If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   And here it is, folks, the first head to roll over the Obamacare launch. Well, not "roll" exactly as much as "depart quietly in what was supposedly a planned retirement," but it'll have to do for now   (foxnews.com) divider line 15
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Marsha Blackburn, Health and Human Services  
•       •       •

3689 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2013 at 11:37 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-12-31 12:47:19 PM  
2 votes:

X-boxershorts: Spare Me: Yea, right? If only Obama had a complete blank check and full dictatorial power, those Unicorns would be here already. It's all Republicans fault.

Indeed it is. The Republican House refused to fund development and rollout of the healthcare.gov website.

If you fart in the elevator and there's only 2 people there, it's difficult to pretend it wasn't you.

Own it.


Are you f#$king serious? The Republicans are supposed to own this mess? They wanted nothing to do with it. Even if the website worked *perfectly*, it doesn't explain the abandoned carts when people realize "you mean it's not free?!" at checkout?

This mess is 100% caused and owned by the Democrats. God,  you're so dumb, I bet you fail surveys.
2013-12-31 12:24:14 PM  
2 votes:
The website works today... Cry me a river, no one will remember this fiasco a few years from now. At the end of the day, like most large IT project roll outs to the public, it is never really version 1.0. The large majority of products and services are unpolished, requiring additional improvements to be considered version 1.0. If Healthcare.gov was held back, it would never be released! There is an old adage in IT, release and then fix. If you are always fixing, you will never release!

I'm not surprised there were no firings over the fiasco. It's a government product... Why would the government care about any tarnishing of its image? It's not a publicly traded company, it's not subject to boycotts or viral marketing sabotage, its shareholders (the public) complains a lot but don't really give a f--k because they never do anything significant to change things up.

Do you don't think the countless scandals like IRS, Benghazi (is it a scandal yet?), and E. Snowden hasn't its reputation enough? A measly website roll-out is nothing compared to those f-ups. Bottom line, the launch did not cause anyone to die. Therefore, truly no harm other than perceived was caused. Is it justifiable to fire someone over an expected outcome, which unfortunately occurs millions of times a year in the IT sector?

The real story that people in the IT industry doesn't like to talk about is that Healthcare.gov showcased a rotten problem in the way software products are developed. Software engineering is very error prone, the industry leaders prefer "rapid" product development over sound engineering practices that would ensure against massive failures like the website rollout. Test driven development anyone? No that takes too long and doesn't deliver talking point milestones for the project manager. Incorporating sound engineering practices bloats the timeline, and add costs. When asked to lower costs, these are some of the first things to drop from the project plan.

I sternly believe the IT sector and software engineering in general must be regulated, and accredited like the other physical engineering disciplines in order to overcome the management incentives in pushing quantity over quality. It's not a government problem, it's a IT industry problem period. A lot of version 1.0 software (which is really not 1.0, mostly beta/pre 1.0) are buggy to hell. It's become acceptable to do this in this industry. It's pathetic.
2013-12-31 11:48:17 AM  
2 votes:
Only in the government can something go as bad as the website roll out and no one lose their job.
2013-12-31 07:03:10 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Right: X-boxershorts: Here's a story that links to the original publication with Heritage's dirty greasy fingerprints all over the god damned mandate.

Yes, Heritage is in favor of mandating that everyone have insurance.  But they specifically say that employers should NOT be involved in providing insurance.  The model they promoted is more like automobile insurance:  Have insurance for catastrophes; cover day to day and maintenance out of pocket.  The insurance system, not the health care system, has been broken in this country for a long time.  The biggest culprit is the first dollar coverage plans.  Those are precisely the plans that ACA mandates.   That is the polar opposite of what Heritage promoted.  So if it  makes you feel good to say that Heritage used the word mandate, you win.  If you think the Heritage plan is remotely like ACA, you're dumber than red brick.  My original argument was that stating that ACA is based in the Heritage plan is dead wrong.  That statement stands, even if Heritage used the word mandate as a footer on every damned page.


I'm sorry if thatoffends you, but I understand. Nothing worthwhile has ever come forth from the Heritage Foundation.
2013-12-31 04:49:34 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Right: X-boxershorts: Mr. Right: Pangea: The ACA is constructed from ideas promoted by the American Heritage Foundation. I fully expect the Republicans to take credit for it once it becomes a success. It's not as if they have any other ideas, considering these are already their ideas.

The notion that ACA is anything like ideas promoted by Heritage is a lie promulgated by rabidly partisan Democrats desperate to find some kind of cover when ACA blows up and destroys the health insurance coverage of most of the middle class.  That lie is then parroted by idiots who don't have the intelligence to understand either ACA or the Heritage report.

And believe it or not, Republicans and Conservatives have come up with plenty of other ideas.  Some are good, others are not. But the lie that his opposition has no ideas has been thrown around by Obama and his minions so that they don't have to defend ACA against ideas that would actually work.  A sycophantic media and the legions of useful idiots who support Obama keep the lie alive.

So now comes the question:  Is Pangea a colossally ignorant fool or just another garden-variety, maliciously partisan liar?

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it?

https://www.google.com/#q=Heritage+Foundation+and+the+ACA

So you did a Google search.  Congratulations.  Did you actually read the Heritage report?  Yes, it contains the word mandate!  Yes, it talks about every American having access to health care.  IT'S EVEN IN ENGLISH!!!!!!  SAME AS THE ACA!!!!!

Maybe if you had an attention span longer than whatever it is you carry around in  your X-boxershorts, you could have read the parts where it states that employers should have no role in providing health insurance.  Maybe you could have read the parts where it strongly urged that insurance coverage consist of catastrophic coverage with low premiums and high deductibles and that the insurance plans come with individual Health Savings Accounts where part of each premium would be deposited in a savings accoun ...


I'm neither arguing in favor of the farking law nor in opposition to the farking law...asshole.

But god farking dammit, that mandate originated at Heritage. And no matter how much Heritage tries to distance themselves from it, no human being should ever, and I mean ever, let them off the hook for this piece of shiat idea.

And conratufarkinglations on health care snobbery....and I thought beer snobbery sucked.

Here's a story that links to the original publication with Heritage's dirty greasy fingerprints all over the god damned mandate.

http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-found at ion-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html
2013-12-31 02:33:55 PM  
1 votes:

X-boxershorts: rigmort: X-boxershorts: Spare Me: Yea, right? If only Obama had a complete blank check and full dictatorial power, those Unicorns would be here already. It's all Republicans fault.

Indeed it is. The Republican House refused to fund development and rollout of the healthcare.gov website.

If you fart in the elevator and there's only 2 people there, it's difficult to pretend it wasn't you.

Own it.

Are you f#$king serious? The Republicans are supposed to own this mess? They wanted nothing to do with it. Even if the website worked *perfectly*, it doesn't explain the abandoned carts when people realize "you mean it's not free?!" at checkout?

This mess is 100% caused and owned by the Democrats. God,  you're so dumb, I bet you fail surveys.

House republicans refused to fund the development and rollout of the Healthcare.gov website.

yes, THEY farkING OWN THAT!!!!


They spend HALF A BILLION for a 2 million dollar website, and you are saying nobody gave them any money?

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHHA
'HAHAHAHA
HAAHH

damn dude.....
2013-12-31 02:03:59 PM  
1 votes:

rigmort: X-boxershorts: Spare Me: Yea, right? If only Obama had a complete blank check and full dictatorial power, those Unicorns would be here already. It's all Republicans fault.

Indeed it is. The Republican House refused to fund development and rollout of the healthcare.gov website.

If you fart in the elevator and there's only 2 people there, it's difficult to pretend it wasn't you.

Own it.

Are you f#$king serious? The Republicans are supposed to own this mess? They wanted nothing to do with it. Even if the website worked *perfectly*, it doesn't explain the abandoned carts when people realize "you mean it's not free?!" at checkout?

This mess is 100% caused and owned by the Democrats. God,  you're so dumb, I bet you fail surveys.


House republicans refused to fund the development and rollout of the Healthcare.gov website.

yes, THEY farkING OWN THAT!!!!

Did you fail Kindergarten?
2013-12-31 01:13:18 PM  
1 votes:
The website cost about 30 times more than what IBM would have charged to make it.  That is a conservative estimate, not counting what it cost to fix the thing after it was rolled out (and it still aint fixed).

To suggest that the problem was that the congressional republicans did not vote it enough money is so stupid that it would make me angry, if you worms were capable of getting me angry.

But it is a pretty stupid thing to say.  Like, painfully stupid.  You have to be either functionally retarded to think that is the case, dishonest (I include the astroturfers here.... you KNOW the parties pay people to post on forums, don't you?  which party claims to be more tech savvy?), or just aren't paying attention but assume Obama's peeps can do no wrong.

I'm figuring either dishonest or just aren't paying attention.
2013-12-31 12:19:38 PM  
1 votes:

zelet: Yes, it was a simple website. It's not like this site was actually a front end for a massive information system that reached across archaic 80's (at best) era databases and disparate networks and systems across the government and private sector. But, yeah, it's just like any other website launch.


If at launch they were servicing requests by routing anything to an 80s era database, then they don't understand anything about networking, systems integration or how to do their job, and therefore fail miserably.
2013-12-31 12:00:23 PM  
1 votes:

zelet: Yes, it was a simple website. It's not like this site was actually a front end for a massive information system that reached across archaic 80's (at best) era databases and disparate networks and systems across the government and private sector. But, yeah, it's just like any other website launch.


That is not the point. They knew the scope of the project when they created it.  They simply screwed it up.
2013-12-31 11:56:02 AM  
1 votes:

flak attack: Quinzy: Only in the government can something go as bad as the website roll out and no one lose their job.

Seriously.  Love the ACA or hate it, multiple people seriously dropped the ball with the website launch.  If I rolled out a product like that, I would be axed before the end of the day.


In their defense, nobody expected most of the red states to voluntarily give up power to the federal government by refusing to implement their own exchanges, leading to far more strain on the federal system than expected.

Even by modern day GOP standards, it was a freakin' bizarre and poorly thought-out move.
2013-12-31 11:53:34 AM  
1 votes:
Yes, it was a simple website. It's not like this site was actually a front end for a massive information system that reached across archaic 80's (at best) era databases and disparate networks and systems across the government and private sector. But, yeah, it's just like any other website launch.
2013-12-31 11:52:13 AM  
1 votes:

Quinzy: Only in the government can something go as bad as the website roll out and no one lose their job.


Seriously.  Love the ACA or hate it, multiple people seriously dropped the ball with the website launch.  If I rolled out a product like that, I would be axed before the end of the day.
2013-12-31 11:49:36 AM  
1 votes:
Did anyone seriously think that the government could get a huge new IT project right the first time, or even within the first year?
2013-12-31 11:24:37 AM  
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report