Forbes: Why Obamacare's Website Keeps Crashing

[First]

I always get the following when I try (7 attempts since 10/1) to use healthcare.gov.



Each visit I quit after 30 minutes of waiting and not moving forward.

When you try to visit or when you try to register? I can register and sign up for insurance in both CA (state exchange) and TX (federal healthcare.gov). A little slow, that's about it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

When you try to visit or when you try to register? I can register and sign up for insurance in both CA (state exchange) and TX (federal healthcare.gov). A little slow, that's about it.

I get this when I try to register.

 

[First]

I get this when I try to register.

Odd. I registered last week on both healthcare.gov and coveredca.com. I don't think letting it time-out works well. If it takes more than a 30-60 seconds I'd just refresh or go back.

 

[First]

Just registered again on healthcare.gov, this time for FL. Took about 2 minutes, including clicking on the standard email verification link.

 

[First]

I was able to get all the way to the page where you enter in SS# etc., which I elected not to do. Don't know how well the system works beyond that page, but I couldn't even get to that page the first couple days the exchanges opened. I've been able to get to it since last week, though.

 

[boomerang]

Anecdotal evidence. Screen shots would have proven at least something.

 

[Bowfinger]

Take your own advice friend:

I.e., backing out the costs associated with "things like call centers and collection services" leaves a total of $363 million. Then add:


$363M plus $150M = +$500 million.

Fern

Tag, you're it. Note that:

"agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act"
​

doesn't say the money was for IT, let alone expenses specific to the ACA exchanges system. It simply says it was in relation to the ACA. Also note that the $363M is for all technology-related costs. I'm curious what all that includes. Finally, note that my original post was asking for a source of the $600M figure. I don't know that it's wrong, but I'd like a credible source.

 

[First]

lol boomer

 

[First]

Interesting note; Chrome 30 and Firefox 24 work very well with healthcare.gov. IE10.....haha not so much. I actually got the same message Londo got the first 3 times in IE10, but the 4th try in IE10 gave me the normal message below:

Moral of the story; don't use the Internet if you're still using IE.

 

[boomerang]

lol boomer

Thanks for playing.

 

[First]

 

[spacejamz]

I was excercising a little hyperbole.

Please be assured to the most emphatic degree possible that this decision is not a single line of code. Beyond the technical consideration it speaks to a lack of certainty on an extremely fundamental portion of the user experience. It is a design decision that should have been made months earlier. It is a fundamental part of the process and quite incredible that it was changed or facing potential change this late in the game.

Typical user comment from someone who has probably never been involved with a system enhancement or system developement... "it should be a fairly minor change".... If only I had a dollar each time a user has said that...LOL

That should be a fairly minor change, potentially as simple as a single line of code

 

[First]

Isn't there a single web developer or database developer that can chime in here? Someone here has got to be able to intelligently ascertain maybe a little something from the source code. I'd be kinda curious to see if it's really just traffic, bad coding or both.

 

[Bowfinger]

Typical user comment from someone who has probably never been involved with a system enhancement or system developement... "it should be a fairly minor change".... If only I had a dollar each time a user has said that...LOL

Yes, but the difference is users are generally clueless about software development whereas I've been doing it for decades. If the system is designed decently -- not a given, to be sure -- adding one function point to confirm that a user is logged in before proceeding should indeed be simple and straightforward. All of the logic to verify login should already be encapsulated in a common function or method, requiring only that this function be invoked. If the user is not logged in, he gets a login page (or at least an error message) instead of the first page of the shopping process. If you're truly a competent developer, you too can easily visualize how that would work and how straightforward it should be.

 

[Bowfinger]

Isn't there a single web developer or database developer that can chime in here? Someone here has got to be able to intelligently ascertain maybe a little something from the source code. I'd be kinda curious to see if it's really just traffic, bad coding or both.

Some of it is publicly visible, but much of it is server-side code and database architecture that is hidden from public view. I've read a couple of articles on trade sites from people who've analyzed public components.

 

[Doppel]

Yes, but the difference is users are generally clueless about software development whereas I've been doing it for decades. If the system is designed decently -- not a given, to be sure -- adding one function point to confirm that a user is logged in before proceeding should indeed be simple and straightforward. All of the logic to verify login should already be encapsulated in a common function or method, requiring only that this function be invoked. If the user is not logged in, he gets a login page (or at least an error message) instead of the first page of the shopping process. If you're truly a competent developer, you too can easily visualize how that would work and how straightforward it should be.

But this presumes that the shopping is unrelated to the data known from a registered user, which means they would only turn that on to track people, when in fact it's more likely that registered information is necessary to give a meaningful price. That also ties into the claim from Forbes that registration is used to hide the true cost of things. Otherwise, if no registration is required, the information would be more generic (like that at ehealthinsurance.com, which some article above mentioned).

If coding of the site didn't begin until the spring (!), it means that there were only six months to go through all of the development and subsequent testing. I think anybody could agree this is highly aggressive for a large project, and it appears that the people involved in the project knew this and, more than likely, verbalized it regularly. Therefore, the blame really must in great part go to the people who refused to listen and said charge ahead anyway.

 

[Fern]

Tag, you're it. Note that:

"agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act"
​

doesn't say the money was for IT, let alone expenses specific to the ACA exchanges system. It simply says it was in relation to the ACA. Also note that the $363M is for all technology-related costs. I'm curious what all that includes. Finally, note that my original post was asking for a source of the $600M figure. I don't know that it's wrong, but I'd like a credible source.

The way I read it they are saying that the $150M amount is directly related to the exchange(s). The first chunk ($363M) is for outside contractors hired for the exchanges. The second chunk of $150M looks to be (internal) US govt costs.

The site I originally linked to is the one that (originally) calculated the price tag at $634 million that was picked up and reported by other news outlets. They're the only place attempting to estimate the cost that I've been able find.

They're claiming the additional $150M is a very conservative estimate of govt costs:

that agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act – a lowball figure considering that, in its 2013 budget request (pdf), the agency asked for more than $1 billion in additional funds “needed to support operation infrastructure” and open-enrollment preparations of the FFEs.

I doubt we'll get sufficiently detailed info to know the exact cost. I wouldn't expect CMS or GAO data to be sufficiently detailed for anything other than estimates. In any case, due to the shutdown no more data is currently forthcoming from the US govt. Perhaps after the shutdown is over we'll get another revised estimate.

Fern

 

[1prophet]

Business wants to attract customers by putting the best face on the price of their products and services.

News at 11.

EDIT: No one takes Avik Roy or the Manhattan Institute all that seriously. FYI.

A little powder and paint makes a girl what she ain't.

 

[spacejamz]

Isn't there a single web developer or database developer that can chime in here? Someone here has got to be able to intelligently ascertain maybe a little something from the source code. I'd be kinda curious to see if it's really just traffic, bad coding or both.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...are-technology-analysis-idUSBRE99407T20131005

One possible cause of the problems is that hitting "apply" on HealthCare.gov causes 92 separate files, plug-ins and other mammoth swarms of data to stream between the user's computer and the servers powering the government website, said Matthew Hancock, an independent expert in website design. He was able to track the files being requested through a feature in the Firefox browser.

Of the 92 he found, 56 were JavaScript files, including plug-ins that make it easier for code to work on multiple browsers (such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer and Google Inc's Chrome) and let users upload files to HealthCare.gov.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your main failure here is you think you quoted an article. You didn't. You quoted a column, i.e., an op-ed piece. His opinion that these changes were done to hide costs are no more credible than yours. He is a partisan with an axe to grind; his opinions must be weighed in that light.

He's just feeding the weak minded conspiracy theorists what they want to hear.

They've gone wild ever since Obama was elected, exhibiting giant leaps of faith in multiple non-scandals & imbroglios existing only in their vivid imaginations.

Obviously, there's good money in doing that- it's not like the pundits & prognosticators on the Right are living in poverty. They have the chumps dialed in, pushing their buttons as easily as Clapton plays the guitar.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, I can see you understand the concept, but our end goals are different. The idea of fairness to the individual doesn't matter to you, since you're more concerned with the state of the collective.

Though I do disagree with the highlighted statement. This plan is only going to breed resentment towards the people getting the free ride from those paying for the gas. Going against human nature is a sure losing bet.

My point was clear. Human beings young and old is liberal societies like many Scandinavian countries have human nature and they win in terms of happiness. This has been scientifically determined. You do not get to have your opinion of what human nature is when your idea contradicts reality. It is your opinion only and is the result of having grown up in a competitive system where, if you acted out of your real human nature you would be called a fool. This is exactly as I said would happen. Folk who live in an inferior situation that breeds unhappiness always compensate for facts that reveal these facts by spouting this and that rationalization as to why they have the truth on their side. But science denies the ideas you claim are facts. You do not know your own human nature, a very common unexamined assumption. You came to the conclusions you hold irrationally via indoctrination, the deluded product of a sick culture. It happened to all of us who live here.

 

[michal1980]

My point was clear. Human beings young and old is liberal societies like many Scandinavian countries have human nature and they win in terms of happiness. This has been scientifically determined. You do not get to have your opinion of what human nature is when your idea contradicts reality. It is your opinion only and is the result of having grown up in a competitive system where, if you acted out of your real human nature you would be called a fool. This is exactly as I said would happen. Folk who live in an inferior situation that breeds unhappiness always compensate for facts that reveal these facts by spouting this and that rationalization as to why they have the truth on their side. But science denies the ideas you claim are facts. You do not know your own human nature, a very common unexamined assumption. You came to the conclusions you hold irrationally via indoctrination, the deluded product of a sick culture. It happened to all of us who live here.

Or it could be that homogenous societies are happier then heterogeneous societies. hmmm, everyone being white, speaking the same language, and generally having the same beliefs makes for a more peaceful life then having far different skin colors, histories, beliefs, etc etc.

Cant be any off that, has to be socialism.

 

[raildogg]

My point was clear. Human beings young and old is liberal societies like many Scandinavian countries have human nature and they win in terms of happiness. This has been scientifically determined. You do not get to have your opinion of what human nature is when your idea contradicts reality. It is your opinion only and is the result of having grown up in a competitive system where, if you acted out of your real human nature you would be called a fool. This is exactly as I said would happen. Folk who live in an inferior situation that breeds unhappiness always compensate for facts that reveal these facts by spouting this and that rationalization as to why they have the truth on their side. But science denies the ideas you claim are facts. You do not know your own human nature, a very common unexamined assumption. You came to the conclusions you hold irrationally via indoctrination, the deluded product of a sick culture. It happened to all of us who live here.

Since you seem to be the most philosophical person around here, at least based on your posts, don't you think you should explain what you mean by happiness? It can't be simple as having all your material needs met. Science does exactly that - it measures everything physical. There is no spirituality involved whatsoever so love cannot be measured by science as you claim. I thought you would go into that.

People living in the supposed perfect countries, like you claim, may be happy based on some criteria that some person came up with. However, real happiness can not be measured since it is not something physical. So we should separate our ideas and assumptions regarding healthcare from deep issues.

As far as a "sick culture," it seems as if the world is that way. The decadent culture of the West, such as Scandinavia, is not sick? While the uneducated cultures of the East are? I don't get it. The Western culture of random hookups and everything else associated with it are not sick? The constant chasing something and never settling is happiness? I highly doubt it. Even if their healthcare, education and housing is provided for, that alone means nothing. Happiness is something entirely different and I don't think needs to be touched upon. It is something entirely individual.

You make long posts that seem to be very deep yet you don't even go halfway into an argument. You just leave it without going deeper.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Interesting note; Chrome 30 and Firefox 24 work very well with healthcare.gov. IE10.....haha not so much. I actually got the same message Londo got the first 3 times in IE10, but the 4th try in IE10 gave me the normal message below:

Moral of the story; don't use the Internet if you're still using IE.

Not using IE, I was using Seamonkey 2.21 (OS X).

 

[Moonbeam]

Or it could be that homogenous societies are happier then heterogeneous societies. hmmm, everyone being white, speaking the same language, and generally having the same beliefs makes for a more peaceful life then having far different skin colors, histories, beliefs, etc etc.

Cant be any off that, has to be socialism.

Are you trying to tell me that you have issues with different skin colors, different histories and beliefs? Jesus Christ, what are you, a bigot? What kind of a worthless asshole cares more about a white child than a child of some other race? Can't you see that little kids that grow up loved love? You won't come to any harm in a society of loving people. Everybody will be looking out for everybody else. Why the fuck do you think I waste so much of my time talking to a donkey like you. That love is there in you, just buried under a ton of shit. You may fancy the smell of shit, but I smell the love. Now go fuck yourself, grow up, and learn to love. You'll be happy you did.

And don't forget what I always say: Your shit fertilizes my garden, so if you feel like throwing some, and I know you do, have at it and make my garden bloom.