PPACA Boondoggle

[whell]

The website still doesn't work. The number of folks that have successfully signed up on the site for Obamacare plans may only be in the single digits. The site was taken down for coding fixesand then rolled out again a couple days ago, with no apparent improvement in the outcomes for trying in vain to access the site.

What did we pay for this cluster f*@k? $634 million, and counting! For perspective:

"Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $600 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million."

All the noise the administration has made about the lack of functionality of healthcare.gov being such a good problem to have because the snafus are indicative of web traffic? Uh, not so fast. It stems from poorly written code, and the HTML coding used for healthcare.gov has been posted on the web for anyone to see.

What an embarrassment.

[JBS...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVRTHmrYHlQ#t=59

[BlueStreak]

I wonder why that particular website has so much trouble when none of the other .gov webistes have so much trouble, if any at all?

Any thoughts on that, Mike?

I have an idea why that might be. But, of course, I have no proof.

Dave

[icenine]

Still in denial.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I wonder why that particular website has so much trouble when none of the other .gov webistes have so much trouble, if any at all?

Any thoughts on that, Mike?

I have an idea why that might be. But, of course, I have no proof.

Dave

A bad design decision that makes it necessary to do all the 'create an account' work just to browse seems to be the root of much of the logjam. Trouble with the 'security page' has been mentioned.

Most .gov websites don't make you create accounts, or have such a surge of activity all at once.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I wonder why that particular website has so much trouble when none of the other .gov webistes have so much trouble, if any at all?

Any thoughts on that, Mike?

I have an idea why that might be. But, of course, I have no proof.

Dave

I think your answer is this:

However, computer experts say the website has major flaws.

"It wasn't designed well, it wasn't implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it," said Luke Chung, an online database programmer.

Chung supports the new health care law but said it was not the demand that is crashing the site. He thinks the entire website needs a complete overhaul.

"It's not even close. It's not even ready for beta testing for my book. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if my organization delivered something like that," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_1...ogrammer-says/

Here's also a very detailed breakdown of the coding issues on the web site here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...er_talked.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

A bad design decision that makes it necessary to do all the 'create an account' work just to browse seems to be the root of much of the logjam. Trouble with the 'security page' has been mentioned.

Most .gov websites don't make you create accounts, or have such a surge of activity all at once.

Its not like account creation on a web site is "new technology". And part of beta - testing a web site is scale testing it for high volume. Check out the Slate link I posted above.

[donquixote99]

They undoubtedly could have done a better job in design, testing, capacity provisioning, etc.

What's your point?

[icenine]

It's over Johnny....

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

They undoubtedly could have done a better job in design, testing, capacity provisioning, etc.

What's your point?

Same thing goes for ACA.