Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obamacare’s web site is really bad

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#21

Post by ianstallings »

I feel bad for the contractors and government workers that are on this project. Talk about a high-profile website. And I bet the amount of customer and user feedback is astronomical. I don't know the exact schedule but it seemed aggressive for such a mission-critical app. Something so monumental usually takes years to create and test because there are so many use cases, differing opinions, etc.

That being said, I think the comparisons to Apple are off. They should take it on the chin. We messed up, and we'll fix it. End of story. Not "yeah but.. apple".

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#22

Post by SilasX »

>Choose a username that is 6-74 characters long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these symbols _.@/-."

Requiring entropy in the username? What? I can understand the password, but what site requires you to put a symbol in your username?

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#24

Post by dangrossman »

fusiongyro wrote: post #15
mgkimsal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are millions of people legally required to get insurance now, and this is the place to get the information needed. People who already have health insurance provided shouldn't need to be poking around yet, and let the rest of us who have to deal with this at least get on the system.

As I understand it, you have until January 1st.

Enrollment doesn't end until March 31st, 2014. Everyone that wants or needs to use the exchange has 6 months to do so for this year's plans.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#25

Post by jeffgreco »

conroy wrote: post #13
corresation wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://aws.amazon.com/federal/ EDIT: Parent post had posited that the government couldn't just spool up AWS servers like the rest of us, so I provided that link just because they technically could (not saying that it would have been a good choice for something of this scale or purpose)

Not only that, but Obama's campaign used AWS heavily ( http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/how-te... ).

Campaign is irrelevant to actual government work.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#26

Post by dangrossman »

dkhenry wrote: post #18

I ask my self how much better could I do then what they have presented. I like to think in this case I, myself, without the teams of developers and millions of dollars could have made a system that queries a database that could handle 7m page views per day.

It doesn't just "query a database", it talks to a whole slew of 20-year-old legacy systems on all different platforms at a whole list of other government agencies. In the process of signing up and creating your profile, here are a few of the systems, all maintained and managed by other departments, that this website has to communicate with in real-time:

* The IRS to verify your AGI, family size and marital status

* The SSA to verify your social security number, SS benefit status and incarceration status

* The DHS SAVE system to verify your citizenship and immigration status

* The DOD, VA, Office of Personnel and Peace Corps to check if you're already enrolled in health programs through their services

Just to name a few, and all of which can be external bottlenecks the team behind Healthcare.gov can't control. You're seriously underestimating the complexity of this website. They've hidden it well!

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#27

Post by ryanobjc »

I gotta say I don't really get these articles. What's the point? Triumph in someone else's mistakes?

All this negativity is bad for your limbic system. Having your primary emotion driven via rage/anger or even fear is not a health way to live life. Cortosol and all of that, yknow?

Now, here in CA, the coveredca.com is actually really good. It does a good job, and it will substantially reduce my healthcare costs A LOT! By 50% in fact, and I'm not eligible for any credits/subsidies.

The ACA is hands down GREAT news for entrepreneurs. It makes covering yourself and your family possible and affordable. And when you go to hire those employees it is reducing costs there. You can get a platinum PPO plan in SF for $492 a month. Typically that plan would cost $1500 at trinet (employer cost).

I can also predict the minimization/irrelevancing of trinet too. It's primary purpose was to pool small business for healthcare in a handy package, but now that isn't as necessary.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#28

Post by jtbigwoo »

ajross wrote: post #7

Having used a handful of insurance (health and otherwise) industry sites over the years, all I can say is that while all this criticism is no doubt valid, the bar is a lot lower than people might expect. Medicare was successfully delivering care decades before the web was even invented and we all somehow survived.

>> Having used a handful of insurance (health and otherwise) industry sites over the years, all I can say is that while all this criticism is no doubt valid, the bar is a lot lower than people might expect.

On most health insurance sites, the first page is splashy and nice and then the sign-up process looks like it was transported to the present directly from 2003.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#29

Post by betterunix »

sliverstorm wrote: post #20
bjudson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't the point of all this to make the process of getting health coverage less painful? A few glitches or a slow site are to be expected, but from what I can gather, the site was literally unusable for several days.

the site was literally unusable for several days. Why are we still surprised when a website gets crippled by a big launch? This happens again and again and again, and people are surprised every time!

My thoughts exactly. This website was supposed to go from "testing" to "ready for millions of users who will present loads of unexpected corner cases" in just one day? That is not remotely trivial.
Post reply on HN