22 08:59:20 AM  
Healthcare.gov is like every MMO launch ever.
 
2013-10-22 09:02:48 AM  

somedude210: wrs1864: but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

they were probably denied the funding until it was deemed constitutional


Even if they had the funding at the time could you imagine the shiatstorm we'd be going through right now if they spent the money to develop the website and the damn law was struck down, rendering the website a complete, highly publicized waste of gov't funds?
 
2013-10-22 09:04:27 AM  

jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.
They gave it plenty of funding, I don't blame the programmers, I blame the DHHS who was in charge of the project. But don't blame congress who gave it all the money it wanted and begged for


You can look at the exact costs for every part of the exchange here.

For a TLDR: government bureaucratic bloat, individual health care laws for over thirty states and the federal government are complex, and they had to build up the infrastructure from scratch. It costs more than Twitter because it's more complex than Twitter. Twitter doesn't have to deal with Medicare Part D compliance, Medicare appeals systems, and rates and benefits systems for various states. Those appear a lot throughout the spreadsheet.

/part of that funding also goes towards funding various parts for ten years
 
2013-10-22 09:04:57 AM  
wait

three hundred trillion dollars not enough for one website
 
2013-10-22 09:06:25 AM  
thanks alot fartleen shefartedus
 
2013-10-22 09:10:30 AM  

The Larch: As long as failure is you goal, success is assured.


Especially if you've got a track record for it.

This is the same government that dropped three hundred billion on stealth fighters where the pilots oxygen supply was optional, ran multiple wars with the goal of eradicating terrorists that resulted in more terrorists, sold guns to drug lords and bungled dozens of smaller projects than health care reform (which it has bungled in the past).

I think people who believed success was a possibility are confusing what the federal government could do with what it actually ends up doing.  So they approached the problem in the most failure prone way possible.
 
2013-10-22 09:10:43 AM  

Somacandra: monoski: I know there are a several NPR haters out here but that was a really good segment.

It's helpful, but it does rely heavily on just one source. A few more well placed sources would have strengthened it considerably.


I would not be surprised to see a follow up story or two over the next few days. During the shutdown over a period of a few days started with the claims by politicians that the default could be avoided then they actually tracked down the guy who runs the govt office of payments with regards to the GOP claim that we can "just pay the urgent debts" then pay the rest as the money comes in and he went on to explain that the system does not support that kind of approach and it would take years to re-engineer to accommodate.
 
2013-10-22 09:11:57 AM  
Wait, wait. You're telling me Republicans deliberately sabotaged the implementation of a key portion of the ACA? That's just crazy talk.
 
2013-10-22 09:12:49 AM  
Fix old, no new!
 
2013-10-22 09:13:00 AM  
It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.
 
2013-10-22 09:13:37 AM  
Hold on, six hundred brazilian dollars is not enough for one website?
 
2013-10-22 09:14:51 AM  

006deluxe: somedude210: wrs1864: but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

they were probably denied the funding until it was deemed constitutional

Even if they had the funding at the time could you imagine the shiatstorm we'd be going through right now if they spent the money to develop the website and the damn law was struck down, rendering the website a complete, highly publicized waste of gov't funds?


This. I would imagine they would have hauled them all into a congressional committee to hear why they were spending money on a site for a law that hadn't been ruled on yet by the Supreme Court for months on end, with minute questioning of the programmers and absolute shiatstorms and rants when one misspeaks for the first time.

The idea from day one has been to kill this legislation by any means possible. Untold billions has been spent trying every underhanded trick in the book to get something to stick to complain about the law. Well they finally found a minor issue.

I guess once this blows over as being caused by the same people complaining about it, they will go back to Benghazi again.
 
2013-10-22 09:18:07 AM  
The government screwed something up? Unpossible.
 
2013-10-22 09:18:14 AM  

hubiestubert: Which is pretty much the formula for most work on a government project. Unless of course, it's a military contract, or a building project for infrastructure...


Exactly, and I'm sure the entire project was split up between various Senator's and Rep's home districts rather than having a single entity build the entire site.  So some guy in a garage builds the front end, another guy builds the database, some other guy builds the middleware.  None of them get good specifications, none of them do integration testing, and everything is expected to work when all of the parts come together.
 
2013-10-22 09:19:09 AM  

ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.



Oh, well, good.  Your friends' anecdotal experience is just as good as an economic analysis.

Who needs numbers and all that thinky stuff anyhow?
 
2013-10-22 09:21:25 AM  
You also don't need to buy your plan from the exchange if waiting another few weeks is that much of a drag.

I mean yeah, I think the website sucks loads, but I was talking to a friend last night who was all up in arms because she needs to get insurance for next year and can't through the Exchange, and was convinced that she wasn't going to be able to anyway, because her $700/month policy is already too expensive for her and she was convinced Obamacare was going to be even higher. I quick pulled up the BCBS site here and had her plug in her age and her daughters age and, lo and behold, the most expensive platinum policy through BCBS was $620/month, and covers more than her existing policy. Gold policies were even cheaper. Mind you she has a pre-exisitng medical condition so she wouldn't be able to switch policies normally any way, but now, even without the exchange, and totally ignoring any subsidy, she is elligible for a better health care plan from her current provider for at least a thousand dollars a year less.

I was pretty skeptical about Obamacare going in (I really want single payer or at the very least public option), but the more I've looked into it, the more I've found a lot of stuff to like.
 
2013-10-22 09:22:39 AM  

jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.


Twitter?  Its a couple of orders of magnitude less complicated, and its record for downtime is poor to say the least:

www.belch.com
 
2013-10-22 09:22:41 AM  
Look, I'm not saying the politicians were infallible, but do not doubt the ability of government IT workers to fark up the most mundane of tasks.

Imagine a group that could turn a water cooler into a tire fire.
 
2013-10-22 09:22:42 AM  

ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.


New York's works just fine. Still no customers.
 
2013-10-22 09:24:07 AM  

error 303: Mind you she has a pre-exisitng medical condition so she wouldn't be able to switch policies normally any way


IIRC, isn't it setup now that you can't deny for pre-existing conditions, and pre-existing conditions have to be covered as long as you've had health insurance for the last year (under any provider)?
 
2013-10-22 09:24:55 AM  

badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.


Zero customers?
 
2013-10-22 09:26:21 AM  
Have they tried turning it off and back on again?
 
2013-10-22 09:27:19 AM  
Oh, I'm sure there are tons of problems caused by developers too.  It's just that there's *more* problems caused by everyone else.  If you have moderately competent programmers, 9 times out of 10 the reason for a project failure is not "the developers screwed up".  Most project don't fail because they are bug-ridden, they fail because they are incomplete or don't do what the client wants.  We are very good at building what you tell us to.  Most of our job frustration comes from you not being able to tell us with precision what you want, even when we ask directly, because *you don't know*.  We have to be very precise in our code, and most people simply aren't up to thinking at that level of detail and considering all possible failure modes, and have never stopped to think about it.  If you leave behavior unspecified when something screws up, we can't program any reasonable behavior many times except to try and fail gracefully and tell you what happened.

That being said, a single developer not knowing the concept of Big O notation, or a single developer that doesn't catch that exception properly can cause serious problems...
 
2013-10-22 09:30:45 AM  

paygun: The government screwed something up? Unpossible.


I have to resist throwing things through the TV screen or radio when life-long politicians then do interviews say the government is not competent enough to complete such a task.
//Mitch McConnell either last night or this morning said exactly that
 
2013-10-22 09:31:29 AM  
b0rscht:  I heard Obama say something along the lines of, "Nobody is more pissed off than I am..."

www.usnews.com
"Challenge Accepted"
 
2013-10-22 09:31:34 AM  

sprawl15: error 303: Mind you she has a pre-exisitng medical condition so she wouldn't be able to switch policies normally any way

IIRC, isn't it setup now that you can't deny for pre-existing conditions, and pre-existing conditions have to be covered as long as you've had health insurance for the last year (under any provider)?


That's my understanding? She hasn't been able to switch plans for a few years now, since any new plan would not cover what she needs covered, but now she's free to shop for coverage anywhere.
 
2013-10-22 09:32:13 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.

Zero customers?


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/www-ahugemess-article-1.1490135
 
2013-10-22 09:33:12 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [images.sodahead.com image 350x191]


"Hey, instead of trying to help fix this website being built for this new law, maybe we should try to sabotage the law! That'll totally work!"
 
2013-10-22 09:33:58 AM  

kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.


Hey, no need. Reuters pre-spun this for them last week, saying the administration spent tens of millions more than expected to get the website right.
 
2013-10-22 09:35:32 AM  

ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.


Ayup.

I signed up through coveredca.com and had no problem getting a list of plans and rates. It took a bit to get through the application but it all worked just fine.

Of course, Republicans in states that are relegated to using the half-assed federal system can use this as a political football, when this mess is largely of their own making.

One recurring criticism of Obama I've got: he doesn't take the opportunity to place blame on the GOP enough. This mess is in large part due to their constant meddling and obstructionism of everything related to ACA.
 
2013-10-22 09:35:59 AM  

badhatharry: JusticeandIndependence: badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.

Zero customers?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/www-ahugemess-article-1.1490135


That seems counter productive.
 
2013-10-22 09:36:09 AM  

Gonz: Look, I'm not saying the politicians were infallible, but do not doubt the ability of government private contractor IT workers to fark up the most mundane of tasks.

Imagine a group that could turn a water cooler into a tire fire.


FTFY.
 
2013-10-22 09:36:41 AM  

badhatharry: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/www-ahugemess-article-1.1490135


"Of the millions who have visited NYStateofHealth.ny.gov, 134,000 have finished identity, income and citizenship verifications, learned what tax credits they qualify for and begun to shop.

A smaller number of those 134,000 registrants have picked a plan and committed to paying premiums - though how much smaller is a mystery. Thousands, is all that New York exchange director Donna Frescatore would say.

Those "thousands" translated to zero full enrollments because the Health Department has quietly held off sending enrollment data to insurance providers pending a check of its accuracy. The material was promised Oct. 1, then Oct. 15 and then Friday evening."
 
2013-10-22 09:37:05 AM  

badhatharry: JusticeandIndependence: badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.

Zero customers?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/www-ahugemess-article-1.1490135


That's some fine spin. "The official number hasn't be released yet so I'll insist the number is zero."
 
2013-10-22 09:38:13 AM  

max_pooper: That's some fine spin. "The official number hasn't be released yet so I'll insist the number is zero."


Also, prepare to witness goalpost shifting: he said "zero customers," but it's clear that there are plenty of customers, as many as 134,000. The next posting will redefine "customers" to mean "full enrollees."
 
2013-10-22 09:38:58 AM  
NPR is joining the ranks of deflecting blame now?
You know maybe delaying the roll out was the best idea, if only someone other than the republicans hadn't come up with it.  Rumor has it, a delay would save billions we don't really have too.
 
2013-10-22 09:40:58 AM  
I know nothing about this kind of programming, so I'm going to give my opinion.

It seems like it could have been a better idea to make 36 separate websites, contracted into the 36 states that didn't do the state-run exchange, using health care experts from each of those states.  That way if the states want to take over their exchanges, they can do so without reinventing the wheel.  The IRS builds its own database to verify income, which it was doing anyway for the 14 states that did pick up the exchange.  Then healthcare.gov could be this:

1) what state do you live in?
2) what's your estimated income (fill in the box), based on last year's tax return? (no interfacing with IRS at this point)
3) ... whatever other basic questions to see if you qualify
4) You qualify!  Use then follows link to go to alabama.healthcare.gov and pick your plan (healthcare experts input here), fill out a few more pieces of information (this is where IRS interfacing comes in) and voila!

I haven't been on healthcare.gov because I don't need to and I don't want to clog the tubes for others.  Is this how it works?  Or is it very very wrong?
 
2013-10-22 09:43:28 AM  

Tyee: Rumor has it,


Rumor has it, it really has been a success to those who needed it.
 
2013-10-22 09:49:16 AM  
Maybe now people will understand why the Air Force is trying to kill the A-10 while throwing money down the hole for the F-22 and F-35, and while still trying to replace the KC-135, all at the same time, and the whole thing is going about as well as you'd expect.
 
2013-10-22 09:50:13 AM  

badhatharry: JusticeandIndependence: badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.

Zero customers?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/www-ahugemess-article-1.1490135


An opinion piece from www.ahugemess.com complaining that the 130,000+ registrants who've signed up, picked a plan, and committed to paying premiums haven't had their paperwork finalized yet?

Are you high?
 
2013-10-22 09:51:27 AM  

kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.


When I was your age, I could build an entire nationwide exchange on time, under budget, while walking in the snow on my way to school with only cardboard boxes for shoes. And it was uphill both ways.
 
2013-10-22 09:55:31 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Rumor has it, it really has been a success to those who needed it.


Post tense?  will might have been a better word choice for the unrealistic optimist.
 
2013-10-22 09:56:09 AM  

jedihirsch: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452404/Obamacare-website-co st -394-MILLION-doesnt-work.html


From the link:  "Despite the massive bill to taxpayers, the Healthcare.gov still doesn't work properly ten days after it was launched - allowing only a handful of Americans to sign up for plans on the insurance exchange market.  And experts warn that the site is likely to continue to experience significant glitches for months to come as engineers work out the bugs they failed to to spot before the site went live on October 1."

Jesus, what the hell are they using for process improvement? Waterfall?  Or some ad-hoc "version" of it??
 
2013-10-22 09:57:03 AM  

roddack: Ah the joys of being a programmer and having a customer that doesn't really know what the hell they want


Half of your customer has a vague notion of what it wants, the other half wants the project nuked from orbit. On top of that, you're the lowest bidder. I wouldn't touch a project like that with a ten foot pole.
 
2013-10-22 09:57:52 AM  

balthan: Healthcare.gov is like every MMO launch ever.


I, for one, can't wait to play my level 60 silver Anthem plan paladin.
 
2013-10-22 09:58:55 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: badhatharry: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

New York's works just fine. Still no customers.

Zero customers?


That's right. The numbers are out, and so far not a single person has bought the Obamacare plan. It's a total failure.
 
2013-10-22 09:58:57 AM  

wrs1864: FTFA: But much of that time was spent in limbo. First there was waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn the law in the summer of 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-la r gely-stand.html">It didn't.) Then there was waiting to see if Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate would be elected that November to repeal it. (They weren't.)

I don't understand.   Why would the feds wait for these things?   I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?


No, because if SCOTUS had invalidated different parts of the law, it would mean changed requirements and may have required entire parts to have to be re-designed, which may have caused even more damage and delays.

Let's say your wife just learned she's pregnant and you decide that a 2 bedroom apartment isn't big enough anymore and start looking for a house.  There's also a possibility you'll get a raise, or maybe that you'll be named head of the EMEA division of the company and may have to move to Europe.  would you start looking right away at a small house in the Parisian suburb, or would you wait to see if you actually got the job?
 
2013-10-22 10:00:34 AM  
Guess which prima donna demanded they hire a Canadian software company or he'd shut down the government?

img.fark.net
 
2013-10-22 10:04:32 AM  
Really? People are trying to blame the republicans for the 0bamacare train wreck? The same republicans that has all along tried to save America from this disaster? Really?

That's audacity on steroids, hubris on crack, absurd on crystal meth and just plane lunacy. The Democrats own this one lock stock and barrel. And it's tightly wrapped around 0bama's neck.

0bama sounded like a slimy insurance salesman yesterday.
 
2013-10-22 10:07:51 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?
 
2013-10-22 10:07:53 AM  

balthan: Healthcare.gov is like every MMO launch ever.


HHS should have hired Trion!
 
2013-10-22 10:12:58 AM  

ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.


This.
 
2013-10-22 10:13:58 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?


What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.
 
2013-10-22 10:14:00 AM  

Spare Me: 0bama


*chug*
 
2013-10-22 10:14:15 AM  

Tyee: NPR is joining the ranks of deflecting blame now?
You know maybe delaying the roll out was the best idea, if only someone other than the republicans hadn't come up with it.  Rumor has it, a delay would save billions we don't really have too.


I supposed one man's "deflecting the blame" is another man's "cutting through the bullshiat".

YMMV
 
2013-10-22 10:17:15 AM  

GoldSpider: wrs1864: I don't understand. Why would the feds wait for these things? I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

Yeah I'm not sure I believe that's what actually happened.

RIDETHEWALRUS: Wait, half a billion dollars is too little $ to build a website?

I'm sure there was top-to-bottom problems with requirements, schedules, and cooperation with various involved parties, but I wouldn't wager funding was part of the equation..


Healthcare information is very expensive to deal with due to the layers of HIPA regulation and multiple insurance companies.

Fun fact. Kaiser Permanente spend 6 Billion (Yes Billion with a B) on their medical records system, after scraping their half built system that they spend 500 million on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#KP_HealthConnect
 
2013-10-22 10:18:28 AM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.


And to add, these projects could have been much cheaper, but that would have required a complete re-design of established business processes and in most cases, people don't like to mess with those. This leads to integration work with 10+ legacy systems with bad documentation and loads of cost overruns. The biggest problems are always the integration issues, and integrating with 30+ states and even insurers sounds like hell on earth. The administration thought that the states would build their own exchanges and reduce the federal scope(for good reasons, its cheaper for the residents). This didn't happen because the parties involved in those red states tried to do the most obstructive path.
 
2013-10-22 10:20:11 AM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.


I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.
 
2013-10-22 10:20:22 AM  

MindStalker: GoldSpider: wrs1864: I don't understand. Why would the feds wait for these things? I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

Yeah I'm not sure I believe that's what actually happened.

RIDETHEWALRUS: Wait, half a billion dollars is too little $ to build a website?

I'm sure there was top-to-bottom problems with requirements, schedules, and cooperation with various involved parties, but I wouldn't wager funding was part of the equation..

Healthcare information is very expensive to deal with due to the layers of HIPA regulation and multiple insurance companies.

Fun fact. Kaiser Permanente spend 6 Billion (Yes Billion with a B) on their medical records system, after scraping their half built system that they spend 500 million on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#KP_HealthConnect


Exactly my point. These complex system cost $billions in man hours. It's not the developers, it's figuring out the requirements and how the system design will work.
 
2013-10-22 10:22:25 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.


No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.
 
2013-10-22 10:24:41 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.


Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.
 
2013-10-22 10:26:24 AM  

Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.


Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.
 
2013-10-22 10:26:30 AM  

make me some tea: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

Ayup.

I signed up through coveredca.com and had no problem getting a list of plans and rates. It took a bit to get through the application but it all worked just fine.

Of course, Republicans in states that are relegated to using the half-assed federal system can use this as a political football, when this mess is largely of their own making.

One recurring criticism of Obama I've got: he doesn't take the opportunity to place blame on the GOP enough. This mess is in large part due to their constant meddling and obstructionism of everything related to ACA.


This and This
Our ( R ) Governor, whose largest campaign contributor, btw is "Healthcare Industries", fought this tooth and nail, refusing Fed help, refusing to ALLOW facilitators to help ppl sign up.

I would be perfectly content to pay a one-time fee to a functioning blue state to be allowed to sign up through them. Screw the republican governors - let their voters go to a working exchange, let said state make some extra cash in the process.
 
2013-10-22 10:27:11 AM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.


CGI would be a good start.
 
2013-10-22 10:28:08 AM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.


It's also funny that he thinks this project would only amount to building a data center. Not surprised at his political leanings.
 
2013-10-22 10:31:25 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.

Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.


I really hope you don't work in IT. You have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please describe the differences between unit, string, integration, and regression tests? I'd love to know your opinions.
 
2013-10-22 10:32:53 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.

Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.


Because of systems integration.  System A talks to many system Bs which all in turn talk to many system Cs.  There are dozens, maybe hundreds of points of failure at each point.  The system is massively complex and it deals with the most sensitive kind of data.  If you've ever worked with HIPAA, you know what a pain in the ass those types of projects are.  You can't just say "Hey can I get a copy of your db and service so we can test on our own?"  No you most certainly cannot because that's illegal.  You are completely stuck relying on third parties to make their services and data available to you, to be reliable, to not have bad data, and to be ready well beforehand for testing.  Often, they fulfill none of these.  Multiply that many times and this is the level of complexity here.  Oh, and most of the parties for which the system works were actively interested in the system failing.  I'm sure they really did their best to have everything ready for the federal site, really.

If you've worked 35 years in IT, you should know all this.
 
2013-10-22 10:35:31 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.

CGI would be a good start.


I was looking for the organization that someone like you(woefully unqualified) would be a part of, but i guess you're smart enough not to reveal that. I'm curious though, what sort of IT work were you doing in 1978? You still didn't answer how much you thought this project should cost.
 
2013-10-22 10:37:51 AM  

Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.

Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.

Because of systems integration.  System A talks to many system Bs which all in turn talk to many system Cs.  There are dozens, maybe hundreds of points of failure at each point.  The system is massively complex and it deals with the most sensitive kind of data.  If you've ever worked with HIPAA, you know what a pain in the ass those types of projects are.  You can't just say "Hey can I get a copy of your db and service so we can test on our own?"  No you most certainly cannot because that's illegal.  You are completely stuck relying on third parties to make their services and data available to you, to be reliable, to not have bad data, and to be ready well beforehand for testing.  Often, they fulfill none of these.  M ...


but but $600M, i can store data in a cave for that....but but but...35 years in IT...but but but 0bama failure

I hope to Christ this guy has not worked in IT
 
2013-10-22 10:38:23 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


Nonsense. They had the money that they asked for and had 3.5 years to work on it. Sure they might not have had the details but there were plenty of things that they could have done that would have been relatively inexpensive starting with hiring people experienced in managing large software projects, hiring some experienced software engineers to work on developing the core nodes that would be universal regardless of the specifics asked of them later on and do some model testing on them to see how they would hold up under stress and so on. Instead the politicians decided to take a wait and see approach until this past November. If they had hired the type of people above from the start they would have known that the groundwork would have to laid before any specifics as to requirements were presented anyway. Now they have a piece of cobbled together junk software that apparently can't do much of anything at all because there was no time left to model it under load. Piss poor performance all around in the decision making process. I've seen Alpha releases of software that had more functionality.
 
2013-10-22 10:38:40 AM  

Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.

Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.

Because of systems integration.  System A talks to many system Bs which all in turn talk to many system Cs.  There are dozens, maybe hundreds of points of failure at each point.  The system is massively complex and it deals with the most sensitive kind of data.  If you've ever worked with HIPAA, you know what a pain in the ass those types of projects are.  You can't just say "Hey can I get a copy of your db and service so we can test on our own?"  No you most certainly cannot because that's illegal.  You are completely stuck relying on third parties to make their services and data available to you, to be reliable, to not have bad data, and to be ready well beforehand for testing.  Often, they fulfill none of these.  M ...


His 35 years in IT means he's owned a computer for 35 years, and even fixed a networking problem by resetting his router once!
 
2013-10-22 10:39:57 AM  

HeartBurnKid: ocd002: It's only red states that are having issues with people signing up. All the blue states did their websites already. No complaints here in Illinois about it. My friends needing insurance have had no problems and are really happy with the options given to them.

This.



I'll put you both down as big fans of the "Parable of the Happy Blue-Stater."

Tell us another story, Grandpa!
 
2013-10-22 10:41:12 AM  

GTATL: I hope to Christ this guy has not worked in IT


And the people involved with the massive mess that is healthcare.gov? Are you wishing they had never worked in IT?
 
2013-10-22 10:43:38 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [images.sodahead.com image 350x191]


Wow.  For once in the many times I've seen you around here, you're actually right for a change.

Don't shock me like that.  It's disturbing.
 
2013-10-22 10:44:55 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

Nonsense. They had the money that they asked for and had 3.5 years to work on it. Sure they might not have had the details but there were plenty of things that they could have done that would have been relatively inexpensive starting with hiring people experienced in managing large software projects, hiring some experienced software engineers to work on developing the core nodes that would be universal regardless of the specifics asked of them later on and do some model testing on them to see how they would hold up under stress and so on. Instead the politicians decided to take a wait and see approach until this past November. If they had hired the type of people above from the start they would have known that the groundwork would have to laid before any specifics as to requirements were presented anyway. Now they have a piece of cobbled together junk software that apparently can't do much of anything at all because there was no time left to model it under load. Piss poor performance all around in the decision making process. I've seen Alpha releases of software that had more functionality.


I didn't think that corporal fromage vermin would have the second dumbest comment in this thread. You sound like an MBA. You can't do prework when you don't know the scope of the farking work you have to do. You're entire core functionality could be fine, but if your interfaces don't work or the client systems can't handle the load, there is almost nothing you can do. Yup give me 500 smart guys and I could probably fix 100 interfaces in 3 weeks, assuming the 3rd party could dedicate an equal number of resources for that entire period. Good god, I hate people that think they know what they are talking about.
 
2013-10-22 10:45:01 AM  

GTATL: but but $600M, i can store data in a cave for that....but but but...35 years in IT...but but but 0bama failure

I hope to Christ this guy has not worked in IT


Maybe he just hasn't ever had to work on a project with a single third party system, let alone a project with dozens or hundreds of them.  Or maybe he's not being entirely truthful.
 
2013-10-22 10:46:10 AM  
As a guy currently running tests on convoluted front and back end insurance systems, I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
 
2013-10-22 10:46:33 AM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.

CGI would be a good start.

I was looking for the organization that someone like you(woefully unqualified) would be a part of, but i guess you're smart enough not to reveal that. I'm curious though, what sort of IT work were you doing in 1978? You still didn't answer how much you thought this project should cost.


I don't have to explain myself to you.  Where's your skins Einstein?  In 1978 I was programming PROM test beds for TI in FORTRAN. Who I work for now is none of your business. And I have no idea what it would cost.  I do know that for 600 Millions dollars, something more than a 404 is expected.  Have a nice day and enjoy your website.
 
2013-10-22 10:46:35 AM  

make me some tea: YMMV


?

Like many people I've had long range projects that might change in scope, size, function and might even be terminated prior to implementation but that would never have been an acceptable excuse for a massive failure to this degree.  I would have been fired and I would fire anyone who was this unprepared at roll out, especially when they were asked repeatedly for months how things were going and the response was always that they were fine, in control and would be ready.  They won't be ready for months.  In fact, they talked about how popular this would be and then tried to blame the failure on it being popular like it surprised them!   But that isn't even what happened, it wasn't too much traffic that lie has been debunked.
Obama and the democrats should have taken the republican offer during the shut down and delayed the implementation.  It would have made them look less partisan, less rigid, more congenial and benefited them and the nation.
 
2013-10-22 10:46:59 AM  

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: His 35 years in IT means he's owned a computer for 35 years, and even fixed a networking problem by resetting his router once!


My mom once explained to my grandmother how when you visit a web page you're downloading the server to your monitor.  It was painful and entertaining at the same time.  This is when you've got three programmers in the room all biting their tongues (myself, my brother, and my dad).  Good times.
 
2013-10-22 10:47:47 AM  
The GOP platform, in a nutshell:

1. Break the government
2. Point out how badly the government is broken
3. Break the government some more.

Remember, vote Republican.
 
2013-10-22 10:48:56 AM  

Carn: Matrix Flavored Wasabi: His 35 years in IT means he's owned a computer for 35 years, and even fixed a networking problem by resetting his router once!

My mom once explained to my grandmother how when you visit a web page you're downloading the server to your monitor.  It was painful and entertaining at the same time.  This is when you've got three programmers in the room all biting their tongues (myself, my brother, and my dad).  Good times.


I hope she knows about the series of tubes it is all delivered in.
//RIP Ted Stevens
 
2013-10-22 10:49:05 AM  

GTATL: I didn't think that corporal fromage vermin would have the second dumbest comment in this thread. You sound like an MBA. You can't do prework when you don't know the scope of the farking work you have to do. You're entire core functionality could be fine, but if your interfaces don't work or the client systems can't handle the load, there is almost nothing you can do. Yup give me 500 smart guys and I could probably fix 100 interfaces in 3 weeks, assuming the 3rd party could dedicate an equal number of resources for that entire period. Good god, I hate people that think they know what they are talking about.


What did you expect from a radioactive ass?
 
2013-10-22 10:50:29 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I don't have to explain myself to you. Where's your skins Einstein? In 1978 I was programming PROM test beds for TI in FORTRAN. Who I work for now is none of your business. And I have no idea what it would cost. I do know that for 600 Millions dollars, something more than a 404 is expected. Have a nice day and enjoy your website.


You sound like you have a corporate sponsored health insurance plan.

Must be nice.
 
2013-10-22 10:51:36 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

Nonsense. They had the money that they asked for and had 3.5 years to work on it. Sure they might not have had the details but there were plenty of things that they could have done that would have been relatively inexpensive starting with hiring people experienced in managing large software projects, hiring some experienced software engineers to work on developing the core nodes that would be universal regardless of the specifics asked of them later on and do some model testing on them to see how they would hold up under stress and so on. Instead the politicians decided to take a wait and see approach until this past November. If they had hired the type of people above from the start they would have known that the groundwork would have to laid before any specifics as to requirements were presented anyway. Now they have a piece of cobbled together junk software that apparently can't do much of anything at all because there was no time left to model it under load. Piss poor performance all around in the decision making process. I've seen Alpha releases of software that had more functionality.


Let's say you're head of our project.  You're a badass, and you make your part of the system so bullet proof it's just amazing.  People actually tear up when they run it through its paces during the first unit test.  Well, I'm the lead over at InsureYoBumCo, and your system relies on our system being available (having available services and databases), work properly, have good data, work to spec, and be available on time.  Well, our team just screws the pooch and we fulfill nothing.  We limp out one lame service that isn't available half the time and if you manage to get data out of it it's garbled and your system gets bogged down trying to parse it and figure out how the hell to handle it.  In essence, your system winds up failing miserably no matter how awesome it was in unit test.  You look bad.  Haha.

That's ONE third party system.
 
2013-10-22 10:52:15 AM  

Cletus C.: GTATL: I hope to Christ this guy has not worked in IT

And the people involved with the massive mess that is healthcare.gov? Are you wishing they had never worked in IT?


My firm has worked on the state exchanges(mostly successful) , and it's been a farking death march. These are extremely talented people and they are killing themselves. I have no idea how bad a federal exchange would be in comparison, probably 30 times harder. At the state level, they have all had ~ 6 months since the final(not really) set of requirements were provided, and those have changed upon further work as well. These guys have been working 65+ hours a week for that time period. So to answer, i can't judge them. I think everybody wasn't supporting the contractors until the supreme court ruled. After that, it was too little too late. Luckily my firm has enough people who will sacrifice their life for a successful launch. I not sure i'd do the same.
 
2013-10-22 10:52:38 AM  
Sounds like the typical middle management screw ups associated with the vast majority of software development projects in the private sector. Guess the Republicans got their wish for government to run more like private business.
 
2013-10-22 10:54:29 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Zeb Hesselgresser: [images.sodahead.com image 350x191]

Wow.  For once in the many times I've seen you around here, you're actually right for a change.

Don't shock me like that.  It's disturbing.


I was right to buy that S2000 also.
 
2013-10-22 10:54:47 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

Which would do nothing if it couldn't talk to the third party database that it interfaces with. Good god, based on your response, please let me know what contractor I should avoid.

CGI would be a good start.

I was looking for the organization that someone like you(woefully unqualified) would be a part of, but i guess you're smart enough not to reveal that. I'm curious though, what sort of IT work were you doing in 1978? You still didn't answer how much you thought this project should cost.

I don't have to explain myself to you.  Where's your skins Einstein?  In 1978 I was programming PROM test beds for TI in FORTRAN. Who I work for now is none of your business. And I have no idea what it would cost.  I do know that for 600 Millions dollars, something more than a 404 is expected.  Have a nice day and enjoy your website.


I'm glad you admit your judgement on the cost based on absolutely nothing. I'm glad we could get to this point.
 
2013-10-22 10:56:43 AM  

GTATL: Cletus C.: GTATL: I hope to Christ this guy has not worked in IT

And the people involved with the massive mess that is healthcare.gov? Are you wishing they had never worked in IT?

My firm has worked on the state exchanges(mostly successful) , and it's been a farking death march. These are extremely talented people and they are killing themselves. I have no idea how bad a federal exchange would be in comparison, probably 30 times harder. At the state level, they have all had ~ 6 months since the final(not really) set of requirements were provided, and those have changed upon further work as well. These guys have been working 65+ hours a week for that time period. So to answer, i can't judge them. I think everybody wasn't supporting the contractors until the supreme court ruled. After that, it was too little too late. Luckily my firm has enough people who will sacrifice their life for a successful launch. I not sure i'd do the same.


The project was probably doomed to fail no matter what (at least in making the deadline).  It can be fixed though.  It can always be fixed.
 
2013-10-22 10:57:03 AM  
I goddamn invented pong with an onion and 4 8-track tapes! I don't need to explain myself to you! Just know that I could have done everything better with just $4.60 and a case of warm Tab!
 
2013-10-22 10:57:07 AM  

GTATL: I'm glad you admit your judgement on the cost based on absolutely nothing. I'm glad we could get to this point.


The hardest part is always admitting that you have a problem to begin with.

This could be a breakthrough for the musk fromage.
 
2013-10-22 10:57:43 AM  

Carn: Let's say you're head of our project. You're a badass, and you make your part of the system so bullet proof it's just amazing. People actually tear up when they run it through its paces during the first unit test. Well, I'm the lead over at InsureYoBumCo, and your system relies on our system being available (having available services and databases), work properly, have good data, work to spec, and be available on time. Well, our team just screws the pooch and we fulfill nothing. We limp out one lame service that isn't available half the time and if you manage to get data out of it it's garbled and your system gets bogged down trying to parse it and figure out how the hell to handle it. In essence, your system winds up failing miserably no matter how awesome it was in unit test. You look bad. Haha.

That's ONE third party system.


And that third party system is a mainframe so old it spits out cuneiform.
 
2013-10-22 11:00:42 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Marcus Aurelius: Zeb Hesselgresser: [images.sodahead.com image 350x191]

Wow.  For once in the many times I've seen you around here, you're actually right for a change.

Don't shock me like that.  It's disturbing.

I was right to buy that S2000 also.


Only if you bought the silver one.
 
2013-10-22 11:08:57 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Carn: Let's say you're head of our project. You're a badass, and you make your part of the system so bullet proof it's just amazing. People actually tear up when they run it through its paces during the first unit test. Well, I'm the lead over at InsureYoBumCo, and your system relies on our system being available (having available services and databases), work properly, have good data, work to spec, and be available on time. Well, our team just screws the pooch and we fulfill nothing. We limp out one lame service that isn't available half the time and if you manage to get data out of it it's garbled and your system gets bogged down trying to parse it and figure out how the hell to handle it. In essence, your system winds up failing miserably no matter how awesome it was in unit test. You look bad. Haha.

That's ONE third party system.

And that third party system is a mainframe so old it spits out cuneiform.


And you have to talk to it in CORBA.
 
2013-10-22 11:10:17 AM  
I still don't understand this story. People using the site in states that went for Medicaid expansion don't seem to be having many problems. Even with a tremendously higher than anticipated volume. How is THAT not the story?

And were Obama's grandparents raging alcoholics? Why doesn't he just point to Republican governors and say: "There's a common denominator here, and it ain't us."? Why is he always apologizing and placating the angries in the room? It's incredibly frustrating to watch.
 
2013-10-22 11:10:46 AM  
"The thought was that ultimately money trumps everything," Angoff said. "

Our political system in a nutshell.
 
2013-10-22 11:11:24 AM  

sprawl15: error 303: Mind you she has a pre-exisitng medical condition so she wouldn't be able to switch policies normally any way

IIRC, isn't it setup now that you can't deny for pre-existing conditions, and pre-existing conditions have to be covered as long as you've had health insurance for the last year (under any provider)?


Not till 1/1/2014. If friend needed policy before then the insurance company could deny coverage.
 
2013-10-22 11:11:39 AM  

wrs1864: FTFA: But much of that time was spent in limbo. First there was waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn the law in the summer of 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-la r gely-stand.html">It didn't.) Then there was waiting to see if Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate would be elected that November to repeal it. (They weren't.)

I don't understand.   Why would the feds wait for these things?   I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?


You haven't been listening to the whole "defund obamacare" rant lately, eh?  They had to figure out how to allocate money for this despite congress not giving them money for this AND if they had done all of that only to have the program killed either by Romney or by a republican senate, heads would have rolled.  They had to wait.

This disaster was republican built and made.  fark these guys.
 
2013-10-22 11:24:05 AM  

James!: I goddamn invented pong with an onion and 4 8-track tapes! I don't need to explain myself to you! Just know that I could have done everything better with just $4.60 and a case of warm Tab!


I could've written a better website on my Apple ][!!!1
 
2013-10-22 11:26:30 AM  
Software is hard enough to develop when you have a team with common goals working on it.  Doing it in a political atmosphere where the tendency is to manage by pointing out past failures rather than identify and solve future problems and you have a match made perfectly in Hell.  Add in the bureaucratic culture that comes from government sector and you'd quickly appreciate any sort of working government software as a miracle.
 
2013-10-22 11:32:56 AM  

make me some tea: James!: I goddamn invented pong with an onion and 4 8-track tapes! I don't need to explain myself to you! Just know that I could have done everything better with just $4.60 and a case of warm Tab!

I could've written a better website on my Apple ][!!!1


shiat, I wrote a multi-state fully functional healthcare website on my TI-82 during a study hall in the 7th grade.  It also played snake, I don't see Healthcare.gov playing snake.  Amateurs.
 
2013-10-22 11:33:25 AM  
I called this yesterday.
 
2013-10-22 11:35:12 AM  

czei: jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.

Twitter?  Its a couple of orders of magnitude less complicated, and its record for downtime is poor to say the least:

[www.belch.com image 500x400]


Facebook profile updates was down yesterday.  Blackberry has pretty much annual outages.
 
2013-10-22 11:37:34 AM  
jedihirsch:

You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.
They gave it plenty of funding, I don't blame the programmers, I blame the DHHS who was in charge of the project. But don't blame congress who gave it all the money it wanted and begged for


Isn't this more proof that private industry isn't much better at outcomes than people think government is?  After all, these were all private contractors failing miserably at what they said they'd be able to do on a contract with uncle Sam.  We only say business is better at allocating resources because there's trillions of test runs that fail, and the winners bubble to the top.

The real problem is low bid, no proof of competence contracts brought to you by the "government spends too much party".  You get what you pay for, and then you pay to fix the incompetence.  They don't save taxpayers money and they have shown time and again to produce shoddy work.

So we have a system set up to prove:
Government spends too much? Check
Government can't do anything right?  Check

Does anyone thing if they gave Google or Apple half the money they ended up spending that we'd have the same result?  I don't, I'd bet it be on time and under budget.  Instead they gave contracts to Joe and Dave's barnyard computer systems of Wichita and look what happened. They bid 5 million and ended up taking 20 million before their contribution gets scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up.

But if we gave the contract to Google that be cronyism, and costing the taxpayers too much, and government not bothering to find the most cost effective option.

It's a farce.  We should be rewarding contracts on results, track record, and accountability.  Not lowest bid and unicorns.
 
2013-10-22 11:44:49 AM  
When they said they were only expecting 50000 concurrent users, I knew it was doomed to failure. There would be at least three times that amount for the first few months, at least.
 
2013-10-22 11:45:06 AM  
CGI costs $93.7 million through December this year.

Where are people getting this $600 million figure for the website?

If they're counting the full cost of the agency in charge, why not go all out and say it cost $1.3 trillion?
 
2013-10-22 11:48:44 AM  

kronicfeld: max_pooper: That's some fine spin. "The official number hasn't be released yet so I'll insist the number is zero."

Also, prepare to witness goalpost shifting: he said "zero customers," but it's clear that there are plenty of customers, as many as 134,000. The next posting will redefine "customers" to mean "full enrollees."


Funny you should mention that. Once of my teabagger friends posted an article to Facebook that said that the ACA only had 36,000 people sign up in the first week.

It only counted completed applications and ignored the 1 million signups that the liberal MSM media company FOX NEWS reported (to say nothing of the nearly 10 million site visitors).

"More people signed up for a one-way ticket to Mars"

FOX news article shows 1 million successfully registered
 
2013-10-22 11:49:02 AM  

TyrantII: jedihirsch:

You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.
They gave it plenty of funding, I don't blame the programmers, I blame the DHHS who was in charge of the project. But don't blame congress who gave it all the money it wanted and begged for

Isn't this more proof that private industry isn't much better at outcomes than people think government is?  After all, these were all private contractors failing miserably at what they said they'd be able to do on a contract with uncle Sam.  We only say business is better at allocating resources because there's trillions of test runs that fail, and the winners bubble to the top.

The real problem is low bid, no proof of competence contracts brought to you by the "government spends too much party".  You get what you pay for, and then you pay to fix the incompetence.  They don't save taxpayers money and they have shown time and again to produce shoddy work.

So we have a system set up to prove:
Government spends too much? Check
Government can't do anything right?  Check

Does anyone thing if they gave Google or Apple half the money they ended up spending that we'd have the same result? I don't, I'd bet it be on time and under budget.  Instead they gave contracts to Joe and Dave's barnyard computer systems of Wichita and look what happened. They bid 5 million and ended up taking 20 million before their contribution gets scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up.

But if we gave the contract to Google that be cronyism, and costing the taxpayers too much, and government not bothering to find the most cost effective option.

It's a farce.  We should be rewarding contracts on results, track record, and accountability.  Not lowest bid and unicorns.


You know how we know you don't know how Google and Apple operate their business?  Google's entire philosophy is giving free reign to their employees and having live end users development test.  9/10 projects are utter failures.  Apple was a box of failure for 10-15 years before re-establising itself with "i" series.

This is one product that combines several different complex processes/laws/systems.  Thus far, it has been awful to the end users, but I bet if you were to ask the developers they would say given the time, the money and the lack of cooperation across states/politicians the site that's out there right now is a freaking miracle.
 
2013-10-22 11:51:39 AM  
I have yet to see this theory put forth, but has anyone put the theory forward that the Republicans/Tea Party and "the media" are essentially low tech DDOSing the site since day one, knowingly and unknowingly, to an extent, by claiming it's a complete failure and encouraging people to go the site and see "their government failure in action"?
 
2013-10-22 11:58:56 AM  
just because you can change the cartridge in the fax machine doesn't mean you've been in IT for 35 years
 
2013-10-22 12:05:14 PM  

maweimer9: You know how we know you don't know how Google and Apple operate their business? Google's entire philosophy is giving free reign to their employees and having live end users development test. 9/10 projects are utter failures. Apple was a box of failure for 10-15 years before re-establising itself with "i" series.


Just wanted to add to this; to this day, Apple has never launched a major cloud product that didn't have ongoing issues for weeks.
 
2013-10-22 12:07:33 PM  

GoldSpider: wrs1864: I don't understand. Why would the feds wait for these things? I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

Yeah I'm not sure I believe that's what actually happened.

RIDETHEWALRUS: Wait, half a billion dollars is too little $ to build a website?

I'm sure there was top-to-bottom problems with requirements, schedules, and cooperation with various involved parties, but I wouldn't wager funding was part of the equation..


Another problem (which should have been a part of the requirements) was that there was no ticketing system in place. It took me more than two weeks before I found someone who said he could report the problem. Don't get me wrong - I am pro ACA. I found a Gold package for under $350 a month before tax credits. Getting signed up for it is an issue, though.
 
2013-10-22 12:09:37 PM  

balthan: Healthcare.gov is like every MMO launch ever.


The first day we launched SWG, we crashed the Oracle database.
 
2013-10-22 12:20:39 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


the programmers knew it wasn't working and wasn't ready on October 1st.  Whoever decided to launch it made a huge mistake.  The launch could have been delayed.  It should have been obvious well before the launch it wasn't going to be ready.
 
2013-10-22 12:20:46 PM  
i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-10-22 12:25:45 PM  
What I've learned here today is these problems were inevitable  They should have just let people know in advance a crashing, essentially useless website for the rollout of the biggest government program in decades was on the way.

Don't even bother trying, would have been a great slogan. Then, when they get things right. OK, try it now.
 
2013-10-22 12:25:56 PM  

dinomyar: When they said they were only expecting 50000 concurrent users, I knew it was doomed to failure. There would be at least three times that amount for the first few months, at least.


A large percent of the traffic was attributed to "tourists" who already have insurance but were just in there to see what is going on. They could have made the first option to proceed a dialogue box asking if you have insurance, if the user answered Yes they are disconnected from the internet until enrollment is over.
 
2013-10-22 12:41:17 PM  
Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.
 
2013-10-22 12:42:57 PM  

SlothB77: Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.


But wouldn't a bootstrappy individual like yourself just perform the surgery with a bottle of Jim beam and a dental mirror?  Study it out.
 
2013-10-22 12:46:13 PM  

SlothB77: Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.


Are you Sean Hannity?
 
2013-10-22 12:51:53 PM  

SlothB77: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

the programmers knew it wasn't working and wasn't ready on October 1st.  Whoever decided to launch it made a huge mistake.  The launch could have been delayed.  It should have been obvious well before the launch it wasn't going to be ready.


Sure it could have, and the parties interested in the system failing would totally made sure everything was working tippy top by then!  For sure, for sure.
 
2013-10-22 01:02:29 PM  

SlothB77: Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.


So you think the GOP should pass an amendment for emergency gap coverage until the policies take effect on January 1st?
 
2013-10-22 01:15:29 PM  

SlothB77: Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.


Imagine this completely fictitious but totally awful scenario! Then, pretend that it's related to current events! When you do that, don't the current events seem pretty bad?
 
2013-10-22 01:17:52 PM  

SlothB77: Imagine, instead of the Oct 1st deadline for the website, it was the Oct 1st deadline for a life-saving surgery you required.  And you needed the funding and approval from the HHS first.

You would be dead.


Hospitals don't work that way!
 
2013-10-22 01:19:58 PM  
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243396/Healthcare.gov_website_ didn_t_have_a_chance_in_hell_?taxonomyId=132

I think this is an interesting read. I'd link it, but I'm on mobile.

Also, if I had an Oct. 1st deadline for my surgery, I'd fill out a paper form. You know, like some people are doing instead of using a website.
 
2013-10-22 01:22:24 PM  

Voiceofreason01: jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.

so a much simpler piece of software that had several years of relatively light traffic and could be developed at a natural pace and without political interference works better and was cheaper to build than a very complex one with constantly changing requirements that had to work perfectly and at high traffic loads on day one? Good call.


They spent four years working on it (yes they started before Obamacare passed), and they didn't even bother to test if it worked until three days before release. Even the Windows 8 team was more competent than that. Also CGI Federal said they were ordered not start the mainframe programing until February 2013, so until then they focused on everything else. Why would DHHS not want them to do the real programing IE the important stuff until the last minute. Face it, DHHS screwed up bad on their end and are trying to pass the buck
 
2013-10-22 01:24:44 PM  

jedihirsch: Voiceofreason01: jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.

so a much simpler piece of software that had several years of relatively light traffic and could be developed at a natural pace and without political interference works better and was cheaper to build than a very complex one with constantly changing requirements that had to work perfectly and at high traffic loads on day one? Good call.

They spent four years working on it (yes they started before Obamacare passed), and they didn't even bother to test if it worked until three days before release. Even the Windows 8 team was more competent than that. Also CGI Federal said they were ordered not start the mainframe programing until February 2013, so until then they focused on everything else. Why would DHHS not want them to do the real programing IE the important stuff until the last minute. Face it, DHHS screwed up bad on their end and are trying to pass the buck


Because between the election, the supreme court challenges, and the various repeal attempts, nobody was really certain it was actually going to go into effect?  That's my take, anyway.
 
2013-10-22 01:36:39 PM  
I want to sync my iPod to the health exchanges! And my toaster! Why can't I shop for coverage options while cooking a bagel!?!?!? Stupid Obama!
 
2013-10-22 01:38:25 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.


So in other words it was like every IT project ever.
 
2013-10-22 01:40:56 PM  

plewis: wrs1864: FTFA: But much of that time was spent in limbo. First there was waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn the law in the summer of 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-la r gely-stand.html">It didn't.) Then there was waiting to see if Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate would be elected that November to repeal it. (They weren't.)

I don't understand.   Why would the feds wait for these things?   I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

You haven't been listening to the whole "defund obamacare" rant lately, eh?  They had to figure out how to allocate money for this despite congress not giving them money for this AND if they had done all of that only to have the program killed either by Romney or by a republican senate, heads would have rolled.  They had to wait.

This disaster was republican built and made.  fark these guys.


Not one shred of accountability on you. Just the straight Kool Aid powder, no water. Congratulations. +7
 
2013-10-22 01:42:44 PM  

SlothB77: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

the programmers knew it wasn't working and wasn't ready on October 1st.  Whoever decided to launch it made a huge mistake.  The launch could have been delayed.  It should have been obvious well before the launch it wasn't going to be ready.


Yes, from your history of credible posts, we can all take your word for it that you know exactly what happened.

How about this: Just STFU.
 
2013-10-22 01:55:26 PM  
Notice how not once in that whole interview did Jay Angoff aka the former right-hand man to Sebelius and most likely the point person for this debacle take any responsibility for this? Then again, at least he was smart enough to jump ship at the beginning of the year.
 
2013-10-22 01:56:04 PM  
 
2013-10-22 02:13:35 PM  
cl.jroo.me
Verizon will fix it.
 
2013-10-22 02:38:49 PM  

GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Carn: Lt. Cheese Weasel: GTATL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

600 Million dollars wasn't enough?  Are you fargin' insane?

What are you basing this opinion on? How much do you think the website should have cost?. $600M is a lot of money, but have you ever worked on a large IT project? I have, and on private company ERP projects that have cost more than double that. Please let me know your judgement criteria.

I have worked in IT for 35 years. IN the private and government sectors.  For 600 Million Dollars, I could build an entire data center dedicated to a single host URL that would never go down, never get clogged, could survive a nuclear blast and actually work like it's supposed to. Face facts, it's a total disaster built by idiots who were hired by bigger idiots.

No you couldn't because you don't have the data.  As GTATL is saying, the problem lies in integrating with all these other systems.

Well, I can hardly wait for Obama to come out and say that over half a billion dollars wasn't enough money for this clusterf*ck and he'll be needing some more because of 'the data'.  Good luck.

I really hope you don't work in IT. You have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please describe the differences between unit, string, integration, and regression tests? I'd love to know your opinions.


I work in healthcare and recently heard an executive complain about how they had spent 150 mil in tech per year for 40 years, and all they have is a shiatty product that they will be replacing with a 500million dollar purchase of a product.

welcome to business where non technical people purchase technology.
 
2013-10-22 02:42:50 PM  
Not mutually exclusive. Any decent group of coders could have done better for less money in the same amount of time.
 
2013-10-22 02:46:06 PM  
This happens most of the time in both govt and corporate IT.

Late & changing specs.
No capacity planning
No performance tuning
No optimization
And security is not locked in until all changes are finished...which doesn't happen because they keep changing everything.

They'll always focus on Formatting, Features and Rules...and forget about the rest, until after the fact.

It's a running joke...
 
2013-10-22 04:19:12 PM  

jedihirsch: You do realize that the cost of the website is more money than it cost to develop and run twitter for its first five years.


You do realize this is a touch more complicated than "Ok, poop is coming out."
 
2013-10-22 05:35:53 PM  

jayhawk88: kronicfeld: Voiceofreason01: Short version: they were working with much less money than they were supposed to have and had a smaller time frame to complete the project.

I can't wait to hear the Republicsn spin on that one.

This is simply proof that private enterprise will always be more pro-active and efficient than government.


Really? You mean the private enterprise corporation that is doing the healthcare.gov website is more efficient than the government that contracted it to do the job? Please explain.
 
2013-10-22 05:43:05 PM  

Flab: Let's say your wife just learned she's pregnant and you decide that a 2 bedroom apartment isn't big enough anymore and start looking for a house. There's also a possibility you'll get a raise, or maybe that you'll be named head of the EMEA division of the company and may have to move to Europe. would you start looking right away at a small house in the Parisian suburb, or would you wait to see if you actually got the job?


No, I'd buy a large, safe vehicle that got good mileage, and hire a nanny I could fark on the side.

But we were talking about health care...
 
2013-10-22 06:21:43 PM  

MisterRonbo: Flab: Let's say your wife just learned she's pregnant and you decide that a 2 bedroom apartment isn't big enough anymore and start looking for a house. There's also a possibility you'll get a raise, or maybe that you'll be named head of the EMEA division of the company and may have to move to Europe. would you start looking right away at a small house in the Parisian suburb, or would you wait to see if you actually got the job?

No, I'd buy a large, safe vehicle that got good mileage, and hire a nanny I could fark on the side.

But we were talking about health care...


You know, if ObamaCare had included a mandate that insurers pay for nannies who are DTF, I would have to seriously reconsider my stance on the whole thing.
 
2013-10-22 07:21:02 PM  

SlothB77: the programmers knew it wasn't working and wasn't ready on October 1st. Whoever decided to launch it made a huge mistake. The launch could have been delayed. It should have been obvious well before the launch it wasn't going to be ready.


The website is in bad shape, but a lot of people have been able to successfully apply that wouldn't have been able to apply if there were no website at all.

"Barely functional" is still infinitely more useful than "nothing".

BMFPitt: Not mutually exclusive. Any decent group of coders could have done better for less money in the same amount of time.


Private industry is very, very bad at their projects, too.  The average major software project is 66% over budget, 33% over time, and has 83% of the promised features.  17% of all major software projects are extreme overruns (200% or more over budget/time).

That said, the government certainly made mistakes.  There were many vendors involved each doing a part of the whole system.  As someone who works at a software company, when your project requires the cooperation of many different vendors, the difficulty and the time increases exponentially, because one vendor falling behind somewhere just snowballs, and with more than about 3 vendors, it's almost guaranteed someone will fall behind.
 
2013-10-22 07:44:06 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: "Barely functional" is still infinitely more useful than "nothing".


Actually it can be far worse.  Such as the fact that the site is apparently dumping a bunch of invalid data on insurance companies.  That implies that a bunch of people think they signed up but may not have coverage and they may not be identified.

Private industry is very, very bad at their projects, too.  The average major software project is 66% over budget, 33% over time, and has 83% of the promised features.  17% of all major software projects are extreme overruns (200% or more over budget/time).

And this is worse than that worst case, despite a heavily bloated initial budget.  I do software for the government and this shiat would not fly in my group.

That said, the government certainly made mistakes.  There were many vendors involved each doing a part of the whole system.  As someone who works at a software company, when your project requires the cooperation of many different vendors, the difficulty and the time increases exponentially, because one vendor falling behind somewhere just snowballs, and with more than about 3 vendors, it's almost guaranteed someone will fall behind.

This project was a failure at the far left of the life cycle, and they just went through with it as if nobody would notice.
 
2013-10-22 09:38:58 PM  

BMFPitt: And this is worse than that worst case, despite a heavily bloated initial budget. I do software for the government and this shiat would not fly in my group.


Actually, it's not worse than the worst case; at 210% over budget it's in the 17% only by a hair.  Many of the projects in that 17% were more than 400% over budget.  Basically one in every 6 major software projects goes this bad or worse.

This project was a failure at the far left of the life cycle, and they just went through with it as if nobody would notice.

Impossible to tell that without an RCA on what failed.  All we really see is performance of the web portal, which is only a tiny fraction of the actual software; it's the most visible piece but in the grand scheme of things it's one of the least mission-critical pieces as well.  My company has customers that have insurance arms that have successfully been receiving insurance applications electronically for the last two weeks or more, so the back end seems to be working at least that far.
 
2013-10-22 09:48:50 PM  

BMFPitt: Sum Dum Gai: "Barely functional" is still infinitely more useful than "nothing".

Actually it can be far worse.  Such as the fact that the site is apparently dumping a bunch of invalid data on insurance companies.  That implies that a bunch of people think they signed up but may not have coverage and they may not be identified.

Private industry is very, very bad at their projects, too.  The average major software project is 66% over budget, 33% over time, and has 83% of the promised features.  17% of all major software projects are extreme overruns (200% or more over budget/time).

And this is worse than that worst case, despite a heavily bloated initial budget.  I do software for the government and this shiat would not fly in my group.

That said, the government certainly made mistakes.  There were many vendors involved each doing a part of the whole system.  As someone who works at a software company, when your project requires the cooperation of many different vendors, the difficulty and the time increases exponentially, because one vendor falling behind somewhere just snowballs, and with more than about 3 vendors, it's almost guaranteed someone will fall behind.

This project was a failure at the far left of the life cycle, and they just went through with it as if nobody would notice.


I blame upper management.
 
2013-10-22 10:18:35 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Impossible to tell that without an RCA on what failed.  All we really see is performance of the web portal, which is only a tiny fraction of the actual software; it's the most visible piece but in the grand scheme of things it's one of the least mission-critical pieces as well.


So you're discounting the dozens of articles citing presumably credible sources who were involved in this project who said the design was an incomplete clusterfark, and that the back end is even more of a mess?

My company has customers that have insurance arms that have successfully been receiving insurance applications electronically for the last two weeks or more, so the back end seems to be working at least that far.

Valid, complete ones that don't repeat and cancel a half dozen times?
 
2013-10-22 10:18:41 PM  
I wonder if HHS's experience of being allowed to disburse funds for Healthcare.gov over the last 3 years has been anything like mine in government work, i.e. here's the money for the fiscal year 10 months late, sorry, politics. You have a month and a half to assemble your resources and use it all up. Go!
 
2013-10-22 10:25:01 PM  

BMFPitt: Valid, complete ones that don't repeat and cancel a half dozen times?


Couldn't tell you - not even close to my division, nor do I know anyone in that division beyond occasional acquaintances.  Just know the guys there were happy that things looked to be working.
 
2013-10-23 01:24:35 AM  

flucto: According to programmers interviewed for the story "the needful was failed to be done and requirements not clear site must actually work"


All your healthcare are belong to us!
 
2013-10-23 10:27:01 AM  

Flab: wrs1864: FTFA: But much of that time was spent in limbo. First there was waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn the law in the summer of 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-la r gely-stand.html">It didn't.) Then there was waiting to see if Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate would be elected that November to repeal it. (They weren't.)

I don't understand.   Why would the feds wait for these things?   I can understand having to wait until the states told them whether they were doing their own exchange or relying on the feds, but shouldn't HHS ago ahead as if the SCotUS would OK it?

No, because if SCOTUS had invalidated different parts of the law, it would mean changed requirements and may have required entire parts to have to be re-designed, which may have caused even more damage and delays.

Let's say your wife just learned she's pregnant and you decide that a 2 bedroom apartment isn't big enough anymore and start looking for a house.  There's also a possibility you'll get a raise, or maybe that you'll be named head of the EMEA division of the company and may have to move to Europe.  would you start looking right away at a small house in the Parisian suburb, or would you wait to see if you actually got the job?


A smart person plans for both.
 
2013-10-23 01:24:55 PM  

b0rscht: Lots of blame to spread around. Certainly all the republitards fighting tooth and nail to kill the ACA did not help matters. I cringed when I heard Obama say something along the lines of, "Nobody is more pissed off than I am. So it will get fixed." So very naive.... Don't make promises you cannot keep. As if a pissed-off POTUS could quickly fix a bloated mismanaged underfunded disorganized unfinished software project that went live too early.


Underfunded?  You partisan retard.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-websit e- cost/
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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