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 176
    More: Obvious, obamacare, meltdown, stages, Ezekiel Emanuel, exchange program  
•       •       •

4022 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report