It's more fun to see you attempt to label my statements as such, and then do what you accuse me of... 'completely miss everything I said'... as well as the facts at hand.
I wasn't talking about ObamaCare, because it's too political.
Yet you bring it up by name... and then go on to say...
For the record, I don't like most of ObamaCare if that makes you happier, but unlike most Republicans I don't think it's one of the signs of the apocalypse.
Again... you seem to be the one making this political. I only mentioned the law in passing with regards to healthcare.gov as the site is the direct result of it, and just one of many failures we have seen due to the passage of the law. Would you like me to cite some? No... that's too political.
Unlike you, I will keep this discussion focused on the website and it's construction... as well as those delusional persons who have not done much research into the issues at hand. We call them liberals.
I was talking about the ObamaCare website
Ditto, again, remember when you accused me of missing the point of what you were saying... while I was addressing much of what you said... then you went and did just the same thing of ignoring what I said? So much fun arguing with liberals, history to them is whatever they believe it to be!
specifically the claim that the public sector are a bunch of idiots that can't do IT, which is demonstrably not the case.
Hello missing the point again! I missed you so!
First... did I make that comment? Nope. Given that I didn't... why don't you reply to that person instead of rant to me about arguments I did not make?
I said the NSA spying was controversial. I didn't say it was bad. Again, for the record, *blah blah blah*
When you have to re-state your views so often, you've clearly done a poor job of making them... why not start with cohearant statements in the first place?
Yeah. The same incompetence that exists in the private sector. As I showed.
Apples & Oranges.
What you 'showed' were generally short term issues with massive online operations. That's not the case here.
Here is the difference... unlike Diablo III or the iPhone (several models of which suffered launch day issues)... none of those failures carry the weight of law should their rollout not go smoothly.
Hear that BF4 is down? You can vote with your feet and buy CoD. iPhone registration not working? Ditto, go buy a Windows Phone instead!
You are not required under pain of law to purchase any of those products, not so with a qualifying health insurance plan. Instead here you currently only the following as an immediate option:
healthcare.gov down? Call 1-800-F1UCKYO (yes, that's the actual number, and not that of a cupcake shop as some were directed to)... give up a bunch of your personal information over the phone, then wait a few days or weeks while the same backend system healthcare.gov relies on *maybe* processes your application, then you can pick a plan, here is hoping the data transmitted to the insurance company is correct!
Good luck with that though, as even using the phone doesn't get you to where you think it will even after TWO WEEKS of trying.
But then, how surprising can this be when even Senators find this whole thing confusing?
A month later and so many big wins.
Yes clearly, all due to overwhelming demand!
Big websites that need to launch to millions of people on day one tend to fall over - be it in the public sector or the private sector. Comparing them to big websites that serve millions of people day-in day-out is a flawed assessment.
If it were simply a matter of healthcare.gov failing on day one, or day one and two... then you might have a case.
The problem for the ignorant amongst us (ie liberals, as well as those who blame GOP sabotage (lulz!))... is that the issues STILL remain... and the traffic to the website has dramatically decreased over the last month (dropping by 88%over the first two weeks).
And blaming it all on the public sector doesn't make any sense anyway. Because Healthcare.gov wasn't made by the public sector. It was made by the private sector - specifically CGI Federal.
So... the private sector is to blame?
Actually, it does make plenty of sense.
- It was the 'public sector' beurocrats who wrote up the requirements.
- It was the 'public sector' who signed off on the requirements as being correct.
- It was the 'public sector' workers & management who were ultimatley responsible (or does your company not do 'acceptance testing'?) for verifying that what is delivered is what was requested.
- It was the 'public sector' which threw the grand switch to turn on a website that they knew was not ready for prime time.
- Oh, it was also the 'public sector' which ignored existing law & policies with regards to security testing and went ahead with the launch after a self granted waver.
While there is plenty of blame which can be placed upon the numerious contractors which built different parts of the site... it is the 'public sector' which is the common thread throughout this debacal, and yes... while only part of the larger issue... that is where I am focusing... unlike you who keeps crying of high traffic a month in.
It strikes me as odd that only after this miserable failure are we hearing from the big tech companies offering to help fix the issues... yet were these same companies consulted 3 years ago when the design & construction of the site began?
It's as if Elon Musk decided to build a car... but instead of learning about how existing manufacturers did things and lessons they've learned over the years (ie to avoid similar mistakes), he ignored the lot of it, went for the lowest croney bidders, checked in 3 years later and assumed that every car rolling off the contract assembly plant would function perfectly.
That's not how things work very often in the private sector... and when they do, failure is almost always the result and the damage minimal... yet you continue to forgive this same kind of behavior in the public sector. Odd that?