Obamacare enters critical phase as website fix deadline passes - Polidicks

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/01/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBRE9AR05M20131201[/url] [quote]The rollout of President Barack Obama's healthcare law entered a critical phase on Saturday, the deadline for substantially fixing the program's troubled enrollment website, as the administration scrambled to address the most obvious glitches. The White House, facing mounting pressure from Republican opponents and members of Obama's Democratic party, promised five weeks ago that by November 30 it would repair HealthCare.gov. The site was designed to help people sign up for medical coverage but has been plagued by errors, outages, and slow speeds since a disastrous October 1 launch. Basic account creation and log-in functions appeared to work smoothly on Saturday, but groups helping the sign-up effort described other errors in the process. The site's ability to handle target traffic loads of 50,000 users or more at the same time will be tested in the coming days. A website shutdown to accommodate new fixes was set for early Sunday. HealthCare.gov is a key portal for Obama's signature domestic achievement, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which aims to extend coverage to millions of people and reduce healthcare costs.[/quote]

One thing that doesn't add up about the ACA is that if people can stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26, why would they pay into the exchanges to help offset costs for high-risk claimants?

One fucking job the government had in the ACA and they fuck it up. Amazing. I'm glad we got such competent people running this place. Clearly this site is written to the same quality as the bill. I'm not really against socialized healthcare. But we even fucked that up. I'm looking forward to my expensive man-dated shit healthcare.

It's like they're trying to make public healthcare look bad

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;43031992]It's like they're trying to make public healthcare look bad[/QUOTE] Obamacare doesn't look anything like public healthcare as far as I can see, though I could be wrong If I fall seriously ill or have an accident I can be absolutely sure not having to pay a substantial amount of money for it. Do Obamacare recepients have that luxury?

What kind of modern world do we live in that a groundbreaking piece of legislation is put into jeopardy simply because the website isn't working properly? I don't support the bill, but still it feels like such an inconsequential thing. Shouldn't there be backups or more traditional methods prepared?

[QUOTE=demoguy08;43032043]Obamacare doesn't look anything like public healthcare as far as I can see, though I could be wrong If I fall seriously ill or have an accident I can be absolutely sure not having to pay a substantial amount of money for it. Do Obamacare recepients have that luxury?[/QUOTE] The website is a way to sign up for insurance and possibly get discounts on it. It is still private healthcare if you are not in medicaid or medicare.

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;43031574]One thing that doesn't add up about the ACA is that if people can stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26, why would they pay into the exchanges to help offset costs for high-risk claimants?[/QUOTE] Because those "high-risk claimants" are also some of the most likely to need insurance if the need medical attention. How many 26 year olds do you know who could afford extensive or lengthy medical treatments?

[QUOTE=demoguy08;43032043]Obamacare doesn't look anything like public healthcare as far as I can see, though I could be wrong[/QUOTE] Obongo care isn't public health care and never was intended to be as such. It was jut a result of Obama having downs and congress being manipulated by insurance companies to force everyone in the country to have an insurance policy. Insurance companies are going to be making record profits at the expense of the United States.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;43031992]It's like they're trying to make public healthcare look bad[/QUOTE] It looks bad enough that because of obama care my insurance is going from $300 a month to $2000 in 2014. Obamacare was a huge mistake for anyone that already owned insurance. It was never this end all be all fix for medical insurance, its far worse than what was in place, its just they never talked about the bad.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;43032043]Obamacare doesn't look anything like public healthcare as far as I can see, though I could be wrong If I fall seriously ill or have an accident I can be absolutely sure not having to pay a substantial amount of money for it. Do Obamacare recepients have that luxury?[/QUOTE] Because it isn't... [QUOTE=MR-X;42799195]Its kinda a half assed socialized health care, people who couldn't afford it original still can't. So instead they can apply for tax credits to pay for it. The people who could afford it keep their current coverage (as long as it has the right coverage). The shitty thing is, a lot of people who did have coverage/insurance have lost their current plans because they don't have the min-coverage. So basically it is a remap of health insurance (which imo this bill did jack shit to fix anything).[/QUOTE] Hell we have some people who will not even sign up because of the cost, it is cheaper to pay the tax fine..yay taxation without representation.

[QUOTE=G3rman;43032082]What kind of modern world do we live in that a groundbreaking piece of legislation is put into jeopardy simply because the website isn't working properly? I don't support the bill, but still it feels like such an inconsequential thing. Shouldn't there be backups or more traditional methods prepared?[/QUOTE] The website shouldn't have been a problem, it isn't like its the most complicated of things. Its screwed up because you live in a country that thinks the cold war is still a thing and everything needs to be separated and compartmentalised in case the pesky Russians spy on it. They seemed to ignore the fact they weren't building a nuclear weapon but a healthcare website. Outsourcing is fine, but when you split it to multiple providers who then sub-contract to other companies who do the same thing, things get messy.

[QUOTE=Jsm;43036655]The website shouldn't have been a problem, it isn't like its the most complicated of things. Its screwed up because you live in a country that thinks the cold war is still a thing and everything needs to be separated and compartmentalised in case the pesky Russians spy on it. They seemed to ignore the fact they weren't building a nuclear weapon but a healthcare website. Outsourcing is fine, but when you split it to multiple providers who then sub-contract to other companies who do the same thing, things get messy.[/QUOTE] They should have hired one company who specialises in creating healthcare websites and systems, rather than a bunch of huge inefficient companies who all work separately and botch it together, sometimes without any prior experience in the exact technicalities needed for healthcare sites.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;43036898]They should have hired one company who specialises in creating healthcare websites and systems, rather than a bunch of huge inefficient companies who all work separately and botch it together, sometimes without any prior experience in the exact technicalities needed for healthcare sites.[/QUOTE] I wouldent even recommend that Get any company that designs/codes websites in general and have a good reputation, anything with the word "healthcare" in it is bound to take absurdly more money than it should

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43033252]If it actually gets that bad for me when I turn 26 and get kicked off the family plan, I'll highly consider just moving out of this country. I might throw a dart at a map and go wherever it lands.[/QUOTE] that would be a bad idea what if it hits china or north korea what will you do then go to the UK or something

I still have no idea how governments haven't worked out that their approach to software development is causing every project to fail.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;43037090]I still have no idea how governments haven't worked out that their approach to software development is causing every project to fail.[/QUOTE] Most definitely, involving 50 or so different contractors and having a large team works well for cruise missile production, but horribly for web devopment.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;43037090]I still have no idea how governments haven't worked out that their approach to software development is causing every project to fail.[/QUOTE] UK realised this recently - gov.uk was developed by a small team of about a dozen people working on a budget of £261k [url]http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2011/05/13/agile-does-work-in-government/[/url]

[QUOTE=smurfy;43037203]UK realised this recently - gov.uk was developed by a small team of about a dozen people working on a budget of £261k [url]http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2011/05/13/agile-does-work-in-government/[/url][/QUOTE] Agile is the foreseeable future of software development. Dunno why it's taken this long for them to even realise it works :v:

The bill itself has flaws but we can't even fully get to that part of the debate because the website was built by government contract parasite conglomerations that could not program a clock to count time.

[QUOTE=person11;43037239]The bill itself has flaws but we can't even fully get to that part of the debate because the website was built by government contract parasite conglomerations that could not program a clock to count time.[/QUOTE] So kinda like this, but actually real?? [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/2318.strip_.zoom_.gif[/t] Scary.

Should've just outsourced it to private contractors as they're most capable of handling things in America.