how ironic!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    how ironic!

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

    You cant make this shlt up I tell ya!! lmao!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    Private contractors in charge of the new federal health-insurance Web site told a House committee Thursday that they did not have enough time to thoroughly test the system before its problem-riddled rollout early this month.

    Executives of two of the four companies represented at the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said they needed “months” to conduct the testing, rather than the two weeks or less they were given before the Oct. 1 launch.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-grills-contractors-on-troubled-health-insurance-web-site/2013/10/24/8f42c748-3ca7-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html?hpid=z1

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    It doesn't come down to delaying Obamacare. It comes down to the fact that they approached implementation like a flock of ret@rds.

     

    They didn't test it all the way through until a week before release. When they did, their test told them there was no way the site could handle it. They implemented anyway.

     

    That's the problem. If they hadn't been idiots, they wouldn't have needed a delay. Either they are idiots and lied to the administration, or the administration is ret@rded for not checking in and making sure it was a go. If it wasn't a go, they could have delayed....

    ....for MONTHS rather than the YEAR the Republicans wanted.

     

     

    And of course, Republicans wanted first to defund Obamacare, and when that failed, to delay it in the hopes they could repeal it in 2014.

    Republicans didn't ask for a delay in order to make Obamacare work. So no, there is no "irony" here.

     

    Just a bunch of morons in charge of implementation.

     

    So the thread is half a shade from completely dishonest, which is as always not surprising given who the OP is.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

     

    Are you saying the tee party was innocently trying to ensure a thoroughly working ACA system when they forced a government shutdown demanding a delay of the rollout? Is that the new wingnut spin now? What a hoot you guys are.

    edit: NWDYW sorta stole my thunder...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

     

    Are you saying the tee party was innocently trying to ensure a thoroughly working ACA system when they forced a government shutdown demanding a delay of the rollout? Is that the new wingnut spin now? What a hoot you guys are.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

     

    Are you saying the tee party was innocently trying to ensure a thoroughly working ACA system when they forced a government shutdown demanding a delay of the rollout? Is that the new wingnut spin now? What a hoot you guys are.

    edit: NWDYW sorta stole my thunder...

    [/QUOTE]


    LOL..concerned citizen blaming the evil "private" contractors....BilltheKat blaming Republicans!!

    You cant make this stuff up, thanks for the laugh !

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In 2003, Halliburton Company received a great deal of scrutiny from the establishment press over certain no-bid contracts obtained in connection with the Iraq War. Examples, two of which are from the Associated Press, are here, here, and here. A Google News Archive Search on "Halliburton no-bid" not in quotes allegedly returns 1,760 items (Google's counter is suspect, but the list extends to at least 19 pages, or well over 190 items, including multiple items in some listings).

    It turns out that CGI, the Canadian company which is the lead firm in the design and rollout of HealtCare.gov, also has a no-bid contract with the federal government. But an AP search on "CGI no-bid" (not in quotes) comes up empty. A Google News search on the same string (not in quotes) returns only four times, none of which are establishment press outlets (as would be expected, the Washington Times is one of the four).

    Never realized that no-bid contracts are cool, if Obama does them.



    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/10/23/unlike-halliburton-bush-43-era-no-bid-nature-cgi-contract-media-kept-sec#ixzz2ieuWRmrx

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    I think the point is that a savvy political operation would have welcomed the chance to delay the implementation whilst simultaneously being able to blame the GOP/Tea Party for obstructionism.

    It seems that someone back there is stuck on stupid.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    That's not irony.  It's just coincidental.

    Never mind the 50 or so other tech contractors involved in the project....

     

    As it turns out, a separate divison of CGI spear-headed the Colorado state exchange IT work with much better results.

    But again, it's amusing to see non-tech people trying to analyze tech work from the outside in as if they have a clue about how these projects work...despite the obvious foul-ups.

     

    And I'll wager that some of the back-end deficiencies can be attributed to legacy federal systems that have gone ignored or otherwise obsolete over years of neglect and misappropriation.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    it's amusing to see non-tech people trying to analyze tech work from the outside in as if they have a clue about how these projects work


     

    I agree that people including myself are not competent to announce that there simply should be no problems and any problem is a sign of stupidity.

    BUT:

    Is it common practice not to test a system all the way through until days before it is opened to potentially millions of people to use?

    If 100 users crash the system when you do finally test it, do you still open it to potentially millinos of people to use?

     

     

    These seem like basic common sense mistakes not isolated to the tech world.

    I think a layperson would be fully qualified to slam a lawyer who didn't prepare for a murder trial until a few days before, prepared, realized his defense was not possible as a matter of law, and made the defense anyway.

    Etc... 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    [QUOTE]Is it common practice not to test a system all the way through until days before it is opened to potentially millions of people to use?[/QUOTE]

    If you want to keep your job, yes.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

     

    Are you saying the tee party was innocently trying to ensure a thoroughly working ACA system when they forced a government shutdown demanding a delay of the rollout? Is that the new wingnut spin now? What a hoot you guys are.

    edit: NWDYW sorta stole my thunder...

    [/QUOTE]


    LOL..concerned citizen blaming the evil "private" contractors....BilltheKat blaming Republicans!!

    You cant make this stuff up, thanks for the laugh !

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    At what point did I blame the republicans for anything. Stop being such a victim.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    Typical rationalize and excuse the admin posters are f-in hilarious!!!

    They are going to blame the contractors that say we didnt have enough time! I assume the TP (TYPICAL POSTERS) will claim thew admin did not know they needed more time and were not responsible testing or ensuring ot was operational before FORCING millions of Americans on it!!

    LMCFAO!!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    It's pretty safe to assume that the contractor signed off on the contract with all the milestones and the final delivery date. They knew when this thing had to be up and running.

    What we don't know:

    Did the client, HHS, change the sope and/or functionality of the design that would materially affect these dates?

    Did the contractor over promise and not do due diligence when negotiating the contract. They may have made a lot of assumptions up front which proved to be wrong.

     



    I don't think anything the contractor represented or signed excuses such a completely hands off approach for something so important.

    If I contract someone to replace my gutters, then perhaps I'll check the work when I get home in the evening.

    If I contract someone to build a house, I'll be checking in regularly.

     

     

    But about milestones....     

    I would demand a start to finish test some months before the thing is supposed to go live, even not knowing the 'tech world' particularly well. It seems like basic common sense to me.


     For the same reason, to follow my prior analogy, clients are constantly hasseling their attorneys about progress and strategy. Something really important to them is on the line, so they want to be involved in making sure everything goes as well as possible.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Software and IT people are testifying on the hill essentially that if the ACA would have been delayed they could have tested it and avoided these problems but, they were not given enough time!

     

    Are you saying the tee party was innocently trying to ensure a thoroughly working ACA system when they forced a government shutdown demanding a delay of the rollout? Is that the new wingnut spin now? What a hoot you guys are.

    edit: NWDYW sorta stole my thunder...

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  I thought Republicans were stupid, according to your progressive brainiacs.  Now they are so smart they engineered the shut down in order to hobble testing of the website.

    The website, which was being built in a private company, not impacted by the shutdown.

     

    Ah...

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]it's amusing to see non-tech people trying to analyze tech work from the outside in as if they have a clue about how these projects work[/QUOTE]

     

     

    I agree that people including myself are not competent to announce that there simply should be no problems and any problem is a sign of stupidity.

    BUT:

    Is it common practice not to test a system all the way through until days before it is opened to potentially millions of people to use?

    If 100 users crash the system when you do finally test it, do you still open it to potentially millinos of people to use?

     

     

    These seem like basic common sense mistakes not isolated to the tech world.

    I think a layperson would be fully qualified to slam a lawyer who didn't prepare for a murder trial until a few days before, prepared, realized his defense was not possible as a matter of law, and made the defense anyway.

    Etc... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, it depends upon what the problems are.  I know a lot about this sort of thing, but even I can't gauge it without more detail.

    I DO know that sometimes a client cannot budge implementation dates and that throwing more resources at the problem usually doesn't work.  Only time and diligence.

    And I also know that the technology is only part of the discussion.  What's more important are the rules and requirements fueling this endeavor.  If the rules can't be decided upon, then dates have to slip.  Given the huge amount of effort to stop this thing via congress, the states and the courts, this should not be surprising.

    The real question is whether the HHS had everything they needed to convey to the contractors WHAT they needed.  I'm not sure they did.  If they did and communicated it to the technical teams clearly, then the techs are at fault.  If not, the HHS IT operations is at fault.

    My bet is it was a combination of both, but vague is vague.  Poor rules = poor software.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    WASHINGTON — Federal officials did not fully test the online health insurance marketplace until two weeks before it opened to the public on Oct. 1, contractors told Congress on Thursday.

    While individual components of the system were tested earlier, they said, the government did not conduct “end-to-end testing” of the whole system from start to finish until late September.

    The disclosure came at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating problems plaguing the federal marketplace, or exchange, a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.

    Cheryl R. Campbell, a senior vice president of CGI Federal, a unit of the CGI Group, the main contractor on the federal exchange, said that end-to-end testing of the full integrated system first occurred “in the last two weeks of September.”

    Another witness, Andrew M. Slavitt of UnitedHealth Group, said, “We didn’t see end-to-end testing until a couple days leading up to the launch” of the federal marketplace on Oct. 1.

    UnitedHealth, one of the nation’s largest insurers, owns Quality Software Services, which was in charge of “identity management,” including the use of password-protected accounts, in the federal marketplace.

    Ms. Campbell and Mr. Slavitt said they would have preferred to have months of testing, as required by industry standards for a project of such immense complexity. The federal exchange must communicate with other contractors and with databases of numerous federal agencies and more than 170 insurance carriers.

    The rollout of the Affordable Care Act has been tarnished by technical problems that have made it difficult for consumers to shop in the federal marketplace serving 36 states.

    Ms. Campbell said that CGI continually reported to top officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including Michelle Snyder, the chief operating officer of the agency, and Henry Chao, the deputy chief information officer. Those officials made critical decisions about the federal exchange, Ms. Campbell said.

    In response to questions, Ms. Campbell said, “We were not responsible for end-to-end testing” of the whole system. The Medicare agency, known as C.M.S., was responsible, she said.

    Mr. Slavitt said that his company had tested computer code for the federal marketplace and had found problems. “We informed C.M.S. that more testing was necessary,” he testified.

    Lawmakers from both parties expressed anger during the hearing at the performance of contractors hired to build the online health insurance marketplace, which is still limping along after three weeks.

    Lawmakers said they were dismayed because the contractors assured the committee on Sept. 10 that they, their computer systems and the online federal marketplace were ready to enroll millions of Americans eager to buy insurance, subsidized by the government.

    “Why did they assure us that the Web site would work?” asked Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the committee. “Did they not know? Or did they not disclose?”

    “This is more than a Web site problem,” Mr. Upton said. “The Web site should have been the easy part. I’m also concerned about what happens next. Will enrollment glitches become provider payment glitches? Will patients show up at their doctor’s office or hospital only to be told that they aren’t covered, or even in the system?”

    The hearing room was packed with spectators eager to witness the confrontation between lawmakers and business executives whose companies have received tens of millions of dollars to build the federal marketplace, or exchange.

    Politics pervaded the session. Republicans said that technical problems crippling the federal Web site epitomized fundamental flaws in the 2010 health care law, Mr. Obama’s most significant legislative achievement.

    Democrats said that the law was fundamentally sound, but that the Web site needed to be fixed immediately so people could get the insurance promised to them.

    Democrats said that the law was fundamentally sound, but that the Web site needed to be fixed immediately so people could get the insurance promised to them.

    Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said: “Three weeks after the Web site went live, we are still hearing reports of significant problems. These problems need to be fixed, and they need to be fixed fast.”

    Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, lamented the sorry state of the Web site and said: “This is unacceptable. It needs to be fixed.”

    But Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said the hearing was part of “a cynical Republican effort to delay, defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

    Representative Tim Murphy, Republican of Pennsylvania, said the contractors “were shockingly unaware of what was happening or deliberately misleading our committee and the public” when they testified last month that their components of the exchange would be ready on time.

    Ms. Campbell said all of CGI’s work had been done “under the direction and supervision” of C.M.S.

    “We acknowledge that issues arising in the federal exchange have made the process for selecting and enrolling in qualified insurance plans difficult to navigate for too many individuals,” Ms. Campbell said. “Unfortunately, in systems this complex with so many concurrent users, it is not unusual to discover problems that need to be addressed once the software goes into a live production environment.”

    She blamed Quality Software Services for problems that consumers have had creating password-protected accounts. These problems “created a bottleneck that prevented the vast majority of users” from gaining access to the federal exchange, Ms. Campbell said.

    The exchange, she said, is “not a standard consumer Web site,” but “a complex transaction processor” that must simultaneously help millions of Americans shop for insurance and enroll in health plans. It must communicate instantaneously with computer systems developed by other contractors and with databases of numerous federal agencies and more than 170 insurance carriers qualified to do business in the 36 states where the federal marketplace operates, she said.

    Mr. Slavitt said its identity verification tool was just one part of “the federal marketplace’s registration and access management system, which involves multiple vendors and pieces of technology.”

    These were overwhelmed by people trying to use the site, Mr. Slavitt said. One reason for the logjam, he suggested, is that the administration made “a late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before they could browse for insurance products.”

    John Lau, a program director for Serco, another contractor, said his company was seeing an increase in paper applications. Serco is supposed to enter data from those applications in the government’s computerized eligibility system, but problems in that system have created challenges for Serco, as they have for consumers, Mr. Lau said.

    The same contractors, testifying before the same committee on Sept. 10, assured lawmakers that they were ready to handle a surge of users when the federal exchange opened on Oct. 1.

    Trying to catch up with problems still plaguing the federal exchange, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, and Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, met at the White House on Wednesday with top executives from insurance companies, including Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, WellPoint and several Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.

    The White House said technology experts from government and industry were working together “to iron out kinks” that had provided insurers with incomplete and inaccurate information about people trying to enroll.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/us/politics/bipartisan-dismay-over-health-plan-woes-at-house-hearing.html?hp

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    At what point did I blame the republicans for anything. Stop being such a victim.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bwahahahahahaha.....when DON'T you blame Republicans???

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: how ironic!

    Matty & ACC: I gotcha...I recognize there's an awful lot I don't know, and not only because we don't have all the facts.

    Just seems reckless on its face to wait that long...or at the very least I think I would be safe planting my standards here: ONCE the test happened and failed - no matter for what reasons it happened then - I'm shocked that they went a head with full implementation.

    Tech industry aside, contractor issues aside, how does that particular decision get made?

     

    I mean even if the contractor lied and said the test was perfectly fine...    if I was Obama, I'd ask at least some random staffer to try signing up or something.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share