Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HealthCare.gov: What Went Wrong?

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the other-people's-money dept.

Government 400

New submitter codeusirae writes "An initial round of criticism focused on how many files the browser was being forced to download just to access the site, per an article at Reuters. A thread at Reddit appeared and was filled with analyses of the code. But closer looks by others have teased out deeper, more systematic issues."

cancel ×

400 comments

Oh man (0, Redundant)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 9 months ago | (#45313381)

Can't wait to read the thoughtful comments to follow.

bitch and moan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313385)

bitch and moan
BITCH and MOAN
all americans do is bitch and moan.
bitch and moan
BITCH and MOAN
all republicans do is bitch and moan.

Re:bitch and moan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313443)

all republicans do is bitch and moan.

Close. All they do is sabotage everyone else's work, then bitch and moan and point fingers and yell "we told you so" once the fruits of their labor manifest.

Re:bitch and moan (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313583)

As opposed to Democrats lying that everyone could keep their coverage? And that Benghazi couldn't have been handled better? At this stage in the game, there is no blaming Bush. It's all Obama's lies and failed promises.

Re:bitch and moan (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313877)

What Obama meant was that he wouldn't force you to change your health care company himself.

He hasn't.

That not all prior plans meet the desired standards isn't a broken promise, it's a reflection some plans were actually broken.

Re:bitch and moan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313601)

How dare they sabotage it by not voting for it? How dare they sabotage it by predicting it would be clusterfuck of failure?

Hmm, maybe you should blame the people wrote it, voted for it, exempted themselves from it, and implemented it?

Re:bitch and moan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313625)

Yeah, the Republicans and their stooges at the Heritage Foundation. He is blaming them for it.

Re:bitch and moan (2)

blue trane (110704) | about 9 months ago | (#45313659)

Area man upset that govt is open also upset that govt website is slow!

Re:bitch and moan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313635)

naturally a group which has the motto of "government cant do anything right" has a vested interest in proving themselves right when given the power to do so.

Re:bitch and moan (0, Flamebait)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45313901)

Unless you are going to point to someone doing something to make it fail, all you have it people laughing and saying I told you so with an index finger extended outward.

There was absolutely no sabotage in this debacle unless it came from one of the administration's emissaries for reasons we have yet to discover or the contractor who seems to have gotten a no bid contract and has connections to Obama's wife decided to do something for whatever reason.

Re:bitch and moan (4, Insightful)

garyebickford (222422) | about 9 months ago | (#45314053)

One could argue that the Administration's tactic of preventing release of critical design data until after the election, to prevent the opposition from using the true costs as a campaign issue, was sabotage de facto. This put the entire development process several months, perhaps a year, behind schedule.

Re:bitch and moan (1, Insightful)

blue trane (110704) | about 9 months ago | (#45313651)

I guess you touched a nerve with tparty mods!

Re:bitch and moan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313689)

Eh, whatcha gonna do. So far the only forward movement they've been making is to ensure women have to birth and raise their rape babies. Anything calling them out on their ghoulishness is probably going to sting a bit.

Captcha: shouting

Re:bitch and moan (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 9 months ago | (#45313811)

All they do is sabotage everyone else's work

Pretty much. It's the "starve the beast" philosophy and strategy. Sabotage something, then point out how it doesn't work, and then say "well, duh, because all government is evil."

It's their raison d'etre and since the Republicans are so invested in it after 30 (40?) years, without it they would have an existential crisis that would end in the same fate as the Whigs.

--
BMO

Re:bitch and moan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313957)

Yea, we know you changed your middle initial to hide your true identity.

Nice try though.

Re:bitch and moan (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45313983)

Can you provide us with any real examples of this happening?

I don't think your statement has much support outside of ideology. In almost every attempt to starve the beast I have seen, they have declared the position is broken from the start and that throwing more money at it will not fix things.

On Further Examination (5, Informative)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 9 months ago | (#45313395)

This article is dated oct 8. I had assumed it would be more recent.

Re:On Further Examination (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313489)

You do know you're on Slashdot, right? An article from 10/8 is practically superluminal for these guys.

Re:On Further Examination (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45313843)

This article is dated oct 8. I had assumed it would be more recent.

Obligatory: You must be new here...

In other news, it's still a relevant and current event; Just because something's a month old doesn't mean it might as well have been written on stone tablets. I know the iThingie generation has the attention span of... oh who am I kidding, they didn't even finish reading the summary let alone the comments. :) But more seriously, it's pretty clear at this point the problem isn't because of the technology, but rather that the implimentation was divided up into two teams without much regard for communication between the two, or management oversight.

The fact is, what happened with ObamaCare happens in government IT all the time. Too many chefs, not enough cooks. When the dust settles we will undoubtedly discover that the true cause of failure was not in IT, or even the contractors, who I am sure met their contractual obligations, but rather that it was setup for failure by political interests who are right now getting a lot of play over its failure, without being identified as the cause. They will undoubtedly have plausible deniability of the "Well, I was sure this wouldn't happen because of my inserting language into the bill requiring process xyzzy be followed instead of yzzyx!" ... and a half-dozen co-conspirators all did similar to structure it in such a way that there was no other possible outcome than failure.

Failure like this requires planning; You can't accidentally crash and burn this badly. And what we're going to find when we do the autopsy is that a few dozen people conspired to create the conditions necessary for it to fail, but we'll never be able to prove the conspiracy, and because the blame will be on this group of individuals, each of whom can legitimately claim their own contribution shouldn't/couldn't have caused the failure, nobody will be held accountable.

Except of course the people who implimented it, and the guy who's name was on the proposal.

Just like every private sector IT project that blows up.

Re:On Further Examination (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45314047)

Girl - you write some pretty smart, insightful comments from time to time. But your logic is missing a few cogs here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor [wikipedia.org]

Everything (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313397)

Everything.

Here is a thought.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313403)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

Re:Here is a thought.. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | about 9 months ago | (#45313495)

Who says the storage center is implemented well?

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 9 months ago | (#45313519)

It's probably a lot more well-implemented since those that are permitted to do that work at least need to pass some security checks. This means that it's not just any cheap labor that can be employed to do that work.

But for a lot of work the cheapest bidder is mandated by law.

Re:Here is a thought.. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | about 9 months ago | (#45313575)

Eh.. cheap bidder, high bidder, both are going to scrimp. You have to make your requirements clear and stick to them and have good oversight. I don't think that's what happened with the health care web site, though. There just wasn't enough time to do it right. I'm not sure they had enough time to understand the requirements.

Regardless, there's no evidence either way on the data center. They might have great system. They might have a mediocre system propped by insane hardware investment. They might have a shitty system that barely works despite insane hardware investment. They're not really telling us what they're storing or how they're accessing it. The whole thing might be one giant write-only memory farm that they're planning on figuring out how to access later.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313537)

Calling it now - all storage on WD Green drives, Raid 1+0, unencrypted backups on DAT 320's stored on Fat Jim's Cheeto-covered desk.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313589)

Anyone who says it isn't, is toast.

Re:Here is a thought.. (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313631)

It is not, actually [time.com] :

The NSA’s new data-storage center in Utah has suffered a series of mysterious meltdowns in the past year.

Officials told [wsj.com] the Wall Street Journal that 10 fiery explosions, known as arc-fault failures, have ripped apart machinery, melted metal and destroyed circuits. The repeated meltdowns have delayed the opening of the one-million square foot facility by 12 months.

But the Anonymous GP may be right suspecting, the failure is deliberate... Obama's personal favorite healthcare model — as well as that of the rest of the Left — is "single-payer" (a.k.a. "Medicare for all"). Perhaps, it was calculated by our benevolent and sophisticated Democratic overlords, that the failure of Obamacare will make introducing the outright Socialist construct more palatable to the electorate.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

bmo (77928) | about 9 months ago | (#45313693)

Obama's personal favorite healthcare model â" as well as that of the rest of the Left â" is "single-payer"

So that's why he took it off the table straight away, right? That's part of his evil master plan, right?

Moron.

Single payer is my personal favorite healthcare model. Not Obama's.

--
BMO

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45313713)

So that's why he took it off the table straight away, right?

I imagine he took it off the table because such a proposal would have failed hard.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313751)

Obama's personal favorite healthcare model â" as well as that of the rest of the Left is "single-payer"

So that's why he took it off the table straight away, right? That's part of his evil master plan, right?

Quite possibly, he took it off the table straight away because he — and his team — realized, it is not going to pass. Indeed, that's what his web-site says [barackobama.com] : "Single Payer Would Kill Health Care Reform".

Whether what we are seeing unfold really was planned, or is, as it appears on the surface, evidence of gross incompetence, there is nothing impossible — nor even "unlikely" — about such plan.

Moron

Oh, the thoughtful and insightful arguments of the Left. Do post more, I beg of you.

Single payer is my personal favorite healthcare model. Not Obama's.

Can't say I've met smarter supporters of the idea...

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

bmo (77928) | about 9 months ago | (#45313855)

Left.

You keep saying this in reference to Obama, when Obama's history since 2009 has been to continue the policies of Bush and implement Republican ideas like Romneycare.

What color is the sky in your world?

--
BMo

Re:Here is a thought.. (0, Flamebait)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313937)

You keep saying this in reference to Obama, when Obama's history since 2009 has been to continue the policies of Bush and implement Republican ideas like Romneycare.

Other than politician's name followed by the word "care", there is very little [anncoulter.com] in common between Obama's and Romney's programs.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for you, that the charlatan you elected turned out to be less red than you wanted?

Re:Here is a thought.. (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 9 months ago | (#45313991)

>Citing anne coulter as a reference

Yeah, and we're done here.

--
BMO

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 9 months ago | (#45314031)

Go to You Tube and search "Obama single payer". In 2009, he was saying that's what he preferred.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313721)

I find it just as plausible that it was sabotaged by Obama haters, right-wingers, whack-a-do Libertarians* or Tea Party* people taking advantage of their position in government or in private companies doing contracted work. So far, either option is only speculation.

* whack-a-do Libertarian, Tea Party. I consider myself to be a part time whack-a-do-er, a part time Libertarian, and have some minor sympathy with some aspects of the Tea Party movement. Not all Libertatians are whack-jobs and vice-versa. My whacky political ideals are not part of my Libertarian likings, for example.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45313729)

Surely the administration and their followers can see that if they did decide to scrap this crap for single payer, the argument against it would be pointing to the inability for the government to manage a simple website and what that would do when you need a coronary bypass or little johnny broke his arm.

I mean nothing says look at me like a law that says you must participate and then having most of the avenues to do so blocked off by incompetence after 3 or more years.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313809)

inability for the government to manage a simple website

It could be, the observed failure exceeded the planners' expectations... The site does not merely suck, which could've been blamed on the evil insurers somehow. It completely does not work.

But I'm not sure, the suspicion is correct myself: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] )...

Conspiracy-Theory-Fu (4, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 9 months ago | (#45313977)

Maybe it's the fault of libertarians that seem to make up a significant percentage of the tech demographic; wanting to kill the Affordable Healthcare Act. Or tea party programmers wanting the same thing who managed to get on the project. Come on man! Think of some more conspiracies!! Lovin' it.

Of course it couldn't be the incompetence of contracting companies that seem to make a living because they have or aim to have some sort of inside track [washingtonpost.com] in Washington rather than the chops to do the actual thing that needs doing. Of course that would never happen in Washington or any other political capital [www.cbc.ca] . I'm not saying the way the primary contractor, Quebec company CGI, does business in any way follows recent [thestar.com] Quebec business [financialpost.com] practices [slashdot.org] . They are probably a well above board and good honest corporate citizen (although according to the Washington Post article above they did screw up another medical system based project). I'm just saying that if Quebec ever did separate from Canada, as it is now, they'd have to think up some other adjective to describe it. It's too cold to grow bananas there.

Frankly (and personally) though, I wouldn't trust any company to government contracts with stated aims published in their profiles like: "The ultimate aim is to establish relations so intimate with the client that decoupling becomes almost impossible," (see Washington Post article). Especially not from Quebec.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

McGruber (1417641) | about 9 months ago | (#45314039)

Who says the storage center is implemented well?

Angela Merkel

Re:Here is a thought.. (4, Funny)

Teancum (67324) | about 9 months ago | (#45313515)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

At least we can be comforted by the fact that the NSA data center is likely operated at the same levels of efficiency and competency.

Re:Here is a thought.. (4, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | about 9 months ago | (#45313523)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

That's because one was designed by a bunch of guys on a mission, with an exceptionally strong feeling of patriotism and righteousness with practically no oversight by congress. The other was done by the lowest bidders (largely not even American citizens), built on a framework that was made practically impossible to implement by a meddlesome and conflicted congress.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313675)

I've read maybe one or two articles on this matter, it's not of critical concern. That said, CGI is Canadian but don't they have thousands of US contractors? I had assumed that the work was large performed by Americans, not that it really matters as the underlying problem is not one of geography.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45313695)

I had assumed that the work was large performed by Americans

Canada is American too even though it isn't part of the US. And CGI might have a US subsidiary for the contract work.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313935)

That semantic distinction, in practice, is besides the point which was that deflecting blame on a matter of geography doesn't address the root problems of large projects especially with territoriality in play. Again, I have not read much on the issue but did glean that a large number of government databases (of various forms) needed to integrated. One doesn't even have to introduce politics of Democrats versus Republicans in this case. Many agencies and egos were likely involved on the government side while dozens of contractors (likely competitors) were at the service side.

And indeed, CGI has thousands of US based employees.

Were the underlying problems technical, too many cooks on side A, too many cooks on side B, the interaction of sides A & B, or the interaction of sides A, B, & technical, or the interaction of sides A, B, technical, and time constraints or some other combination? Answering "we the people must know" questions under such circumstances is difficult. I would also suggest that self interest will prevent any number of groups from revealing conflicts or observations.

Re:Here is a thought.. (-1)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313697)

made practically impossible to implement by a meddlesome and conflicted congress.

Sorry, but no. You don't get to blame the Executive failures on the Legislative branch. Nope, you do not — certainly not until you can cite clear examples of such "meddling" in the day-to-day development of the web-site...

No, the problem is, neither Obama nor anyone in his immediate circle has any experience as a, well, Executive... The opposition were crying about this point in 2008 — Obama never ran anything (except for a small failed charity [wikipedia.org] ) — but were drowned by the pertinent questions from the man's supporters, like: "Can Obama be even more awesome?"

Whatever his other merits (or lack thereof), having never been an executive — neither of a private corporation nor of government entity (such as a town mayor, State governor) — Obama is simply not equipped to deal with running the government.

Re:Here is a thought.. (2)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about 9 months ago | (#45313797)

No, the house shut down the govt for 3 weeks and then a week before the site goes live (with no work having been done on it during the shutdown) it comes back. Deadline passes and of course the site isn't ready. Republicans, eager to confuse their constituents over the fact they stalled the government, complain about the site not being ready. Dumbasses like you believe them, and blame Obama.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313849)

The government shut down the same day it went live (October 1st). Thanks for playing though.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313853)

the house shut down the govt for 3 weeks and then a week

The shutdown — whosoever's fault it was — began on October 1st — exactly the day, the site was to open. Sorry, try again [healthcare.gov] .

Dumbasses like you

Be sure to include more insightful arguments like this one, please.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313919)

You're timeline is completely fucked up. Good to see you're rewriting history, jackass.

Good to know liberal democrats are still fucking clueless idiots.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 9 months ago | (#45313885)

neither Obama nor anyone in his immediate circle has any experience as a, well, Executive... The opposition were crying about this point in 2008 — Obama never ran anything (except for a small failed charity)

The same argument could be made about many (most?) people, including George W Bush. Here's a 1999 CNN article about Bush as Businessman [cnn.com] that concludes with:

So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

In many cases, his companies, co-investors and taxpayers came out much worse for working with him.

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45313973)

The same argument could be made about many (most?) people, including George W Bush.

George W. Bush was — a fairly successful — governor (Executive) of a major State.

In many cases, his companies, co-investors and taxpayers came out much worse for working with him.

"In many cases" — carefully avoiding stating "in most"... Khmm... Could it be, CNN rooted for Al Gore back in 1999?..

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45314043)

That's because one was designed by a bunch of guys on a mission, with an exceptionally strong feeling of patriotism and righteousness with practically no oversight by congress..

Lol that sounds so gringo.

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 9 months ago | (#45313527)

Who's to say the NSA didn't also have issues of the same scale?

Re:Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313543)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

Yeah but are they effective.

After all, the NSA has been in operation for decades and we still had those terrorist attacks.

Post 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act voted into law by the dumbest motherfuckers and support by ignorant motherfukers ("I feel safer now!)", we had the Boston bombers.

So, either the NSA is incompetent or their real purpose is NOT to protect the US and her citizens but some other agenda. Either way, they have a lot to answer for.

Re:Here is a thought.. (2)

khasim (1285) | about 9 months ago | (#45313565)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

Nope. Because it is always possible to spend MORE money on a project in an attempt to get X results.

The trick is to get X results with the lowest cost. Someone who spends $1,000 on a loaf of bread may not be the best person so send grocery shopping. And that loaf of bread may not be worth $1,000. And when the project was making bologna sandwiches for lunch ...

For example, the TSA has a huge annual budget. Yet they've never caught a single terrorist.

Re: Here is a thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313705)

NSA you are just collecting data and the analysis is separate

This site you have to connect to lots of third party data sources and code lots of business rules to price the product for every person's income and situation

Re:Here is a thought.. (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 9 months ago | (#45313735)

I bet that the requirements document for that data storage centre was considerably shorter than the requirements for healthcare.gov, and there was probably more input from the people tasked with building it into how long it would take and what was a reasonable deadline.

Does govt want an insurance website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313753)

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the Govt can design and implement a billion+ dollar data storage center for the NSA but can't deploy a website to allow people to sign up for insurance?

The US govt is deeply split on if it wants ACA. Hell, the Dems are rushing to get the ACA in place to make it difficult to undo. The Republicans shut down the govt, to stop ACA, before it becomes difficult to undo. Much like Apollo, the most difficult part, was getting the govt, to decide it wants to pay for it.

So basically (2, Insightful)

Horshu (2754893) | about 9 months ago | (#45313411)

The web site turned out like every other v1 web app that gets rushed out to an externally-set deadline?

Simple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313459)

The US re-elected a nigger. What were you people thinking??

obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313499)

obama

First Problem: The law itself (0)

Teancum (67324) | about 9 months ago | (#45313505)

Basing a computer program upon a deliberately obfuscated law that is also so huge that no single person has ever read the whole thing, much less that it can be converted into something that can be comprehended in mathematical terms is at least where to start with the whole mess. Forget about if the ideas that got the law started are valid or not, the law itself doesn't really accomplish any of the stated goals of what the legislation was supposed to do in the first place, other than to become a fiscal black hole for everything that touches it.... including any software development related to the law.

Re:First Problem: The law itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45314001)

So what you're saying is it's just like every other bill the Democrats shove through.

Hmm how about starting from the beginning.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313509)

It's another expansion of an already too big welfare state by socialists communists and other traitors.

The titanic was built with faulty steel plating... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313517)

combined with a lead footed captain/owner you could only expect a rapid failure.
Now you look at an idiot electorate who elect a command-n-chimp and what would expect after the match was lit?
Socialist healthcare is only gasoline on the fire...

Re:The titanic was built with faulty steel plating (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313611)

Dear AC, Please explain to me how purchasing private health insurance from a competitive marketplace is even remotely socialist. I suggest you learn what socialism really is, instead of invoking it towards everything (or everyone) you may not agree with. It just makes you look stupid.

What went wrong? Nothing. (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 9 months ago | (#45313521)

You assume that it didn't go exactly as planned.

it was designed to fail, so as to inaccurately blame the Republicans and replace it with single-payer as a ' i told you so ' maneuver.

then why did some states succeed? (2)

mbkennel (97636) | about 9 months ago | (#45313571)


Some states succeeded with their websites. The federal government succeeded with its employee insurance marketplace which has much wider coverage.
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/

Republicans refused to allow people onto this plan, or to buy into Medicare.

ACA is not designed to fail intentionally but it probably will because it only addresses one part of a profit-making system. There is no competitive substitutability or clarity on prices (not just costs!). Ever try to find out how much some thing will cost at office X vs Y, with insurance? It's astonishingly difficult. I suspect this is intentional.

Single-payer appears to be empirically more successful for medicine (and few other goods and services).

Re:then why did some states succeed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313649)

Riddle me this, batman: If a law is passed with 0 republican votes, how can republicans be responsible for what is or isn't in it?

Re:then why did some states succeed? (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 9 months ago | (#45313673)

When you have the media bought and paid for, they can convince the masses of anything.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (3, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 9 months ago | (#45313691)

By:

  1. refusing to even allow the bill to come up for debate until it gets just the desired amount of crossed-out lines, ideological additions, arcane language, and pork behind closed subcommittee doors; and
  2. voting against it anyway once it's finally allowed on the floor.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313931)

Yea, check this out [politico.com] .

Other than being the opposite of what you claim, all the kickbacks and bribes were for DNC votes. Then we can add on the ONLY part the GOP had a hand in writing was an amendment from Ghram where the Congress would be required to purchase and get their healthcare from the exchanges, which Obama override with executive order so they can be exempted from the prices by subsidies. Yep, Congress gets a 75% subsidy on their costs at $172K salary, while you don't get a subsidy if your income is over $46k, so the ONLY part the GOP had anything to do with was removed after it was signed into law without passing another law.

So, yea everything you say is correct, hoever it is provable that it was the DNC that did what you calim. Don't worry, you are a hypocrite so you will be fine with all those tricks since it is "your side" doing it.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (-1, Flamebait)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45313755)

It's a natural division of labor. Democrats set policy and draft legislation. Republicans rubberstamp it and clean up the resulting mess. Duh.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313995)

Turns out a lot of decisions in Congress are made in these things called Committees, not just on the floor votes.

I know, difficult to comprehend, but Republicans participated in those debates and conferences. I know, their amnesia caused them to forget about it, which is why they act like there wasn't any discussion on it, but don't pretend it didn't happen.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313681)

"If you like your healthcare, you can keep it"

Truth [forbes.com] is they KNEW 93 million people would lose their healthcare plan back in 2010. It was PLANNED to fail the people from the start. When you have to lie to convince people your law is good, its probably not a good law.

The Democrats OWN this. They OWN the lie, the OWN the failure, the OWN the massive increases in prices for the middle class, they OWN the entire thing. All based on lies told to the American people that have been found out. This is Obama's legacy, lies and failures.

Re:then why did some states succeed? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 9 months ago | (#45313787)

They did this for our own good [kuro5hin.org] . Note in the link the use of the phrase "verbal KY".

I had a problem with the Inforworld site (3, Interesting)

rs79 (71822) | about 9 months ago | (#45313567)

It was slow to load, I couldn't sign up, my browser hung waiting on lost connections with the too many other files it was trying to download and there seem to be server sync problems with the back end databases.

In other words it acts like PayPal, Google, Facebook and Slashdot.

Re:I had a problem with the Inforworld site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313737)

You left out Yahoo, and esp. Yahoo mail.

Funny!

Systemic (4, Informative)

ErnoWindt (301103) | about 9 months ago | (#45313569)

Not "systematic."

A distraction (2)

ChuckT00 (3418723) | about 9 months ago | (#45313593)

Healthcare.gov is merely a distraction from Obamacare, also Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sooner or later the website will be fixed and many will think that the mission has been accomplished. It is obvious that Affordable Care Act is not really Affordable for the middle class, it is merely a new additional tax for most of the working people, who were mostly silent through the process. Affordable Care Act does little to employ free market principles and to combat the true problem: HealthCare costs.

Re:A distraction (3, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 9 months ago | (#45313815)

"free market principles" won't help here. On the contrary, just think of the money that would go into actual health care if the government came in guns-ablaze and forcefully said "no, United Health Care, you can't treat your customers like the deepest turd of a batch of untreated sewer sludge [consumeraffairs.com] ", or "no, big drugmaker, you can't throw millions of dollars on advertising niche products like fucking Restasis all over primetime tv instead of putting the money toward cutting the costs of life-saving meds".

Those are two cases where I'd actually be elated to see the NSA and TSA put into use: snoop on the moneyed fuckers involved and No-Fly 'em as soon as it's clear they want to take anything that resembles a business trip to plan their next splurge.

frist s7op (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313597)

log on Then 7he

Two things.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313609)

Murphy and Ted Cruz.

US constitution anyone? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313641)

So would blatant violation of the 10th amendment of the US constitution by the US federal government come into play here?

It seems to me that the website tried to do too much and the company tasked to build it were given a no bid contract and had political connections to michelle obama. Government corruption at its finest.

Did they REALLY expect nothing to go wrong? (4, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | about 9 months ago | (#45313653)

Regardless of "what went wrong", you know that the higher ups will just fire some peons, give themselves some big bonuses, and call it a day.

But the BIGGER question I don't see anybody asking, is why is there no apparent fall back or concession to delay requirements due to the problems? ANY significantly complicated computer system can reasonably be expected to encounter problems at deployment. And despite what the talking, drooling, blathering heads on TV seem to think, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to test a system like this 100.000000000000% against real world scenarios. There will be glitches, there will be people who can't use the systems, there will be all sorts of "people problems" that no technology can fix. They should have been ready with other non webby ways to get people taken care of, and prepared to delay the needs for all of this if they could not get everyone taken care of in time.

Re:Did they REALLY expect nothing to go wrong? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 9 months ago | (#45313863)

But the BIGGER question I don't see anybody asking, is why is there no apparent fall back or concession to delay requirements due to the problems?

Because they are afraid that if it isn't implemented and real changes that impact existing people and businesses aren't made, then after an election, they could lose the ability to ever implement it. In fact, this is how it was passed and why you have the "3 days and 3 lawyers to understand what was in it so there will be no reading of the bill" comment from Reid in the senate and the "how will you know what's in it until after you pass the bill, so no reading of the bill" comment from Pelosi in the house. The republicans were attempting to stall for Scott Brown to be seated in the senate so they could have blocked the entire thing. Instead, the senate rushed a bill and pulled some shenanigans on the back side to make it appear as an amended revenue bill instead of their plan and the house used reconciliation to tie a bill they passed together with the senate's version.

but make no mistake, the reason why no delay will ever be afforded is because once the law takes effect, it is almost impossible to remove it and go back to before. That is the goal and the only acceptable result for Obama and company.

They had 55 contractors. Duh. (4, Interesting)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 9 months ago | (#45313683)

It's hard enough to work with one spotty vendor, let alone 55. That number, 55, represents somewhere between 55 and 55-squared lines of possibly iffy communication between possibly iffy organizations. When I first heard that healthcare.gov had 55 contractors working on it, I was surprised that the damn thing ran at all.

It's time to kill off the boomers. (1, Troll)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 9 months ago | (#45313741)

My take on it (as I've posted previously):

The government seems to treat the population, in many ways, much as a farmer treats his livestock. But when it comes to getting old, how DOES a farmer treat livestock?

On a farm, while livestock is healthy and producing profit, they're valuable. Once they're costing more than they're producing, it's time to get rid of them. A particularly beloved animal might be kept on as a pet. But the anonymous mass has to go.

Since at lest the late '70s or early '80s, the impending bankruptcy of Social Security has been a worry for government officials. I recall one of them making a "slip of the tongue" on a CNN interview, back when the channel was new: She lamented that small families and the success of the '60s anti-population-growth propaganda was leading to too many retired and two few working, and they had to "get the death rate up to match the birth rate" to save the program. That may not be the official position, but that sort of thinking is pervasive.

In past generations oldsters could be counted on for votes. But aging boomers aren't as solid a voting block for the party in power as some of the later generations - particularly the new, undocumented, immigrants.

What if our current party-in-power has decided that, now that the Baby Boomers are aging out of the work force, becoming a drain on, rather than paying into, the government coffers, it's time to kill them off? How could they go about it?

Just setting up "Death Panels" and picking who's going to be left to die isn't too popular. (Look at the bad press they got when they included that in a companion bill to Obamacare.)

But how about this:

- Nationalize the bulk of the medical insurance industry.
- Change the rules on all of it, so the prices for private plans goes 'way up, and the insurance companies can dump the sickly from their current, lower-priced, plans because they don't conform to the new rules.
- Then botch the rollout, so those dumped can't get new insurance, either.

Result:
    - The poor boomers are dumped from their insurance. The moderately well-to-do boomers have their healthcare prices skyrocket, quickly draining them into "poor boomer" status. (Give 'em six months to three years without insurance and see how many are left.) Only the truly rich can afford to stay alive and healthy.
- With the "It's a really GREAT program, there's just a few bugs in the rollout." claim they can stretch it out and leave the oldsters uninsured for years.
    - Meanwhile the politicians who orchestrated this get to claim they're doing it to HELP the population, not to kill them off. (They even get to claim it's their opposition who is trying to kill off grandma.)

Maybe it's not what's happening. But it fits so well with the rest of their track records and the party's historical roots. I ask myself, "If they were doing this deliberately, WHAT would they do differently?". And I can't think of a single thing.

Re: It's time to kill off the boomers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45314005)

Children cost more than they produce, and not everyone finds any value in them. Now, if it's OK for children to suck on society's teet for 18 - 22 years (and sometimes more for those particularly greedy doctors who spend even more years in school) then why can't those who have retired spend that long (or more) after they've done their jobs?

And what of the greedy who use the work of others? If the people who built your house have retired and have no more value to you then tear down their work and do it yourself. I could go on but I think you get the point.

The real problem is modern medicine has let the sick survive and let them reproduce (thus watering down the collective gene pool). Stop curing diseases and treating the sick. That will save you a bunch of money right there. /sarcasm

simple reason that a complex system fails (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 9 months ago | (#45313813)

it's simple: they didn't do enough testing and bug fixing. there should have been at least 6 months of testing and debugging to get this system working well. the information i found was that 248 people were able to sign up on the first day. so it works... kind of. there were bugs like spouses sometimes ending up being filed as children.

it's obviously a complex system but i take the 80m lines of code number with a grain of salt because i'm sure that includes all the libraries they (re)used too and maybe even an entire JVM. as such, it's probably all in house crap for each and every contractor, 55 if i remember correctly. there was obviously lazy coding involved to get that much bloat. there could be a swath of libs included that arent even used but were thrown in there "just in case i need it".

i hope the companies helping them gut the use of most proprietary libs because they are an easy way to get terrible bugs and gaping security holes. i also hope they move to a unified OO language to get a handle on this feral system. however, if i find out that google convinced them to rewrote it all in Go, i'll just cry.

Re:simple reason that a complex system fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313955)

I don't think Go would be any worse than the pile of hipster dogshit that is Ruby.

Splat Programming (4, Insightful)

wdhowellsr (530924) | about 9 months ago | (#45313829)

The ObamaCare web site is an example of Splat Programming. What is Splat Programming? Cut and paste from every where, run once and move on if it appears to even marginally work, and don't think very long about method or variable names. The most important part about Splat Programming is that you don't try to combine css or js files but rather just reference them individually via CDN and only change function name or variables that conflict. Most importantly, do not do any loading, scaling or security testing especially if you know that the test will fail.

The other part is Government Projects. You don't have to worry about errors and omissions because the standard government contracts do not hold the contractor liable if the final result is approved. Finally, unlike commercial projects, there is an infinite amount of money available to pay for years of bug fixes and upgrades.

Thankfully this site only effects a small percentage of people so there is really no cause for alarm.:)

government spending in action (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 9 months ago | (#45313857)

Typical of what happens when an organization is too used to spending other people's money. It's ike a 16yo girl's runaway spending habits with daddy's credit card...and she's got him by the balls, too, along with her mother.

What went wrong... (-1, Troll)

judoguy (534886) | about 9 months ago | (#45313871)

...was a wretched POS generally referred to as ObamaCare. Here we have something designed to wreck an already problematic healthcare system and you guys are complaining about the fucking web site.

Man, what a classic nerd response.

Designed To Fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313893)

This is all part of the plan. The Socialists want to destroy the heathcare system so that they can get everyone dependent on a single payer system and get rid of the insurance industry. Can't have a free market if you're going to redistribute the nations wealth.

Self Funding and Sourcing using an Existing site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45313895)

Should have opened an Amazon store.. sign up would produce an eBook charge to fund the site and a User Account and eBook download with all the details of your purchase. Amazon would get paid by a Tax gratis from the Government.

What went wrong? (5, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 9 months ago | (#45313927)

First and worst, politicians were involved. Everything else pretty much is a cascade effect off that.
Second, cronyism.
Third, you had a bunch of non-technical people setting up moving goalposts for the technical people to hit, with regard to the technical specs of the site.
Fourth, distinct lack of firm, single-message communication to the technical teams with regards to whether the project was or was not going forward.

I could go on and on about all the fuckups with regard to this. But I'd just piss off a bunch of people who aren't worth my time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...