The report that the specifications for the site weren't handed out until spring, meaning that build was only 6 months ago for this massive site is ridiculous. Napolitano absolutely should be canned for that, especially that they decided to have no real backup beside the site.

More at link

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...ans-true-costs/

Poor planning. It makes perfect sense that they would want people to see their actual cost, not naked cost without adjustments. The "true cost" is irrelevant anyway.

 

The problem is that they decided to have a browsing feature without giving initial parameters in the first place, when obviously that wouldn't work.

 

The report that the specifications for the site weren't handed out until spring, meaning that build was only 6 months ago for this massive site is ridiculous. Napolitano absolutely should be canned for that, especially that they decided to have no real backup beside the site.

Yeah that's stupid. Regardless of how much it cost, the idea of getting a site like this and ALL the servers, software and data behind it, up and running within 6 months is absurd.

 

That's an odd report given that as of last week, you could see unsubsidized plan prices without registering and the wording about "obamacare's true costs" instead of "health insurance's true costs." Seems more like an opinion piece than tech reporting.

 

I've seen other reports that indicated that based on the RFP and the requirements (and the general government procurement process), there was essentially no way that it was going to work well on Day 1. First, just the massive traffic load on October 1st was something you could either spend a ton of money to address or just deal with for a couple of days until traffic loads drop off a bit and then you'll never have to worry about it again. Would it make sense to spend say $50M for additional hardware when you're only going to see this peak load once? The second is that the website is a middleman that has to communicate with multiple different state databases that aren't structured in the same manner and many of which aren't compatible. It's a non-trivial problem.

 

edit: Avik Roy was an adviser to Romney, apparently. Consider the source of that "growing consensus."

Edited October 15, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

That's an odd report given that as of last week, you could see unsubsidized plan prices without registering and the wording about "obamacare's true costs" instead of "health insurance's true costs." Seems more like an opinion piece than tech reporting.

 

I've seen other reports that indicated that based on the RFP and the requirements (and the general government procurement process), there was essentially no way that it was going to work well on Day 1. First, just the massive traffic load on October 1st was something you could either spend a ton of money to address or just deal with for a couple of days until traffic loads drop off a bit and then you'll never have to worry about it again. Would it make sense to spend say $50M for additional hardware when you're only going to see this peak load once? The second is that the website is a middleman that has to communicate with multiple different state databases that aren't structured in the same manner and many of which aren't compatible. It's a non-trivial problem.

 

It's fairly clear in the NYT report over weekend that the issues go way beyond traffic and will not be resolved for months. You are right that the communication to state databases is a burden which is why 6 months of build and testing is not enough to get a competent product out (especially when you have 3 teams not communicating).

It's fairly clear in the NYT report over weekend that the issues go way beyond traffic and will not be resolved for months. You are right that the communication to state databases is a burden which is why 6 months of build and testing is not enough to get a competent product out (especially when you have 3 teams not communicating).

Yep, there's a lot of issues here. The overwhelming traffic would be more of a planned failure type of thing.

 

But those issues are not deliberate attempts to 'hide the true cost of Obamacare,' as that Forbes editorial claims.

My wife works for a major insurer, and as i was b****ing about Ocare at dinner, she informs me that her company was doing testing of the site for the Feds. Or at least they were supposed to. Apparently about 4 months ago they started missing deadlines of making parts of the site available for testing. Then 2 months ago they (the company in charge of the website) terminated the testing contract, having missed 4 other deadlines for submitting pieces to be tested. I laughed a bit, then shook my head in sorrow.

Can you imagine if the response if the Bush admn had been in charge of this disaster?

David Auerbach has some more breakdowns of exactly what's going wrong with the exchange websites over at slate

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/bit...ver_talked.html

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/b...many_cooks.html

Can you imagine if the response if the Bush admn had been in charge of this disaster?

You mean Medicare Part D?

 

It's pretty terrible timing for the GOP that this comes at the same time as the shutdown and the debt ceiling nonsense. They've really shot themselves in the foot on that one and, like Yglesias, I gotta wonder how many people mistakenly believe the shutdown is at least partially responsible for the problems and why they're not getting fixed immediately.

My wife works for a major insurer, and as i was b****ing about Ocare at dinner, she informs me that her company was doing testing of the site for the Feds. Or at least they were supposed to. Apparently about 4 months ago they started missing deadlines of making parts of the site available for testing. Then 2 months ago they (the company in charge of the website) terminated the testing contract, having missed 4 other deadlines for submitting pieces to be tested. I laughed a bit, then shook my head in sorrow.

 

Right, but the thing is, deadlines ARE usually missed when building a web site. Stuff comes up. But they had years to get this ironed out and only ironed out what they wanted in Spring 2013. It's just madness.

Can you imagine if the response if the Bush admn had been in charge of this disaster?

 

Yeah I can, the headline would be.

 

President George Bush heroically trying to help America as Democrat Congress f***s up regular peoples healthcare.

 

The govt isnt run well because of both parties. Anyone who blames one over the other is either 1) lying or 2) uninformed.

 

I just hate the dishonesty and the blame game.

Right, but the thing is, deadlines ARE usually missed when building a web site. Stuff comes up. But they had years to get this ironed out and only ironed out what they wanted in Spring 2013. It's just madness.

 

Government procurement is a giant mess that takes far too long and, generally, the RFPs require impossible technical details, are self-contradictory, and are vague enough that you can't even know what the hell they want (probably because they don't know exactly!).

Right, but the thing is, deadlines ARE usually missed when building a web site. Stuff comes up. But they had years to get this ironed out and only ironed out what they wanted in Spring 2013. It's just madness.

 

Not really. Ever worked with a company that has a board of directors that is waging a civil war against itself?

 

This is the exact type of s*** that happens. 1 side sandbags the funding etc, etc, it doesnt work, they smugly say "Look it doesnt work" and everyone is hurt.

 

 

This might be the wrong thread. If you want to make it its own post go ahead. Call it Obama approval rating:

 

My question is: How do you rate Obama as a President?

I truly would say he's a huge failure and I voted for him one of the two times. I think he deserves a D to D-minus, I truly do.

Do u agree?

 

I do think Romney would have been an F and McCain a D-minus if that's any consolation.

Edited October 16, 201312 yr by greg775

This might be the wrong thread. If you want to make it its own post go ahead. Call it Obama approval rating:

 

My question is: How do you rate Obama as a President?

I truly would say he's a huge failure and I voted for him one of the two times. I think he deserves a D to D-minus, I truly do.

Do u agree?

 

I do think Romney would have been an F and McCain a D-minus if that's any consolation.

 

He has a great personality and makes me laugh so I'm ok with his results based on that. Would you rather have some boring person in his shoes where no one is interested to even tune in to listen to them speak? At least he's entertaining.

 

I would give him an A minus.

He has a great personality and makes me laugh so I'm ok with his results based on that. Would you rather have some boring person in his shoes where no one is interested to even tune in to listen to them speak? At least he's entertaining.

 

I would give him an A minus.

 

I think he shows a good personality only once a year, at the Washington correspondents dinner. Otherwise, he's not that funny.

I think he shows a good personality only once a year, at the Washington correspondents dinner. Otherwise, he's not that funny.

That might well be the worst, most hideous yearly Washington event in the country.

That might well be the worst, most hideous yearly Washington event in the country.

 

Oh yeah?

Oh yeah?

Name a worse one. It's a night of the people who are supposed to be skeptical of government, the people who are supposed to be the oversight of government, laughing it up, celebrating, and drinking alongside government. Making jokes about how the WMD's aren't over here. It's a celebration of everything that is wrong with Washington.

If we ever have a Reign of Terror, I hope the DC cocktail circuit is the first to be dragged in front of the Revolutionary Tribunal. Specifically Politico.

Edited October 16, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

I think he shows a good personality only once a year, at the Washington correspondents dinner. Otherwise, he's not that funny.

Oh sorry. I thought we were talking about Ozzie Guillen.

Name a worse one. It's a night of the people who are supposed to be skeptical of government, the people who are supposed to be the oversight of government, laughing it up, celebrating, and drinking alongside government. Making jokes about how the WMD's aren't over here. It's a celebration of everything that is wrong with Washington.

 

I was pointing it out more for you saying a particular Washington party was the worst Washington party "in the country." I knew what you meant though.

 

 

I was pointing it out more for you saying a particular Washington party was the worst Washington party "in the country." I knew what you meant though.

I had to specify because I'm sure there's a yearly neo-nazi gathering somewhere in the country that obviously is a worse event...but that's the level you have to go to for something worse.

The shutdown could have bought healthcare.gov 40 times over'

 

High-end cost estimate of healthcare.gov infrastructure: $600 million*. Estimated economic losses from 15 days of shutdown: $24 billion. That’s forty-fold more, and I’m being conservative.