Obama Calls on Private Sector IT Pros to fix HealthCare.gov

Status
Not open for further replies.

none12345

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2013
431
2
18,785
0
Go call one of the major MMORPG players. They know a thing or two about scalable hardware.

The fact that they have already spent 400 million on that joke of a site, is beyond sad at this point.

Some of the major game players probably could have done the entire thing for 30 million instead of 400 million, and it would probably work just fine(with perhaps the exception of day 1 congestion). As long as its not EA anyway; recent history has taught us they probably couldn't have done it any better, lol.
 

mjw

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2004
14
0
18,510
0
They should just junk what was built, copy the California website which works fine, change the branding here and there from California to Federal, and deploy it - problem solved!
 

jayracer7474

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2011
34
0
18,530
0
this was made to fail and that has been the point the whole time, whats worse than the site is the health coverage you get when you sign up
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Part of the problem are the regulations which control government procurement. They practically guarantee failure. The fact that the site functioned at all makes it look good compared to past IT projects of the FBI and IRS.
 

leoscott

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2009
114
0
18,710
11
bigshootr8, Maybe if they had gone to the right people at first, US citizens instead of Canada, they may have found someone who could deal with the scalability problem. I'm sure people on this sight could name at least 10 companies who get more hits a day on their websites than healthcare.gov has had since it's release. Google, Facebook, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, YouTube, Yahoo, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Twitter. We have people who know how to do this but the administration needs to buy a raffle ticket for a tractor. Then they can tie a chain to it and pull their head out. With this level of planning the future might not be bright.
 
@leoscott while I'm not in favor of the bill I completely agree with you why not work with big companies like google, microsoft and amazon to get a site like that working correctly. I just feel in a lot of ways the government will always be technology challenged.
 

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
Obama Calls on Private Sector IT Pros to fix HealthCare.gov...because that is who the government hires to do such work.

I think it fair to say, that this is the largest public-interest web presence that the US has ever undertaken. It is also fair to say that V1 was beta released a tad bit early. It will get better.
 


While it may or may not get better considering its the most Expensive web site ever assembled you'd think in the time that they've had to construct it it would be stronger and more well made and able to deal with more web traffic.
 

nicodemus_mm

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2009
107
0
18,680
0
Funny that the private sector is coming to rescue the roll-out of a system that should never have been put in the hands of the public sector in the first place.

I can't wait until healthcare workers are eventually made federal employees. Then we get to see the rampant incompetence and waste of a national bureaucracy applied in a new and terrifying way.

Think about it.... This current farce is just the interface. A simple sign-on process. Does anyone in their right mind really think that managing a nation's healthcare system is going to be easier than the sign-up process? What do you think the healthcare is going to be like when they can't even handle a web page?

We deserve this. The Apathy, Laziness, and Greed of the American Voter may finally result in something that gets their attention.... but I doubt it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Government/bureaucrats : creating solutions to problems it created.

Health care coverage is a choice for most people not a right. Government steps in to solve this "issue" by mandating insurance companies to cover any and all regardless of preexisting health issues - because the government knows best - and blames the gimped heartless free-market for being so discriminatory, which the government gimped in the first place, with previous regulations - because the government knows best.

Enter the all wise and knowing "solution" to the heartless freemarket: ObamaCare! The solution of the ruling class for the brain-dead "poor" majority.
 
This is a great example of why I cringe whenever I hear anyone in the government talk of doing anything "comprehensive". At least there is a chance of getting something right if they take it step by step and piece by piece, but when the idiots in DC try to tackle big issues all at once....this is what we get. Really getting sick of the "Elephant" and "Ass" show.
 

JonathanR

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2011
17
0
18,520
1
As a European, may I ask what everyone's problem is with the new health care system? I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world (US prices for most things I can only dream of) and better health coverage despite paying significantly less. Without saying Obama's specific implementation is any better I don't think the US system of "let the private sector dictate health care" has been a success, so chance seems of essence. Yet it doesn't seem like the problem the republicans have with the health care reform is the specific implementation, instead its that the government has anything to do with health care at all?
Or am I getting this all wrong? Its not always easy to decipher things across such a distance, so any explanation would be appreciated =)
 
G

Guest

Guest


The US "private sector" has not dictated anything in the past 50 some years. If you mean the sadly Marxist/national socialist system that has been slowly creeping into the system through the ever so growing government then yes, the ObamaCare would make every living Marxist proud.

In an actual free-market system (without any gov't coercion) the prices of health care would be a lot less (not just the USA); enter the government and you get regulated price-control that only serves the bought and paid for pocket-lining interest groups, hence the higher and higher prices and lower quality service (i.e. Canadian Health Care system, post 1960's).

Obamacare simply drains the system of resources that are already scares. And this is not Democrats vs Republicans; both parties are under the same corrupt special-interest system. Democrats buy their votes one way, while the Republicans do it another, both corrupting the nation through their unethical and immoral practices.
 

terr281

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
261
0
18,790
3
Re: JonathanR

As all information is inherently biased, a brief list of mine before I respond. (Lived in US entire life, liberal arts college educated in Social Sciences/History, currently working in IT, living in part of the US that is traditionally lower income.)

The problem of universal health care in the United States, ... is not health care at all. The issue is multi-faceted, all leading to one conclusion.

1. The USA has a two party political system, instead of a multi-party system. The USA has had this system, for the most part, since the country's inception. (Yes, there have been a few times when a third, and sometimes fourth, party would gain some national acceptance. However, two parties have traditionally dominated.
2. Americans, like most other "common" voters in democratic countries, either do not care about (or do not have the resources to acquire) the true background information about the people that run for election.
3. Today, almost all elections in the country, from the selection of a candidate for a party to the final vote to see who wins, are influenced, in some way, by the two political parties.
4. Generations of Americans have been taught that one party represents one thing, while the other party represents "the opposite" on all issues. Social welfare, military funding, civil rights (and to what extent they exist), gun (person weapon ownership) control, government budgeting... everything. If one party states one thing, the other party... will usually state the opposite.
5. Many of the ballots we use on election day even give the option to "vote for one party's candidates" instead of forcing people to vote for individuals.
6. The US, as a nation, was founded on the concept of "individual liberties and rights." In the modern day, two of these crucial liberties are "what money I make is mine" (lower taxes) and "I make my own decisions about my life" (don't control my life).
7. Finally, some history. The US has kept its "usually two party" system intact over the years by the two major parties absorbing "third" parties (and part of their platforms) if the third party gains any strength. (Historical example: Populist party and the Democratic Party. Modern example: Tea party and the Republican party.)

The Health care battle is not a battle over health care, itself. It is a battle between two completely different ideologies. On the one side, one party believes that the government should be smaller, provide less, tax less. Furthermore, that same party now has many members whose main platform is "balancing the federal budget." (Government run health care, as implemented with President Obama's system, will cost the national and sub-territories, states, more money.) On the other side, one party believes that government should be larger, should provide for its citizens more, tax more (to provide said services), etc.

The American people, for the most part, identify themselves as a Democrat or a Republican. They do this, usually, over one or two issues that they feel are most important, most likely hot topic social issues. (Examples: Should legal abortion exist? Should citizens be allowed to own guns? Should church and state, truly, be separated?)

"Joe" American, in regard to the health care bill, searches online for Health Care news, news about "his party" (the only party that is right, as the other party is the "enemy"), etc. He reads the things that back him up, and it is now fact. He reads something he doesn't agree with and simply closes the page, angry... or makes comments such as "stupid ... opposite party."

Most news outlets in the USA have a political leaning as well to their news reports. Thus, a member of a political party will listen to "completely accurate news" from one outlet, and... it is fact. A member of the opposite party will listen to a different outlet, and get different facts.

Compromise in our government is near impossible now. Unless one party controls both of the houses of our legislative branch and the presidency, no major bills will pass. Universal healthcare was passed when the Democrats had this control. Republicans, picking up Healthcare for obvious reasons (more taxes to pay for it, less control of an individual's rights) have made it a hot topic, and they now control one house of our legislature. As a result, the goal is to stop the bill from being implemented anyway they can. (It would happen the exact same way if the parties were switched, and the Republicans had passed something the Democrats could grab.)

I hope I have been as neutral as possible on the issue.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
funny how some Republican politicians are complaining that their constituents cannot get onto the website because of high traffic... the website issues doesn't keep people from signing up. Parts of ACA has been operational for years. Places where its not working good is made to fail by red states...the same ones which suck up more money.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
15
@JonathanR

It's not just Europeans like you and I, it's literally the whole world except the United States (and even there a slim majority agrees with us), including former communist states that are generally very supportive of capitalism, that is baffled by the American healthcare "debate". The notion that financial success should determine your access to healthcare (so spammers and bankstersdeserve better healthcare than nurses and carpenters) is just entirely incomprehensible to everyone except far-right Americans.

This is waht my observations have yielded so far: American Republican politicians are in favor of fully private sector healthcare, this includes dismantling medicaid (a government healthcare program for the very poor) and medicare (a government healthcare program for anyone over the age of 65). Libertarian Republican voters agree with this but most Republican voters don't, not surprising since many of them are on medicare, to keep those voters aboard the Republican Party and Fox News bombard them with propaganda about Marxism and the evils of the healthcare systems in other country (the targeted audience is not known for traveling abroad much) and so you get polls that tell us all the individual components of Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) are very popular, but if you put the names "Obamacare" or "ACA" on them most Republican voters suddenly don't like the idea anymore.

@Radiovan

The entire world (and a majority of Americans) disagree with you, including all those Republican voting seniors who don't want anyone to touch their free medicare. But let's say you're right and fully privatized healthcare would yield the lowest cost per treatment possible. That would be great, in a world with zero income inequality and no pre-existing conditions, but that's not the world we live in so you'd end up with more affordable care for the wealthy and no, or only very basic, care for everyone else. Now since diseases are often contagious, sick people are not very productive and non-wealthy people would not go to a doctor until they almost drop down the whole system could even end up costing more than a European-style system.
 

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
1,869
0
19,960
63
So after the billions they paid to traditional defense contractors exempt from the law, they are now asking the pros to bail them out? The same IT contractors (self-employed e.g. individual health plan) that have seen their premiums, copays, and deductibles doubled or tripled? Why am I not surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS