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 59
    More: Obvious, obamacare, meltdown, stages, Ezekiel Emanuel, exchange program  
•       •       •

4020 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:33 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-22 08:36:10 AM
6 votes:
"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 08:53:13 AM
5 votes:

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 08:41:19 AM
5 votes:
Fits the standard MO:

1/. Break government.
2/. Complain government is broken.
2013-10-22 08:22:29 AM
5 votes:
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 08:57:46 AM
4 votes:
Ah the joys of being a programmer and having a customer that doesn't really know what the hell they want
2013-10-22 10:52:15 AM
3 votes:

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 09:04:27 AM
3 votes:

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 08:47:34 AM
3 votes:

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 08:33:54 AM
3 votes:
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 11:37:34 AM
2 votes:
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 10:54:47 AM
2 votes:

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 10:51:36 AM
2 votes:

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 10:44:55 AM
2 votes:

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 10:31:25 AM
2 votes:

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 10:28:08 AM
2 votes:

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 09:27:19 AM
2 votes:
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 09:13:00 AM
2 votes:
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 01:19:58 PM
1 votes:
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 01:02:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:17 PM
1 votes:
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 12:20:46 PM
1 votes:
i44.tinypic.com
2013-10-22 12:07:33 PM
1 votes:

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 11:45:06 AM
1 votes:
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 11:44:49 AM
1 votes:
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 11:26:30 AM
1 votes:
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 11:11:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:17 AM
1 votes:
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 10:57:43 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:03 AM
1 votes:
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 10:52:38 AM
1 votes:
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 10:50:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:05 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:47 AM
1 votes:
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 10:46:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:40 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:35:31 AM
1 votes:

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 10:24:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:18:28 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:00 AM
1 votes:

Spare Me: 0bama


*chug*
2013-10-22 10:13:58 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:13 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:05 AM
1 votes:

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 09:35:32 AM
1 votes:

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 09:30:45 AM
1 votes:

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 09:21:25 AM
1 votes:
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 09:10:30 AM
1 votes:

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 09:02:48 AM
1 votes:

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 08:59:20 AM
1 votes:
Healthcare.gov is like every MMO launch ever.
2013-10-22 08:51:05 AM
1 votes:

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 08:48:52 AM
1 votes:
images.sodahead.com
2013-10-22 08:47:15 AM
1 votes:

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 08:45:56 AM
1 votes:

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 08:45:43 AM
1 votes:
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 08:45:01 AM
1 votes:
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 08:21:06 AM
1 votes:
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 08:14:19 AM
1 votes:
According to programmers interviewed for the story "the needful was failed to be done and requirements not clear site must actually work"
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report