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  
•       •       •

4020 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:33 AM (39 weeks 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 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.
 
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 »






Report