We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404 • Hacker News Board

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#111

Post by sally84 » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:08 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #34

dkhenry wrote: post #22

Good thing we are giving the federal government control over the healthcare system ( and positioning them to take even more control as we move towards single payer ). I am sure they won't screw it up like they have the the roll out of this small portion of the system. Also I am really looking forwards to the day I can't get my kid seen by a doctor because there was a budget fight and the government shut down.

Please explain to me how an exchange stood up by the government which enables you to find a private insurance company to purchase insurance from is involving the government in your use of the private insurance. The new system acts as a facilitator for people to purchase insurance on an open "exchange" market. The government has as much to do with what happens afterwards as the NYSE has to do with how my 80 shares of…

This is an absurd comparison. NYSE is a private exchange. The US government doesn't run it and doesn't own it. Private health exchanges already exist.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#112

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:09 PM UTC

evilduck wrote: post #95

dfc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some sharp people working the Federal side, but it really is awful. What are you referring to with "it"? The folks at your company who do federal IT work? Government IT employees? Federal IT consulting?

Yes. Been there, done that. Never again. Federal government consulting firms hire warm bodies at the lowest price possible. They are the people who employ the college students from Java shops (because a degree is a must, of course) who barely learn Java and then grow up to never touch another programming language in their life. Knowing anything from MS or Oracle is double plus good for your resume. You're totally rep…

[deleted]

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#113

Post by cjrandolph » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

jzwinck wrote: post #65

I told https://www.healthcare.gov/ that I want to apply and live in New York. It immediately gave me a link to http://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/ . I clicked the link, and it says: > Access Denied > You don't have permission to access " http://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/" on this server. Why would the top level of such a site have permissions at all?

It works now. It was an oversight with their SSL registration. The link given to the feds was www. Which worked. They just omitted the www.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#114

Post by sally84 » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:11 PM UTC

pingswept wrote: post #91

Hmmm. I just created an account. The site loaded quickly. Took maybe 2 minutes to create an account. The password rules were weird, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that scaling a site from 0 users to millions in a couple of weeks is hard. If it's working now, which is seems to be, what's the problem? (OK, I'll concede that $634M is totally and completely insane. But I'm not convinced by the…

1) Two minutes isn't a good sample size

2) Try to actually sign up for a healthcare plan

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#115

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #2

If it really did cost over half a billion dollars for only 50k parallel connections, that is outrageous. It is hard to read/understand that spending breakdown, not sure what each 20-50 million dollar allotment is exactly for: http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_y... Given how we can see the problem with this as developers, imagine what we don't understand about the 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1 over…

It cost 55.7 to launch the site, the six hundred million dollar number is the total of all their contracts.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#116

Post by evilduck » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:14 PM UTC

evilduck wrote: post #95

dfc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some sharp people working the Federal side, but it really is awful. What are you referring to with "it"? The folks at your company who do federal IT work? Government IT employees? Federal IT consulting?

Yes. Been there, done that. Never again. Federal government consulting firms hire warm bodies at the lowest price possible. They are the people who employ the college students from Java shops (because a degree is a must, of course) who barely learn Java and then grow up to never touch another programming language in their life. Knowing anything from MS or Oracle is double plus good for your resume. You're totally rep…

Extra fun side notes:

While holding a technical discussion about current tasking with a coworker in a "hallway meeting" our boss's boss and the gov-manager-who-signed-the-contract walked by. I was later reprimanded for chit chatting too much instead of working.

Another issue, due to some contract specifics and my life situation I was able to decline healthcare coverage from my employer and I received that in salary compensation instead (had coverage through my wife). I was up for a raise/promotion due to 'time served' but that title meant they needed me on a different project/contract, so the healthcare compensation the government was paying my employer changed and trickle down effect meant I didn't get that anymore. I got a $10k/year 'raise' but lost my [substantial] healthcare compensation. I lost money per paycheck by getting a promotion. When I showed my boss he was like "oh, sorry about that but we can't do anything about it", I turned in my two weeks notice on the spot, thus concluding my life as a government contractor.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#117

Post by joering2 » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #106

ctdonath wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvote this. Heck, push it to all your favorite news outlets. There's no reason why one obscure company should get the contract without viable competitors.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-firm-hired-to-build-t... Based on that article, the OP is wrong, the six hundred million is across all contracts, the ACA site which most people are aghast at is just under 60 million of that.

According to last sentence of [1], $90 went to CGI.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-w...

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#118

Post by czr80 » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:17 PM UTC

3minus1 wrote: post #110

Hi, I actually work for CGI Federal on a closely related website to healthcare.gov. There's some inaccurate speculation going on in this thread that I want to correct. Employees at CGI Federal are not payed hourly. Also, a lot of people have mentioned cronyism, which I think is baseless. CGI Federal already had contracts for Medicare.gov and CMS.gov, so when CMS had to build healthcare.gov, CGI was an obvious choice.…

Can you share any insight into what went wrong?

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#119

Post by mgkimsal » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:17 PM UTC

pingswept wrote: post #91

Hmmm. I just created an account. The site loaded quickly. Took maybe 2 minutes to create an account. The password rules were weird, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that scaling a site from 0 users to millions in a couple of weeks is hard. If it's working now, which is seems to be, what's the problem? (OK, I'll concede that $634M is totally and completely insane. But I'm not convinced by the…

The USERNAME rules are even weirder (and the site's not working correctly now so I can't copy them, but here's a photo: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151690783318733&se...)

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#120

Post by hga » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

3minus1 wrote: post #110

Hi, I actually work for CGI Federal on a closely related website to healthcare.gov. There's some inaccurate speculation going on in this thread that I want to correct. Employees at CGI Federal are not payed hourly. Also, a lot of people have mentioned cronyism, which I think is baseless. CGI Federal already had contracts for Medicare.gov and CMS.gov, so when CMS had to build healthcare.gov, CGI was an obvious choice.…

Do you fill out time cards with hourly sort of precision? Do you have to fill in exactly 40 hours, no matter what? (Yes, I've worked for federal contractors before in the dozen years I spent Inside the Beltway.)

As for cronyism, who's to say you got those other site honestly?

Not saying you didn't, just that you're not citing any evidence. I can: I'm disabled and therefore on Medicare since 2007, and use medicare.gov to both handle Part D annual prescription plan selection and signup, and to check Part B claims. Aside from companies sometimes lying through their teeth about the costs for various drugs (well, it looks like that), I have no complaints besides the site being a little clunky. It gets the job done and has never shown any signs of buckling under load.