×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Project Rescue Expert Todd Williams Talks About Healthcare.gov (Video)

Roblimo posted 1 year,5 days | from the health-website-that-isn't-healthy dept.

Government 276

By now, most Americans have either heard or learned firsthand that the Healthcare.gov website doesn't work right. Slings, arrows, and brickbats are being slung all over Washington, and Congressional representatives are busily thundering imprecations at all and sundry who were involved in putting Healthcare.gov together. If there have been any Congressional hearing focusing on how to fix the problems, though, we have not seen them. You'd think that our representatives would bring in people like today's interviewee, Todd Williams, who has written a book titled Rescue the Problem Project and runs a company that specializes in rescuing failed projects. What's more, Todd is just one of many Americans who have helped rescue projects that have gone awry. Hopefully our government has at least one of them working on Healthcare.gov by now, although we haven't heard that they've selected a strong turnaround manager and set him or her to work on the project -- and you'd think they would have told us if they had.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Me too! (5, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483367)

I *also* can turn around failed projects, please sign this contract to let me begin. -Every consultant ever

Re:Me too! (1, Offtopic)

goldaryn (834427) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483481)

A smart comment here beneath a snarky exterior. Profiteering created this this mess and I now can't help see this gentleman as anything but a dollar-bill eyed charlatan.

I would watch the video but, you know, this is Slashdot.

* I actually live in the UK but for once I'll refrain from the we have free healthcare, you obligatory insensitive clod joke. This site seems like a step in the right direction, all fingers crossed for my US brethren.

Re:Me too! (3, Informative)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483601)

I can't watch the video. After the ad played for 63 seconds, I am done.

Re:Me too! (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483731)

Profiteering created this this mess

No... poor management and a poorly thought out law is what caused this mess.

Re:Me too! (3, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483859)

Except many state exchanges such as the California and Arkansas exchanges are functioning great. The law itself may or may not be shit, but the execution of the federal website is an entirely separate issue. Don't throw your personal politics into it unnecessarily, it's juvenile.

Re:Me too! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483939)

California exchange signed up 35,000 people the first month.
California sent out 5 million cancellations in the same time period.

150 people lost coverage for everyone added via the exchange. THIS IS SUCCESS for Obamacare supporters!

Note: In order to participate in the exchange the health insurance companies in California were REQUIRED BY LAW to cancel ALL individual policies. If they refuesed to cancel individual policies they would not be allowed to sell in the exchange there.

Like I said, this is one of their best examples of sucess. A reasonable person would call it failure, but I guess they are not reasonable.

Re:Me too! (5, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483999)

Many states? You offer 2 but fail to offer any citations?

At last check, Nevada's site has only signed up 531 people: http://www.foxreno.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/nevada-health-exchange-signups-790.shtml [foxreno.com]

Zero for Oregon: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/11/11/oregon-health-care-exchange-has-yet-to-enroll-a-single-person/ [cbslocal.com]

We've got the Washington (state) exchange crashing during it's promotional tour: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Health-exchange-website-goes-down-during-road-tour-229571661.html [komonews.com]

Never mind the issues of Washington's site with costing people their projected tax credit: http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-woman-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after-all/#.Uoq1uZH1JMg.twitter [washingtonstatewire.com]

Zero plans sold during the first two weeks in Hawaii (due to issues): http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/10/hawaii-relaunching-obamacare-exchange-after-not-selling-any-health-insurance-due-to-software-problems/ [cbslocal.com]

Ditto in New York: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-deems-health-glitches-unacceptable-gop-calls-obamacare-doa-article-1.1491281 [nydailynews.com]

And Vermont: http://rutlandherald.com/article/20131031/OPINION04/710319973/0/OPINION [rutlandherald.com]

And that a month in, state exchanges had only reached 3% of their target: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/11/usa-healthcare-enrollment-idUSL2N0IW0XX20131111?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssHealthcareNews&rpc=22 [reuters.com]

Yes, such a great success.

While you are free to lament about my 'personal politics' into it... I'm sorry that you don't like being confronted with facts... or would you prefer I jump up and down and scream "We told you so, we tried to stop you, you didn't listen... now reap what you've sown!" ?

Na, your dismissiveness of the facts at hand is the truly juvenile part of this.

Re:Me too! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483909)

Note: Above comment comes to you courtesy of GOP Paid Commenting Services!

Re:Me too! (0)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484023)

Really? I best go call the GOP and ask for my check! I mean, I'm clearly getting screwed by not getting paid... nor even asked to post this.

Odd that eh?

Re:Me too! (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484025)

A smart comment here beneath a snarky exterior. Profiteering created this this mess and I now can't help see this gentleman as anything but a dollar-bill eyed charlatan.

I would watch the video but, you know, this is Slashdot.

* I actually live in the UK but for once I'll refrain from the we have free healthcare, you obligatory insensitive clod joke. This site seems like a step in the right direction, all fingers crossed for my US brethren.

In the US there's a saying: if you want to make a lot of money, sell bad software to the public sector.

The primary disease symptom is a complete lack of understanding among the people who select the vendor, hand out specs and often do not know how to communicate technology needs. Also, when a project fails the vendor often can just walk away with their boat-load of cash, without so much as a backwards glance - where a private sector customer may be queuing up their lawyers to punish an incompetent vendor, the public sector often lets them completely off the hook and just looks for the next vendor promising the moon and stars on something else.

Now enter partisanship - there is a party who would like nothing better than for the healthcare system to fail miserably so they can make hay out of it. It's deplorable, but not nearly so much as a public willing to go along with this, rather than demand accountability upon the vendor(s) and their contacts. We the tax payer have already paid for this thing, love it or hate it, we should demand it work and work well.

Re:Me too! (-1, Troll)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483489)

Yeah, but can you do it in the face of sabotage and grandstanding by Republicans at both the state and local levels?

Re:Me too! (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483577)

In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site was built? What influence did they have over the technical decision making, the choice of contractors? In which way did the Republicans influence the decision by Sebelius to hide from the president the fact that the site couldn't possibly work in the manner he's been promising? How does the decision by some states to not take on the risk of an unfunded Medicare mandate expansion cause the site's architecture to fail? And ... "grandstanding?" You mean like telling people they'll have to vote the law in so they can see what's in it and how wonderful it is? Like saying over and over again during an election that what's happening right now to millions of people wasn't going to happen? That sort of grandstanding? Grandstanding like telling voters that the people who pointed out what a trainwreck the ACA is by its very design really just want to throw little old ladies off of cliffs? That sort of grandstanding? Ooops, I get it. You're pathetically deflecting, just like the president. Pressed on exactly the same details (on how it is that the Republicans interfered with the development of the site's code and infrastructure) ... crickets chirping.

Re:Me too! (-1, Troll)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483707)

I'll use little words so you can follow. The Federal website was speced to be a portal to the STATE websites where people could sign up to the you know, STATE insurance pools. Like it says in the law. Except 38 Republican-controlled state legislatures and governors decided not to bother, so the Federal site ended up getting overloaded with functionality and traffic it was never intended to have.

As for "grandstanding", when the (Republican) Medicare Part D rollout turned into a giant turd and the Republicans were making excuses about "any large system is going to have teething problems...", the Democrats actually did what they could to make it work, rather than hold a lot of hearings and press conferences about who was to blame and needed to "apologize" -- you know -- NOT grandstanding.

Re:Me too! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483851)

I'll use little words so you can follow. The Federal website was speced to be a portal to the STATE websites where people could sign up to the you know, STATE insurance pools. Like it says in the law. Except 38 Republican-controlled state legislatures and governors decided not to bother, so the Federal site ended up getting overloaded with functionality and traffic it was never intended to have.

Moron. The law specifically permits states to decide if they want to set up an exchange or not. Many chose not to. Even those that do set up their own exchange must communicate with the federal system. There are no surprises here. The system should have been designed to handle it.

And It's not just a load issue. They just reported they haven't build major parts of the system yet.

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483743)

I have memory, and so does everyone else. Mr. AlphaCharacters is a liar and EVERYONE reading his comments know it, including himself. Their only hope is to make people afraid of saying anything in fear of being called a racist for opposing it.

This is what the DNC has stooped to. Lies and name calling. They have lost on the actual issues in every possible way. Liberalism is dead and tyranny is their only hope for keeping it alive. In a side note, filibusters were just outlawed in the Senate for presidental appointments by Harry Reid, which takes away representation in the Senate for nearly HALF the country. Tyranny is on its way and Reid just put in place one more step.

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484001)

You're right! The minority should rule! Tyranny of the minority!

Re:Me too! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483795)

The Republicans defunded part of the project.
The Republicans refused to set up state exchanges in their stats, increasing the traffic load on the website.
And most of all, the Republicans DID NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE SINGLE PAYER, which put us in this situation in the first place.

But no, you are correct, Republicans had nothing to do with design decisions or coding. Most of them still think the internet is a series of tubes.

Re:Me too! (5, Informative)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483857)

The Republicans defunded part of the project.

Citation to specific bill which caused this please.

The Republicans refused to set up state exchanges in their stats, increasing the traffic load on the website.

If it was a traffic load issue, why does the issue still persist nearly 2 months since launch when the traffic to the site dropped by 88% after the first couple of weeks? http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/visits-to-federal-health-care-web-site-off-88percent/2013/10/15/7a73f45c-35e2-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

More so, you realize under Federalism... states do still have some rights... right?

And most of all, the Republicans DID NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE SINGLE PAYER, which put us in this situation in the first place.

Remind me... how many Republican's voted for this monstrosity of a law which is forcing people to lose their health insurance plans and pay even more out of pocket for the replacements? Right... ZERO.

Don't blame the Republicans when the liberals couldn't come up with enough votes to implement single payer.

Re:Me too! (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483837)

I score that as 25 for 25. Your dog should be happy on the next trip to the field. ;)

Re:Me too! (-1)

rmstar (114746) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483877)

In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site was built?

Many IT professionals worship Ayn Rand or follow similar currents. It seems to me perfectly plausible to think that such IT professionals sabotaged the construction of the site. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't.

How does the decision by some states to not take on the risk of an unfunded Medicare mandate expansion cause the site's architecture to fail?

Sabotage by uncooperative, even hostile state governments? "Unthinkable".

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484101)

"It seems to me perfectly plausible to think that such IT professionals sabotaged the construction of the site"

You idiots really believe this shit? You redefine stupid sir, it's jot just pathetic, this is weapons grade stupid.

Obamacare is a failure in nearly every respect, from top to bottom, from alpha to zed.

This is Democrat from top to bottom, all Democrat, all the time. This collosal monstrosity of a failure is Barky O Dog Eaters "signature" legislation, enfucking the American people for generations to come and it was passed by 100% Democrat support without a single Republican vote. Republicans have tried to repleal, delay and have met with unaminous Democrat resistance at every turn.

And you fuckwads turn up here and try and deflect blame from the Democrats by blaming the website failure on the Republicans. This would be comical if it wasn't a fact.

You statist tyrants are lower than dog shit for this crap and do not think for a second this is going to fly, the problems caused by Obamacare are going to affect all citizens right in their pocketbooks and their healthcare - and they will not be tricked into blaming Republicans by a long shot.

Obama and the Democrats lied repeatedly and deliberately that you would be allowed to keep your current plan, doctor and hospital under Obamacare. This was a lie and not just a little lie or a misstatement but a deliberate, intentional and purposeful lie. Obamacare would never have passed had they told the truth - that you will very likely be forced onto a more expensive plan that has fewer benefits.

You can distract and complain all you want, but you cannot deny this fact - and what's more you cannot hide this fact from the public who is opening their eyes more and more every day to this monstrosity.

And the website is just a minor part of this puzzle - and it also is a collosal, complete and total cock up.

Own it drone.

Re:Me too! (2)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484109)

The power of the Kool Aid is strong with this one.

Re:Me too! (1)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484115)

So because in your experience... some number of A exists within B, and B was responsible for C, C was a complete failure... then by the conspiratorial transitive property... A caused C?

Riiiiiight.

Lemme guess... 9/11 was an inside job, we didn't land on the moon, and GWB personally blew up the levy's outside of the lower 9th ward.

I think your tin foil hat requires updating.

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484181)

Wow. Just. Wow. Now we're blaming the unknown political leanings of the people who wrote the code. This bears a striking resemblance to the political machinations of the former Soviet Union, where engineers and scientists didn't want to become too involved in politics for fear of being thrown in a gulag in Siberia.

So, let's just kill all the intellectuals who don't worship at the altar of liberalism, that'll fix everything.

Re:Me too! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484087)

> In what way did the Republicans have anything, whatsoever, to do with how the web site

They cut the budget so much that the web site had no chance of ever working. You people sabotaged it, and you know it. The CONservatives do not want minorities to have insurance so they made damn well sure that this web site didn't work. As usual, racism is what drives all of the opposition to common sense reform.

Re:Me too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483627)

You guys actually cannot admit defeat on ANYTHING Obama does, can you, no matter how ill-conceived? If he succeeds, it is in spite of the House. If he fails, it is because of the House. For a bunch of atheists, you sure treat the community organizer from Chicago as if he were some sort of deity.

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483977)

You, good sir win the internets for today. Congratulations.

Re:Me too! (2)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483685)

Republican Sabotage? Surely you jest...

How on earth did *they* cause the website to fail? They are pretty much powerless, and have been since 2008. About all they can do is stop their feet and vote for bills Obama will never see, much less sign.

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483767)

They are pretty much powerless

They? You mean like Governor Perry that condemned the state of Texas to having to deal with this crap instead of running his own, just to show all of us what asshats the Republicans can be?

Re:Me too! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483727)

"sabotage and grandstanding by Republicans"

You fucking idiot. So the whole Obamacare failure is the fault of Republicans now is it?

How fucking stupid do you think we are? This is Democrat from top to bottom, all Democrat, all the time. This collosal monstrosity of a failure is Barky O Dog Eaters "signature" legislation, enfucking the American people for generations to come and it was passed by 100% Democrat support without a single Republican vote. Republicans have tried to repleal, delay and have met with unaminous Democrat resistance at every turn.

And you fuckwads turn up here and try and deflect blame from the Democrats by blaming the website failure on the Republicans. This would be comical if it wasn't a fact.

You statist tyrants are lower than dog shit for this crap and do not think for a second this is going to fly, the problems caused by Obamacare are going to affect all citizens right in their pocketbooks and their healthcare - and they will not be tricked into blaming Republicans by a long shot.

This is a shit sandwich you drone and you extremist Democrats force fed it to the people of this country and they will not be fooled, and will not forget.

Now go eat shit and die you pathetic statist whore.

Re:Me too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483933)

Oh and by the way genius, the Obamacare shit sandwich was brought to us by the Democrats and a brief opportunity they had for one party rule.

In case you hadn't noticed Harry Reid seems to think that one party rule is a good idea for the Senate as well.

Brilliant!

Is it just me or do any of you seem to remember Obama the lightbringer talking all about transparency and working together and putting bills up for review by the American people and all of that shit before he was elected.

I'm starting to get the feeling that the chocolate jesus may not have been all that truthful with us all those years ago....

Who knew?

Re:Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483771)

While funny. What they need is a *good* PM. I have met many.

One who can ask the 'hard' questions like 'why is it not done yet'.
One who knows to speak up and say 'you are not going to make this date'.
One who knows whatever someone tells timewise you take it times 3.
One who knows what to delegate and what to not delegate.
One who is willing to show what the current schedule is.
One who is willing to grind it out and track it properly.

Me personally I am horrid at all of the above. But that is because I am more worried about getting some random task done. I am not worried that 20 different things need to be done before something else can even start.

And that is just one small part. From where I sit they just completely did old school waterfall and forgot to do any integrated testing with good test fixtures until it was *way* too late.

Haven't told us? (3, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483387)

Of course they've told us. They told us they're doing a "tech surge," and bringing in the "best and brightest," and that the web site will be working smoothly for the "vast majority" of users nine days from now. That's all pretty cut and dry, and there's no way that anyone in the administration would be foolish enough to promise something like that if it weren't plainly true. If it weren't true, that would be due to either staggering incompetence, or a willingness to baldly lie about it, and of course neither of those can be the case with this much scrutiny. So, I don't know what the OP is implying.

Re:Haven't told us? (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483599)

As much as I enjoy laughing at politicians, there's a less funny side to all of this: there's apparently no security for this website at all. We heard early on that they had skipped the security audit required of all government websites, but I've been on projects that did the security audit a bit after launch to make a date, so I won't throw stones.

However, we're seeing a wide range of security experts, spanning the credibility spectrum from the sort who give testimony to congress, to MacAfee his own bad self, warning of critical security flaws in Healthcare.gov. That sounds like they didn't just skip the final audit, but the entire security lifecycle - and it's freaking hard to "add security after the fact" to anything! This is massive identity theft waiting to happen, which isn't funny at all.

Re:Haven't told us? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483833)

Of course they've told us. They told us they're doing a "tech surge," and bringing in the "best and brightest," and that the web site will be working smoothly for the "vast majority" of users nine days from now. That's all pretty cut and dry, and there's no way that anyone in the administration would be foolish enough to promise something like that if it weren't plainly true. If it weren't true, that would be due to either staggering incompetence, or a willingness to baldly lie about it, and of course neither of those can be the case with this much scrutiny. So, I don't know what the OP is implying.

This is either sarcastic, or just plain stupid. I'm voting for sarcasm.

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." and "The website will be working by... " are both whoppers being told for political purposes.

If you are not sure I'm right you need to read what Fredrick P. Brooks said in "The Mythical Man Month" about such attempts to use a "Tech surge" to get a failing project working. If there is anything I can say for sure, it's that throwing people at a project like this will only make it later and cost more. But this is politics, it's about optics and the sound bite. Plus the media cycle is about 2 weeks so it is usually safe to lie in politics because everybody will forget about it in about 14 days and should they bring back the tape, you just claim that you actually said something else when taken in context.

Sarcasm aside though, this administration is stupid if it really thinks the website will be working anytime before next year, no matter how much money they throw at the problem. But that's the government way... Huge, inefficient drain on resources for very little gain. The very thing that brought the USSR down to it's knees..

Helathcare.gov? (2)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483397)

Time to grow up now.

Pity the fool (2)

sideslash (1865434) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483409)

"Here, you're an expert, so fix our website. By the way, you can't make any decisions."

I think there are too many layers of dysfunctional bureaucracy. It doesn't really matter how good the designated website fixer is if they don't have the power to actually make stuff work.

Re:Pity the fool (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483827)

I think there are too many layers of dysfunctional bureaucracy. It doesn't really matter how good the designated website fixer is if they don't have the power to actually make stuff work.

Indeed -- if only contractors were allowed to redefine the scope of work and the ACA law. Would be easier to get the project done.

It wouldn't be a tough project if the law was not complex to begin with. That IS what makes the project difficult.

Re:Pity the fool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483919)

Pretty much this. Due to the laws regarding purchasing and whatnot mixed with the usual game of pork and district favoritism the site was bound to be off to a rocky start. It was pretty much inevitable.

We all know what it takes to build a good site. One entity in control with a strong vision and lots of good authority. Google, MS, Facebook, etc do it all the time. Unfortunately it's politically and legally impossible to just hire Google or MS or whoever and give them authority to make a site that works. We're dommed to have too many chefs, too many fingers in the pie, and too many interests that want a cut.

That, and one major political party in the most powerful country in the world is doing everything in their power to sabotage the project in an effort to nullify the last two elections they lost.

Re:Pity the fool (2)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483949)

It's even more crazy than that... If you actually make it work, you get to stop collecting checks from your deep pocketed client who is desperate to fix it and doesn't really care how much they spend to accomplish their goals. Plus, the longer this goes, the more desperate they will be. As desperation increases, so does the potential profit.

So for the unethical, it's onto the gravy train, start billing as many hours as you can while keeping the train rolling for as long as possible.

Not having the power to make any decisions and working for a bureaucracy only enhances the profit making potential and lowers the risks. You can always claim that the changing requirements are making you late and costing you more, not to mention that because they didn't answer your questions and make timely choices, you are not responsible for the ensuing delays. It's a win win win... Unless of course you are the tax payer.

Tell me, what do YOU think is going to happen? I'm betting we are going to spend a lot of money on nearly nothing and it will be really late.

Just tip of iceberg (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483443)

Earlier this week at congressional testimony, it was said about 60% of that website was yet to be completed. The part where those who signed up beging paying for their selected palns and the money, along with subsidies is routed to the insurance company. They have no way for you to pay, for you to pay a partial payment, for you to miss a payment, or what to do in those cases.

In order to get coverage by Jan 1 you need to make your first payment by Dec 15.

With all the security issues with just signing up, I can't wait to see what happens when credit card numbers are entered for payments.

Re:Just tip of iceberg (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483655)

it was said about 60% of that website was yet to be completed

And IT projects follow the 80/20 rule. They're not even 20% of the way to actual completion of the defined project. Yeah, that sucks and it's terrifying for advocates of ObamaCare/PPACA, but refusing to face reality will never yield an actual solution.

Re:Just tip of iceberg (1)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483711)

> With all the security issues with just signing up, I can't wait to see what happens when credit card
> numbers are entered for payments.

At least they don't have to worry so much about security, I have to imagine that the identities of the people signing up for health care through the connector are som eof the least lucrative identities to steal.

I have to imagine that with the other story today about the low prices on identities, the PII, verified home address and credit card info for wal-mart associates doesn't even fetch those prices.

"verified credit cards, home address, and other info on 20,000 walmart employees - $5 obo"

It'll Never Happen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483463)

The House wants the government to fail, so bringing in someone to fix any problems is antithetical to their mission.

Re:It'll Never Happen (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483541)

And when you say "The House", you mean "The Republican Party". Why people keep falling for this "Government doesn't work! Vote for me and I'll PROVE it!" bullshit is beyond me.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

Phil-14 (1277) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483641)

Yup, them and the Kulaks. I hear they've got lots of grain.

Re:It'll Never Happen (3, Insightful)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484119)

The Soviet union, Communist China, Socialist India, and so on all managed to demonstrate government failure without Republicans obstructing them.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483619)

Ironically it's the Democrats that are wanting government to fail, so that they can add more government to prevent future failure.

Re:It'll Never Happen (-1, Troll)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483729)

That's funny; did Sean Hannity tell you that?

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483889)

That's funny; did Sean Hannity tell you that?

No, Charles Murray. http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-Social-1950-1980/dp/1455165859

The solution to any useless failing programs is to make it bigger.

Seeing is Believing (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484131)

No-one told me that (I hate political shows of all stripes). Instead, I prefer to think for myself. You should try it.

I learned through simple observation over many years. There's not any government failure that doesn't lead for calls to grow the program that failed to fix it.

BTW, the same thing is true of failing efforts at companies too, so it's not like this should be some kind of big shock to anyone. It just points out why programs of any kind should not be allowed to grow to massive levels, because the efforts they make to continue growing become more cancerous than healthy.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483875)

Government - the cause and solution for every problem and social ill ... at least in some quarters.

Re:It'll Never Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484041)

Having this fail is the only way we'll ever get a single payer system it is very important we put it into place and have it fail. Sometimes you have to have short-term sacrifices for long-term gain. The CONservatives are greedy and short-sighted so they are incapable of understanding this. The more problems this has, the more government will be able to later improve healthcare.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484185)

And what happens when the system fails but it's impossible to put a single-payer system into place?

All you have managed to do is fuck over millions. Why are you any better than Stalin? Hell, at least Stalin was transparent in his evil *and* had a mustache.

I don't care because I'm well off financially and can ride out whatever disaster you unfold. I just feel really sorry for the poor you are crushing under your boots in the name of ideology.

Re:It'll Never Happen (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484003)

HHS has money they are spending on this. How can the house prevent HHS from doing this? It's not like they can pass a law all by themselves, the Senate AND the president would all have to agree.

Personally, I think you are all wet..

From the title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483475)

At first, I thought this was news about a project to rescue an expert named Ted Williams from something...

Re:From the title... (2)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483623)

Funny because from the title I thought this might have something to do with Project Rescue: http://projectrescue.com/ [projectrescue.com]
"Project Rescue provides physical, emotional and spiritual rescue and holistic restoration to women and children in sexual slavery."

Little bit of namespace collision going on there.

Incompetent boobs. (3, Interesting)

jamesl (106902) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483507)

... you'd think they would have told us if they had.

You'd think they would have told us before October 1 that there were going to be some problems with healthcare.gov. They were either ignorant, incompetent or in denial.

The legislators don't know enough to ask the right questions nor do they have the training and experience needed to understand large system development.

In Congress its a case of the blind leading the deaf.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483547)

The intent has always been to eliminate every health insurance company and have the US Govt issue all "health insurance" in a single payer system, as recounted by Obama on video amongst others in Democrat circles.

If they don't make this Healthcare.gov work, I can see the cry that we need to move to a single payer system, but unfortunately can't see the Govt. doing anything right or efficient.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483645)

Eliminating the profiteering, parasitic health insurance companies would be excellent.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (3, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483773)

Yes, because begging your congressman for treatment is a far better system.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (2)

Cro Magnon (467622) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483845)

Yes, because begging your congressman for treatment is a far better system.

Worse than that. You might vote out your congressman, but when your life is in the hands of some 2-bit bureaucrat appointed by Obama or Sebilious (sic), you're really screwed!

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484019)

It's a good thing that's not how medicare works already. I always find this argument funny, you hear don't touch medicare! Then when someone argues for medicare for all you get this complete tripe.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483817)

I will agree to a single-payer system as soon as I can smack cigarettes out of other people's hands, clear out everyone in a bar who has had more than one drink, and force everyone to stop eating unhealthy foods and begin jogging.

If I am going to be paying for your health, I should have the right to force you to be healthy.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484053)

Ugh... seriously? You already pay for others peoples healthcare treatment. If you are insured like I am your insurance company pays a hell of a lot more for services because of all the people getting free treatment in the ER. Let's just let the problem continue getting worse, clearly that'll be fine since I am insured!

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (1)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484179)

Nice DNC talking points you have there... but like so often your type forgets the free choice aspect.

By carrying insurance I choose to subsidize those who may not live as healthy as I... and I can choose another carrier which may use different methods to encourage good health... or even choose to pay my own way... shame you assume that if such a person gets ill that they WILL end up in the ER.

Your system involves the strong arm of government demanding that I subsidize you and removes any choice I have from the matter.

Re:Incompetent boobs, no Stealthy Liars (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483883)

bullshit. You really think that the goal of this boondoggle was to put these bastards out of business? "Here, Aetna and BCBS, have a gazillion healthy premium payers that aren't going to cost you a nickel!" That's supposed to eliminate them? One of the reasons I'm against Obamacare is that I'm pro single payer. This system is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Why do you think the Republicans were all for this approach back in the nineties? It makes big businesses bigger, which means more campaign donations, and more lobbying opportunities when they go through the K street revolving door.

Re:Incompetent boobs. (2)

Phil-14 (1277) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483611)

Uh, last I checked, the people who actually wrote this law lost control of the House (but not the Senate) three years ago.

You look as if you're trying to blame the current Congress for a law they didn't write and furthermore oppose.

Re:Incompetent boobs. (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483621)

The legislators don't know enough to ask the right questions nor do they have the training and experience needed to understand large system development.

It's not fair to expect Congress to be an expert on all these things - that's impossible. Literally.

Which is why the framers limited the Congress's authority to thirty narrowly defined powers [tenthamendmentcenter.com] . That's a reasonable number for one organization to handle.

Healthcare advocates should recognize that if they want healthcare to work well, having Congress wield the power to control it is a bad solution.

Re:Incompetent boobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484229)

So what is a good solution? Most of the rest of the industrialized world went that way and while its not perfect, it's certainly better than what we have now. Look at the average cost of healthcare in the U.S. versus any other nation.

Re:Incompetent boobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483953)

Really? Who knew?

If the government bureaucracy is riddled with people who can't build a website like this for $600M (6X their original budget) and the people who control the purse strings and order them around don't know how to run a complex data system like this, why again did Americans support Obamacare?

I mean, if they can't get the portal and exchange up and running and working right, how can we have confidence that their changes will actually result in affordable healthcare insurance which is a vastly more complex system of insurance, risk management, and market forces? Since a bunch of basically lawyers who are only good at getting elected can't get the construction of a website right, how do we know that ACA is going to make healthcare better and not worse?

Those legislators who supported this should be thanking their lucky stars that healthcare.gov is such a fiasco. It's capturing press away from the low enrollment numbers, the canceled policies, and mistakes being made in tax subsidies that are pricing people out of the market.

Re:Incompetent boobs. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484069)

... you'd think they would have told us if they had.

You'd think they would have told us before October 1 that there were going to be some problems with healthcare.gov. They were either ignorant, incompetent or in denial.

Indications are that they choose to ignore what they where being told by their contractor. They had a political agenda and where choosing to lie about the situation in the off chance of a miracle or that the news cycle rescues them from the public flogging that was (is still) coming.

So far, there hasn't been an earthquake, terrorist attack or something else to deflect public attention from this yet so the beating continues in the polls.

Shit sandwich people, open up, you voted for it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483553)

You can keep your lying Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/new-health-plans-sold-through-exchanges-not-accepted-at-some-prestigious-nyc-hospitals/2013/11/20/7538dbb4-5235-11e3-9ee6-2580086d8254_story.html

"As of this week, not one of the plans for sale on New York’s health benefit exchange would cover treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the world’s largest and most respected cancer hospitals.

That could mean that the 615,000 individuals and 450,000 small business employees expected to eventually get their insurance through the exchange would have to go someplace else for treatment, or pay the bill out of their own pockets."

Obama and the Democrats lied repeatedly and deliberately that you would be allowed to keep your current plan, doctor and hospital under Obamacare. This was a lie and not just a little lie or a misstatement but a deliberate, intentional and purposeful lie. Obamacare would never have passed had they told the truth - that you will very likely be forced onto a more expensive plan that has fewer benefits.

You can distract and complain all you want, but you cannot deny this fact - and what's more you cannot hide this fact from the public who is opening their eyes more and more every day to this monstrosity.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/second-wave-health-plan-cancellations-looms/

And by the way, fully 30 to 50% of you will all be losing your health insurance in the coming year.

Shit sandwich people, open up, you voted for it.

Really the only flawed government software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483625)

Why are we pretending that this is news? Has there ever been a major government software installation that has gone smoothly?

FBI: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html
IRS: http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/192502071/irs-gives-away-318-million-because-of-bungled-software-upgrade.htm
Air traffic control: http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/A5/20131031/NEWS02/310310078/Federal-air-traffic-control-system-dragged-by-delays-glitches

I'm sure the list goes on and on, but others surely happened without the overheated rhetoric attached to healthcare programs. Perhaps the bigger problem is that the best and brightest coders want to work in more lucrative markets.

"we have not seen them" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483667)

And you won't. Republicans did not vote for this debacle. You libtards own it 100%. Enjoy.

Reid just blew up the Senate confirmation process so they can pack the US government with more of the same caliber of left-wing statists that built healthcare.gov. You sheeple aren't going to stop this until you're shivering in the dark hungry, are you?

Re:"we have not seen them" (3, Informative)

RoccamOccam (953524) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484061)

"If he pulls the trigger on this, Reid would not only break his on-the-record, unambiguous promise to the Senate in 2011, he would also execute a ploy that he deemed "un-American" when the shoe was on the other foot. Here is a parade of Senate Democrats angrily denouncing a(n abandoned) Republican proposal to enact a similar rule change in 2005...The 'Gang of 14' compromise ultimately prevailed in '05, thus averting the "Constitutional crisis" Chuck Schumer warned about. It has held ever since." -- Guy Benson

"We remember when a "judicial emergency" was the Senate's way of calling attention to vacancies based on a court's caseload. Those were the good old days. Now Democrats are threatening to change Senate rules if Republicans don't acquiesce to their plan to confirm three new judges to the most underworked appellate circuit in the country. That's the story behind the fight over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with the White House trying to pack the court that reviews much of its regulatory agenda.

"On Monday Senate Republicans blocked the third nominee to the D.C. appellate court in recent weeks, and Democrats with short memories of their judicial filibusters in the Bush years are claiming this is unprecedented. Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats are threatening to resort to the so-called nuclear option, which would let the Senate confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.

"This is nothing but a political power play because the D.C. Circuit doesn't need the new judges. It currently has 11 authorized judgeships and eight active judges—four appointed by Democratic Presidents and four by Republicans. The court also has six senior judges who hear cases varying from 25% to 75% of an active judge's caseload. Together they carry the equivalent caseload of 3.25 active judges, according to numbers from Chief Judge Merrick Garland. That means the circuit has the equivalent of 11.25 full-time judges. That's more than enough considering that the court's caseload is the lightest in the country." -- Wall Street Journal

Only way to fix this is do what corps do: layoffs (1)

CQDX (2720013) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483687)

This project has failed because of poor leadership. They need to hire Office Space like efficiency experts and figure out who has to go, interviewing key people starting from the President on down. Surely if the Feds were a private corp and the President was the CEO, the Board would have ousted him years ago.

Re:Only way to fix this is do what corps do: layof (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483867)

If Obama was a private CEO, he'd be in court for both accounting fraud (accounting behind the US budget and its public presentation are notoriously fraudulent in the criminal sense) and the regular sort of fraud ("if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan").

Re:Only way to fix this is do what corps do: layof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483915)

But he did those things for good reasons just like why he had to do a serious misdirection about the millions of people that would lose their insurance because of him. He couldn't admit to it at the time or it would have been a net loss for America. Instead, he made a calculated misdirection and now we're net off better.

Re:Only way to fix this is do what corps do: layof (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45484213)

So if you act in a criminal way, but for 'good reasons'... it's ok?

Try that next time you are in court and looking at a DUI and manslaughter charge... "But I did it for good reasons... the man I killed was going to be the next mass serial killer and though my criminal but well meaning actions... I saved thousands!"

Could they redirect some of the load? (1)

blackest_k (761565) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483703)

Would it be possible to divert some of the load from the servers. Kind of like a bouncer on a club door, so many gain admission they are able to be processed the rest get knocked back until there is a free spot on the actual servers processing the applications. At least that way some of the applications get processed instead of the servers being overwhelmed.

For bonus points bring more servers online if the design can cope with it.

I'm thinking of something like a load balancer but rooting some requests to dev/null, maybe setting a cookie with a counter so if you have been knocked back more times than most you get prioritised next time.

ok its a bad design which doesn't scale and should be rewritten but as a bandaid to the existing design wouldn't it at least get some of the applications processed.

what is a practical solution for dealing with the load ?

 

Re:Could they redirect some of the load? (1)

DaHat (247651) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483807)

That would have required a competent and well thought out design from the outset... then having it be implemented correctly... or verifying the implementation works prior to launch.

Instead we have a system that fails when you look at it normally, doesn't scale well, and turns out to be woefully incomplete (such as missing the payment system) for just a start... and all the supporters can do is blame 'high demand'... which is odd, when you pass a law promising to offer affordable health insurance to 48 million uninsured Americans... wouldn't you plan for that kind of scale on day one?

Re:Could they redirect some of the load? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483873)

Yes, but load isn't really the issue, bad coding, design and incompetence is the problem

Bad Coding:The sites source code is undocumented and a hodge podge of cut and paste coding (or so it seems)

Design: The sites design, goals and responsibilities has been altered over the course of the build, its like trying to paint a house with only just enough paint and being told that the house needs to be all blue then 1/2 way though told the house is to be all red.

Incompetence: Bad leadership/management, no clear goals skipped security, bloated management created from past failed projects.

The fix isn't going to work, just throwing people at a project doesn't work, each set of designers have there own processes, creating a good working site is more of a art you can't compete a painting faster by throwing artists at it. It needs to be rebuilt from scratch at least now a design brief can be created properly as the goal of the site is now defined.

The I.T. Surge (1)

NotFamous (827147) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483749)

Scrum Master: OK, let's go around the room and do our stand-up for they day. We've got a week or two to straighten this thing out.

Mary: Ummm...I'm trying not to kill myself today, hopefully no one will notice if I spend the day in the rest room.

Tan: Well, I started my review of the backround 3rd-party insurance-module interfaces. So far, mock objects are in place. I'm thinking we should implement something?

Bob: I'm working on name-tags, the holiday schedule, and the Submit button.

Assan: I'm new.

Scrum Master: OK, does anyone have any blocking issues for today?

Bob: Uh, I'm not (air-quotes) technically a programmer, but I can make some killer PowerPoints.

Tan: Right now, I just have these fan-fold printouts of the code. Also, I've never done COBOL before. Oh, and can I get a computer?

Socialism (1, Troll)

jzs (516075) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483763)

I don't understand why anyone would want to turn this thing around. The ACA is another incremental step toward socialism. Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help. The ACA is doomed to failure,as the Democratic Party doesn't understand where money comes from: it comes from hard work, not redistribution of somebody else's hard work. It's going to fail eventually. I hope it's now and not later, when it might take our entire economy down the tubes as it fails.

Re:Socialism (3, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483895)

Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help

citation needed

Re:Socialism (3, Informative)

gardenermike (942420) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483935)

"Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help." You don't do credit to your position when you state outright falsehoods. For a clear counterexample, check out Norway. By a number of indicators, they have the highest standard of living in the world, and are also one of the more socialist nations on Earth, and their prosperity has come in parallel with their switch from a monarchy to a socialist democracy. All of Scandinavia and Western Europe in general have followed this pattern. Extreme, tyrannical socialism certainly fails, just like extreme, tyrannical capitalism does, but nations that respect civil liberties tend to do well economically, regardless of whether they have a more cooperative or independent economic governance. There may be facts to bolster your cause, but baseless talking points are not facts.

30 to 40 percent of it has yet to be constructed (1)

perpenso (1613749) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483775)

By now, most Americans have either heard or learned firsthand that the Healthcare.gov website doesn't work right.

The problems seem to go beyond that. It is now being reported that major subsystems are not even implemented. The "plan" seems to have been to implement the "sign up" subsystem by October. Now we have learned that other subsystems were not to be implemented until Jan 2014. Ex:

"A crucial system for making payments to insurers from people who enroll in that federal Obamacare marketplace has yet to be built, a senior government IT official admitted Tuesday. The official, Henry Chao, visibly stunned Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) when he said under questioning before a House subcommittee that a significant fraction of HealthCare.gov—30 to 40 percent of it—has yet to be constructed ... Chao on Tuesday said other areas that need to be built include "the back-office systems, the accounting systems.""
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101211556 [cnbc.com]

This "learning moment" for IT project management is going to be with us for a while.

Re:30 to 40 percent of it has yet to be constructe (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484247)

Oh please - we already implemented it in the True West - CA and WA are way ahead of you.

Stop pushing your Big Government Red State solutions when Blue States have solutions that already work.

Any consultant worth anything..... (1)

SupraTT GOP (825665) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483805)

Any consultant worth anything wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot.... user interface.

Re:Any consultant worth anything..... (2)

geeper (883542) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484175)

I would touch it with a 10 foot stack of $20 bills. (Thats $559,200)

Jeffrey Zientz is in charge of fixing the site (4, Informative)

RKThoadan (89437) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483835)

You'd think that mentioning who is in charge of fixing it should be mentioned. That's just a quick google away and his name is Jeffrey Zientz. There's not a lot of information out there, but what is there seems reasonably positive. Here's npr's article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/10/23/240283860/white-house-turns-to-rock-star-manager-for-obamacare-fix [npr.org]

Here's Washington Posts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/24/who-is-jeffrey-zients-and-why-is-he-qualified-to-fix-healthcare-gov/ [washingtonpost.com]

Why can't you just go to a Gov office? (3, Interesting)

jeff13 (255285) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483913)

I've a question. I'm Canadian so I don't know. Just curious.

Why can't you just go to a government office and sign up for Obamacare? Or can you? Personally, why people are surprised that a government website can't handle high traffic baffles my mind. What government website ever did? Anyho', really just interested in my first question. One factor I've been aware of is that the plan is administrated through the States, so I'm wondering of states hostile to Obama (Republicans) aren't offering it at their state or municipal offices?

Re:Why can't you just go to a Gov office? (4, Informative)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484083)

You can. Not just local government offices, but local community centers. You can also call someone with the government over the phone to help you find insurance. Or, alternatively, you can get the information directly from the insurance companies (whom you have to sign up with anyway, even when using the website).

There's an intentional obfuscation of the situation here to try and equate the roll out of the website with the roll out of the law. They are not the same thing.

Re:Why can't you just go to a Gov office? (1)

jeff13 (255285) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484123)

Ah ha, thanx for the reply. :)

Battlefield Medicine (4, Insightful)

Ukab the Great (87152) | 1 year,5 days | (#45483931)

Fixing a failed or behind software project in my experience was like stories I heard about battlefield medicine. You have to establish a system of triage where you realistically work under the assumption that not everything can be saved. At least not anytime in the near future. You're knee deep in digital blood stripping out one layer of feature after the other right down to the last thing that did work properly, and you have to start with what is the most simplest thing a user absolutely must be able to do that without that ability the project would be considered completely pointless and fix that before you write any other code. You have to act in a way towards users that might seem indifferent or cold, ignoring users' screams about your removing their daily reminder widget and you have to tell them in a tactful way that you won't put it back in anytime soon because your number one priority is making sure the accounting systems can actually add numbers correctly; you also have to make sure that if those users' are powerful stakeholders and order you to add back the fun happy reminded widget that they can be properly countermanded by higher authorities who have the authority to get them to shut up and sit on their hands.

In short, you have to piss a lot of people off and be committed to accomplishing your grim task.

Re:Battlefield Medicine (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484221)

Agree with the concept of triage. We know what works - CA and WA already did it.

Do that, or go to an even simpler single payer national healthcare system like Medicare and Medicaid or the VA model.

Those work.

Big Government Red State solutions don't. They just lard up the contractors.

"our government" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#45483987)

Only a barbarian chauvanist would write
"our government". And this consultant is a Collaborator. Shave 'em and hang 'em.

That's an easy one (1)

Minwee (522556) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484155)

I think my standard "rescue our failed project" proposal applies here.

"In situations like this, I usually recommend arson."

Oh please - real states already fixed it (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | 1 year,5 days | (#45484193)

Look, you can either go with your Big Government Red State thinking or you can do what we in the True West in the Blue States did - CA and WA already fixed it and rolled it out.

OR just needs to stop believing Red Staters.

We did it. You keep trying to do complicated plans.

Now, wouldn't single payer national healthcare have been CHEAPER and SIMPLER?

Yes.

There's your solution for inefficient Big Government Red States. You can't code your way out of a paper bag, so you might as well do that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?