If there were people sabotaging, then that is still a failure on the part of the people who were working to make it a success, because they should have caught it. I don't get the desire to try to either try to down play the WEBSITES problems or to find excuses as to how nefarious characters caused it. They just didn't do it right.... As others have said though, it's a shame the site doesn't work right, but it doesn't really matter in the end. People have managed to sign up through the site and people always have the option to do it in person or over the phone. It would have been nice if the website worked from the start, but them screwing up the site doesn't mean the ACA is a failure (like the republicans are trying to say)

But anyway, the point is that it's okay to admit they screwed up on the site. To either pretend wasn't broken or that someone else must have caused it seems very similar to those people who refused to admit that Saddam didn't have WMDs even after it became clear they never existed. Well maybe not THAT bad, but you should get the idea.

There was never a project that worked smoothly from the very beginning. As an employee I have never seen an IT project start when it was first supposed, nor work perfectly from the very beginning.

And I've never been involved with anything more than a fraction of the size and complexity of this whole ACA thing.

I've heard of new computer systems being years behind schedule. Which is longer than this thing has been around and at least it's partially up.

The biggest problem seems to be that half the states dumped it on the federal government, again creating an enormous complexity that wasn't totally necessary. From what I can tell, the individual states who are running their own websites are doing just fine.

Has very little to do with the ACA and a lot to do with the fact that so many Republican states did not create their own websites.

But the irony is that, for years, it was the Republicans who talked about states rights. Give them the opportunity to do something at the state level and they walk away.

we agree on benchmarks throughout the approval process and final payment may be withheld until acceptance.

Most importantly, I stake my reputation on every project, and commit my character to the attainment of every goal.


On edit: After reading SheilaT's post, I should clarify that my projects are nothing like building a web page. However, given the nature of such a project, I'd know whatever problems existed before it went live and I'd certainly apprise my client of what to expect they wouldn't be blindsided.

... After all, this IS the Land of Sabotage! Up is down, in is out, right is wrong and wrong is right.

The first users of any new software are, basically, beta-testers. And we all expect this now. Microsoft does this to its customers all the time. This is quite normal.

I think the uproar about the website is much ado about nothing and that, deep down, the American people don't care that it doesn't work perfectly yet. This is more of a media circus than anything else. News has been slow since the shutdown.

-Laelth

It's amazing that people would do something like this, if true. But then again, you never really know if people are two-faced. I wonder if there's some patterns to the coding that could be linked back to individual people or companies, similar to the way people write or talk. Everyone has their tells. For example, if you used some silly term, like "Haysus Marimba", a simple google search would probably tell me all of your online aliases. It would tell me if you're dedicated to a right or left wing cause, or if you're someone strange, like a seemingly dedicated DUer with a Free Republic account. You never know.