Results 41 to 50 of 73
-
10-08-2013, 09:18 AM #41
Yes, even the admin is admitting to big software problems.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...litches/70248/
This week, however, the Obama administration is acknowledging that the system needs new software and hardware, The Wall Street Journal reports. "We can do better and we are working around the clock to do so," Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, told The Journal. Federal officials said they'll be making the software and hardware fixes to smooth the process to create accounts, and hopefully address more serious errors. Experts said that errors within the system to verify the identity of enrollees have been crashing the site, and that overall the system was built on a "sloppy software foundation" that wasn't able to withstand the traffic it received last week.
In fact, experts have been saying for days now that software, not traffic, was the main plague of the exchange sites. Last week web developers took to Reddit to throw in their two cents on the coding errors in the exchanges, and a Saturday report from Reuters found that experts from five technology firms blamed the exchange's infrastructure. On Saturday, Jyoti Bansal, the founder of an app management company, told The Washington Post that, based on his experience, "the challenges look like glitches in software code. And the software code didn't go through enough testing."
Bansal also directly challenged the administration's web traffic explanation for errors, saying:
"That seems like not a very good excuse to me. In sites like these there's a very standard approach to capacity planning. You start with some basic math. [...] Before you launch you run a lot of load testing with twice the load of the peak , so you can go through and remove glitches. I’m a very very big supporter of the health-care act, but I don’t buy the argument that the load was too unexpected."
-
-
10-08-2013, 10:10 AM #42
Isn't Ted Cruz the Republican hero in this?
You know he's from Calgary, right?
Ironic...
-
10-08-2013, 10:41 AM #43
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...obama-did.html
In short, the administration passed a law with an unrealistically aggressive implementation schedule. And because of the way it passed it, it had no way to finesse that deadline. The exchanges had to go live on Tuesday no matter how badly they were working -- heck, even if they weren’t working at all and no one had ever managed to successfully complete a test run. Because the alternative was asking Republicans for a delay … and having them enthusiastically agree to put the law off for a minimum of a year, and preferably longer.
Then the administration made things worse by waiting -- waiting to hand out the contracts and waiting to see if it could pick up a few extra states to run their own exchanges. Yes, there was a lot of uncertainty around the Supreme Court case and the midterm elections. And even if you are proceeding with all due speed, writing rules for implementation takes time. But even with those caveats, the administration clearly took a very tight schedule and made things even worse.
So no, this is not a good project undone by Republican “sabotage,” as I saw suggested on Twitter this morning. It’s a potentially good IT project undone by system design and deadlines chosen for political reasons, rather than feasibility. What we’ve been through in the last week, I’d argue, is the inevitable result.
That does not mean that it will never work. We shouldn’t rule that out -- there are nightmare stories of databases in Britain’s National Health Service and Canada’s criminal justice system, which had to be junked after going wildly over budget. But while I assume that’s possible in this case, I don’t think it’s very likely. This system is the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s biggest legislative achievement. The administration is going to try very hard to make it work over the next few months, and I assume that at some point -- in a few weeks, or a few months -- it will succeed.
The real question is whether that will be soon enough to repair the damage. One of the crucial features of the exchange was that its ease of use was supposed to attract “young invincibles” who don’t have insurance now. You’re not going to get too many shots at that customer base before they give up -- and the worse the bugs, the more other, non-invincibles may get worried about giving you their secure data.
The other problem is that the longer the delays go on, the more likely it is that the exchanges really will have load problems when they do get up and running. If everyone has to buy insurance within the space of a few weeks, they might knock the servers down again in much the same way that the administration was claiming they had last week.
But we’re nowhere near that point yet. If the administration can get things together this week, this will probably be quickly forgotten. And if not? Well, any talk about “sabotage” should probably be directed at the administration.
-
-
10-08-2013, 11:12 AM #44
He didn't build the system and is against socialized medicine. Did you guys kick him out? ;)
-
10-08-2013, 11:38 AM #45
We don't kick anyone out. Except Mark Emery.
-
-
10-09-2013, 06:33 PM #46
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-blit...tchy-websites/
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said at the end of a Situation Room segment on Wednesday afternoon that the Obama administration should consider a one-year delay on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate in order to get the health care exchange websites functioning properly. “A week into it, still a lot of glitches,” CNN correspondent Brian Todd reported to Blitzer. “People not able to create accounts, just to get information to possibly enroll, much less not being able to enroll in the plan.”
“We’re also hearing now that the administration was warned about these potential problems months in advance,” Todd continued. “We spoke to a health care consultant who has clients who are insurers. He says his insurers, who dealt with the administration in the months ahead of time, had contentious meetings with people at [Health and Human Services] and other health care officials who were in charge of this, warning them, ‘This isn’t working, it’s not going to be smooth, don’t do it.’ He says those warnings were ignored, they went full speed ahead, and said we’ll work these problems out. There’s been a bit of pushback from the White House, we’ll hope to get more later from them.”
“If they had three years to get this ready—if they weren’t fully ready, they should accept the advice that a lot of Republicans are giving them, delay it another year, get it ready, and make sure it works,” Blitzer said. “There are government health care-related websites that work great. Socialsecurity.gov, a whole bunch of others. They know how to do it. But if they didn’t get it ready on time, then maybe fix the problem, make sure people don’t have to worry about it.”
-
10-10-2013, 09:28 AM #47
Typical government, it looks the site cost 7 times more than it was supposed to. The price tag is only going to go up as they've already taken it down twice for fixes and it still doesn't work most of the time. It looks pretty though.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion...-website-cost/
The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records, appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal. The company originally won the contract back in 2011, but at that time, the cost was expected to run “up to” $93.7 million – still a chunk of change, but nothing near where it ended up.
-
-
10-14-2013, 04:34 PM #48
Seems like there is not much improvement.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...sign-obamacare
MARY IVY, CNN IREPORTER: I've tried it hundreds of times, literally hundreds of times since October the 1st.
COHEN: Independent analyst tells CNN the problems go beyond higher volume and minor glitches. They say the site fails to follow basic coding. There is the old fashioned option of enrolling over the phone and using and snail mail. You do have time to be insured by January 1st, you just have to complete the process by December 15th.
(END VIDEOTAPE) COHEN: Now, just to be clear, this is a journalistic endeavor for me. I'm lucky enough to get insurance through my employer. Imagine how frustrating it has been for people who do need insurance -- Chris.
CUOMO: Journalistic endeavor, it looks like abject failure to me, Elizabeth.
Now, when you go to the administration and point out the obvious about the glitches, what's the response?
COHEN: You know, they just keep telling me the volume has been very high, that's why we're having these glitches.
But, Chris, I have to say when we talk to experts, they say this goes way behind high volume. But that's not the cause for all of the problems that we have been seeing.
CUOMO: Right, that stands to reason, Elizabeth. I mean, when we think of all the high volume sites that were out there, millions of millions of transactions a day, it's certainly not just about software. It's about something else. They have to figure out.
Thank you for doing your part, to show us the problem. We appreciate it, Elizabeth.
-
10-14-2013, 04:50 PM #49
And Justice Beaver...thanks...
-
10-15-2013, 02:41 AM #50
11,588,500 Words: Obamacare Regs 30x as Long as Law
Bureaucracies in the Obama Administration have thus far published approximately 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations, while there are only 381,517 words in the Obamacare law itself.That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law.
What is commonly known as the Obamacare law includes both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA). Since these bills were signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010, various agencies in the administration have published 109 final regulations spelling out how they are to be implemented.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...s-30x-long-law
-
Originally Posted by sanfran22 
