General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans hammer Sebelius as problems mount for ObamaCare site
The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary is under intense scrutiny as ObamaCare's enrollment system continues to face severe problems.
The online portal where millions are meant to sign up for health insurance remains only semi-functional three weeks after its debut.
Health insurance companies say they're receiving sloppy and incomplete applications for coverage as a result of the system's troubles.
And HHS is not saying how many people have successfully signed up for coverage, leading many to conclude the figures have been disappointing.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/329313-obamacare-problems-mount
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)of situations and problems to the President--did she do that? Or did she gloss over problems and tell the President everything was hunky-dory and ready to go? That, to me, is the deciding factor on whether or not she should turn in her resignation.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The Secretary would probably be getting status from the CIO Frank Baitman and others:
All of that pushed the development of the system closer and closer to the deadline. As one reddit user posted when the site ran into trouble on October 1, "My wife works on this project but not as a developer. Last night she said, 'I have no idea how the site is going to go live tomorrow.'"
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/obamacare-site-hits-reset-button-on-passwords-as-contractors-scramble/
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Not necessarily technical details, but certainly broad timeframes, problems, delays, contractors not delivering. It may be that she told the WH the system wouldn't be ready, and they told her "Make it ready, we're not changing the dates"--in which case she shouldn't be scapegoated.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)“But because they’re not allowed to mess up we’ve created a system where it’s also very hard for them to do things that are new and innovative. The rules all favor incumbents. The people who get the job are not necessarily the people who are good at delivering a website. They’re mostly just government contractors who are really, really good at the system. Then they subcontract, and that makes the process even more complicated. It’s very hard to build technology by committee.”
Washington’s employment rules aren’t helping matters, either. “It’s also very, very hard to hire and fire people in government,” Slaby says. “A lot of the technical staff have been there for a really long time, and a lot of the technical infrastructure that they’re working with is older. Most of the stuff inside government is not awesome, cutting-edge, cloud-based, and responsive. The skills we really want are not all that present in the incumbent system, and they’re very hard to go out and get.”
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)pieces to make a whole. My guess is that the scope of implementing the AC is the problem. The FEDs are trying to do implementation work for 31 states with republican governors in most of those states actively trying to defeat implementation. Given the politics that republicans have played since the ACA became law, EVERYONE in the Obama Administration should have worked their asses off to make implementation as glitch free as possible. The administration could be a little more forthcoming on what the problems are and the extent of the problems, but given republicans making big issues out of even the smallest problems, I can see the administration's desire to fix the problems free of noise.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Sebelius and that other lady who is head of Medicare) probably worked their asses off. That said, once it became clear that the product they were about to deliver wasn't going to meet the goal of a giant health care free-for-all marketplace, I think they should have scaled something back. Either change the date of launch or enrollment periods, or declare a month of testing with very limited enrollment done in stages, or let the states with exchanges launch first and see how that goes, gather info and practice from that, and delay the mandates and fines for states with no exchanges. Lower expectations to match what you can actually deliver, no matter how much GOPers try to cause political trouble.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Honestly, this is just the new Bengazi.
