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

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

digitaltrends.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 239 posts

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

#161

Post by dfc »

enoch_r wrote: post #90
dfc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentence is: "There are some sharp people working the Federal side, but it really is awful." The "it" section is after the comma and not part of its own sentence. Maybe you could (I wouldn't) make that inference if it read: "There are some sharp people working the Federal side. But it really is awful."

It's similar to the sentence "Bob got a new girlfriend, but she is awful." "It" refers to "the Federal side."

Federal side at OP's company (which OP is a member of) or in general?

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

#162

Post by josefresco »

spiffyman wrote: post #86
wikiburner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the CBS video linked above? Or the links below? Or the countless other media accounts of the launch being a "complete disaster"? Or all the comments on this very page of HNers not being able to use the site? Not even the administration's biggest defenders are trying to spin this as a successful launch. Are you really implying the media as a whole is biased against Obama? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_1…

I don't think anyone's denying that this launch is a failure. It's clear as day. josefresco's point, though, seemed to be that this particular quote could easily have been politically motivated. None of the articles you link restate that 'single digits' claim. One of them even states the number could be upwards of 20M. Just saying: take the 'single digits' claim with a grain of salt. You don't need to buy every ridic…

This is close to my point.

When I see an article like this the first thing I do is click to see the "source". Often times it's another news org/blog article who cites another "source". Down the rabbit hole I go until I find the actual source which often times has had it's content mutated and taken out of context and/or spun to further the original author's point.

This isn't a "bloggers aren't journalists" rant. I don't care if you're a tiny no-name blogger or work for the Washington Post; your sources better be solid.

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

#163

Post by RockyMcNuts »

ScottWhigham wrote: post #85

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

Medicare is more efficient than private insurers. of course it helps that it just says, F u, we're paying X, instead of making everyone jump through hoops and hoping they screw up and provide an excuse for denial, and Medicare doesn't need to market or grow profits.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef...

sounds like this project is a colossal clusterf*k. Innovation and customer service are not in the government's wheelhouse, and I would certainly rather have market-based systems anywhere they work. It just hasn't worked for health care. And governments provide roads, schools, water etc. And the private sector has its share of disastrous projects, Webvan and Boo.com and Pets.com burning through hundreds of millions and going nowhere.

I sort of wish Google or Elon Musk or somebody would step up and volunteer to fix it, instead of saying, government sucks, people have to keep getting crappy/no health care.

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

#164

Post by vidarh »

jonespen wrote: post #39
pkorzeniewski wrote: post #14

I'll never understand how it's possible that government web sites cost so much, yet usually look like shit, work like shit and are easy to hack (at least in my country). I always get the feeling that companies that win the contracts are somehow related to people responsible for the decision, it's like "Hey, it's not our money, so let's milk the budget as much as possible!".

No idea what it costs, but GDS[1] is doing a pretty good job on http://gov.uk . My guess is that only the savings on closing hundreds of sites [2] justifies it. Maybe it also prevents some of the uk citizens from not going nuts while trying to do gov business online ;) [1] http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hundreds-of-government-we...

It's an amazing site not just for being 'clean' and functional, but also for how much effort they've put into actually making the information easy to understand and read. E.g consider the page on VAT rates (that's roughly like sales tax for the Americans here):

https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates

(for comparison, click through to the HMRC list of VAT rates - fairy enough, it has more information, but it's so messy in comparison)

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

#165

Post by 001sky »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #72
001sky wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this logic is that carte balche on an amex is no way to run a government, even if every dime spent is sucessful in "keeping you in power". To the extent that one is rationalizing the status quo, it is pointing out the obvious. Unfortunately, the math no longer works and the system is going to be reset as someone else has to pick up the tab. It may be republicans or it may be your children. But whomev…

When the U.S. was founded, slavery was a key concern. Jefferson and others knew that slavery couldn't last, but there was no way to get agreement on it. So what did they do? They left the problem to future generations to solve. And the result involved a lot of bloodshed. In any system of government, there's always going to be a strong desire to kick problems down the road for somebody else to solve. I think the best…

So this will be solved when we get a hybrid of Abe Lincoln and Steve Jobs elected president =D ie, someone who see's the big picture and has the discipline to bring a product to market that doesn't suck. I think being an optimist is looking at your problems and facing them down. Aknowledging things are hard only adds to the glory of overcoming the odds.

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

#166

Post by pingswept »

mgkimsal wrote: post #102
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…

Can you actually log in and do anything? I created accounts last week, and now can't log in with them, or can log in and get a blank white screen. I've just tried creating yet another count. It's hung up on 'step 3' ('please wait' - modal spinner, assuming it's emailing my email address). 3 minutes spinning so far. OK - it just got done. Got an email. Clicked the link. Logged in. Pause... Taken to https://www.healthc…

Just clicked the confirmation link that appeared in my email. Had to accept some terms and conditions. I can't actually get insurance this way because I already have insurance through my state's exchange (I pretended I lived in Maine for this test account, since my state doesn't use healthcare.gov). But my profile page loaded fine. This series of steps also took less than a minute.

Anyway, sorry it's not working for you, if you're really trying to get insurance.

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

#167

Post by somebehemoth »

wikiburner wrote: post #98
spiffyman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone's denying that this launch is a failure. It's clear as day. josefresco's point, though, seemed to be that this particular quote could easily have been politically motivated. None of the articles you link restate that 'single digits' claim. One of them even states the number could be upwards of 20M. Just saying: take the 'single digits' claim with a grain of salt. You don't need to buy every ridic…

Hey spiffyman, reasonable points, but it really looks to me like josefresco is implying that the launch is getting unduly harsh treatment in the media, but maybe I misread it. Also, regarding the 20 million figure, here's the quote: Seven percent of Americans report that somebody in their household has tried to sign up for insurance through the health care exchanges, according to an AP-GfK poll. While that's a small…

"As many as 20 million "tried to" sign up, based on their extrapolation of some polling data."

The quote refers to "single digits" and it is ridiculous. If even close to 20 million people tried to sign up then that means many millions of citizens need this coverage and will likely end up getting it because having health insurance is critical to their livelihood. Am I to believe 20 million people needed health insurance, got an error on the web site and just said, "forget this, being uninsured is better than dealing with a web site!"?

"The last I heard, no media outlet has been able to find a single successful sign up to interview, and they are definitely looking for one."

This is a weak argument. It is an anecdote of an anecdote which even if true would not be persuasive. Are you seriously saying that no one has signed up despite 20 million people trying (or single digits)? Your evidence is that you personally haven't found a media outlet that have themselves managed to find someone to interview? Perhaps we should wait a few weeks to make judgement after the facts are known and the government is actually running again?

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

#168

Post by swamp40 »

ams6110 wrote: post #5

Maybe it wasn't ever intended to work.

I'm pretty jaded w/r/t the fed gov, but I don't see where anyone gains here.

People are so outraged that they call up their senator and demand...what?

The only thing people will demand is that the website gets fixed ASAP, because they were looking for some affordable healthcare options.

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

#169

Post by quickpost »

anarchitect wrote: post #47
smoyer wrote: post #21

Imagine what this community could build with more than half a billion dollars!

Take a look at what the GDS is doing here in the UK. * hire really smart people with up-to-date views on technology [1] * build on, and release new open source [2] [1] https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples [2] https://github.com/alphagov

That is really cool. Thanks for posting.

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

#170

Post by swamp40 »

hga wrote: post #152
iharris wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that CGI was also responsible for the ill-fated long gun registry in Canada, which was recently canceled due (in part) to massive cost overruns [1] and inability to cope with large numbers of users. [1] http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#Cost...

As an US RKBA activist since the early '70s (sic), I watched it from a distance in horrified fascination, and the Wikipedia section you cite matches my memories, that while the IT component was nasty and much bigger than expected/hoped/etc., it wasn't what crushed the registry. The job, including most especially human processing effort, was just massively larger than anticipated and was therefore not even vaguely cov…

Honestly, you would think that a company that has experienced "massively larger than anticipated" once before would be a good choice for this project.
Post reply on HN