Health Exchange Sites Crushed By Demand; Shutdown Blanks Other Gov't Sites 565
An anonymous reader writes "The launch of a national health exchange site was marred by overloaded servers in several states around the country. In a White House press conference, President Obama said that by 7 a.m., there were over a million users, and he likened the capacity problems to the glitches that Apple experienced after discovering bugs in their rlease of iOS 7. 'I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads, or threatening to shut down company if they didn't,' the president argued."
Meanwhile, a number government websites went blank as a result of the shutdown, instead of simply lying dormant until personnel could return. The National Science Foundation, NASA, the FCC, and the Library of Congress are a few examples.
Damn straight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Things Americans do care about: sucking the entitlement teat.
And they won't stop until they get their hands on our Social Security and Medicare. Communists every last one of them,
Inaccurate propaganda (Score:0, Insightful)
The servers weren't overloaded because there was too many people checking them out, they just didn't create good websites. They probably didn't test them because they were behind schedule because that's how government always is, but they had to release on the deadline, ready or not. At least one site showed error messages that later changed into "busy" messages.
And it's pretty stupid to disable all these websites. They only would have saved money if they had actually powered down the machines, which they obviously didn't do. So, it was just pointless politicking.
Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
So you stole cable TV all your life but the people working for the government are the parasites? Interesting interpretation.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:3, Insightful)
If I don't like Apple's bugs or capacity problems, I have the option to never pay for another Apple product. I don't have the option to opt out of ObamaCare.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the priority (Score:5, Insightful)
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that there are smart people who set this up and even they could not anticipate the initial load factor. So the republicans tried everything in their power to make people afraid of the ACA and the result was overloaded systems. Perhaps that says something about the population as a whole. IT is easy to pull something down when you think you're not effected, but when you need it,real bad, then it becomes the most important thing to have.
Anyway, the DBAs and Admins will figure this all out, the process will continue and within a week this will fade as the debt limit looms next.
Tea Party / Republicans must love it. (Score:1, Insightful)
This must be exactly how "small government" feels like, exactly what they're always asking for. Only absolute essential government tasks (running wars in faraway countries and spying on civilians are notable examples) are still being performed.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats nothing new. Where was the representation before? There are 300 million people represented by about 600. Representation is a joke and has been for a long time. You don't institute a single non-transferable vote system because you want to represent people, you do it to manufacture consent for what you were going to do either way.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Insightful)
Shutting down websites is mostly political grandstanding. What does it cost to leave a website up, let it run on autopilot for a while, and not update any content? Just bandwidth and electricity. The new healthcare sites got over 1 million hits, but most of the time, most sites are nowhere near that busy. Probably cost more to have their website administrators change the sites to throw up a "sorry, we're closed" page. Saves a little on bandwidth. Doesn't save much on electricity.
When Wikipedia and other majors sites went dark for 1 day, they didn't give us any bull about why. They said it was all about SOPA and PIPA, and they meant exactly what they said.
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
How can Obama possibly negotiate? Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate. Sorry. Obama is the not the villain here.
Re:Merica! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the greedy rich assholes make it impossible for an honest normal person to even run for office.
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate.
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities. Republicans grant Obama his wish, now Obama wants to play hardball on a system that the very people who passed it into law are admitting isn't ready for prime time.
Who's the villain here?
You're a victim of partisan nonsense that by the admission of those at its core is flawwed. Thanks for being a zombie.
Re:Bad Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually only 33% of americans oppose Romneycare.
About another third like it and the rest wanted more. Forbes had a nice article about it.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
It might help if you understood how the government works before throwing stones at it. It is written into law which parts of government stay open and which close. Claiming some arbitrary website staying open won't cost the government much is entirely beside the point. Yes, you say, but then the law are not very good. Yes, I say, but no matter how you sliced it, some things you think are inessential are considered essential to others and vice versa. Hence we have legislators write them for us because having 300 million people *helping* to write laws is silly.
Ah. So it's political grandstanding written into law.
Amazingly large difference there. {rolls eyes}
Re:Where's the priority (Score:5, Insightful)
"So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once."
Apples vs. Oranges. That's like saying the Government put a man on the moon, how come they cannot cure cancer. NSA didn't build their system overnight, it took years and they had to learn a lot in order to pull it off. Very few large IT projects ever come in on time and under budget. Not only that, most aren't directly facing your basic American. If you want to see how embarrassing your systems can be, open them up to the general public. They will do things of which you never thought. And each person has their notion of what they want out of that system.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
so thats what, attempt number 512094 by the republicans to refight the same fight they've already lost?
at what point do the republicans admit that in a democracy you sometimes have to accept defeat, accept that the opposition has won, and move on?
what hte republicans are doing is NOT democracy, it is extortion.
they have co-opted the democratic process, using the Hastert Rule to prevent the true majority in the house from having any say, so that a minority of the ruling party can dictate the agenda, creating a flase middle ground, in order to hold the country, its economy, indead hte worlds economy, hostage over a ideological battle that they cannot win and have already lost 50 seperate times.
they have put the gun to all our heads, and are threatening to pull the trigger and blow us all to hell unless they get what they want.
they are acting like spoiled children who have no inlking of what living in a democracy entails, who refuse to accept that they can be on the losing side.
they have created their red line, and unlike the other recent one, they refuse to back down even though they will not only destroy themselves, but take everyone else down with them. and if they do this, it is the end of the republican party for the next 50 years or more; no one will touch them with a 10ft, indeed, 1000km pole.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the current proposal from the GOP. The Senate and president are REFUSING to even talk to them about it.
THE DISCUSSION IS OVER. The senate and president don't *need* to talk to the crazies because IT IS ALREADY A LAW. You've already had this debate.
Or is this up for debate every year? Every time an already existing and passed law needs funding, but some disagree with it, the whole country can be held to ransom by those who disagree?
You people make me sick. You ignore your own system, you are destroying your own government for fringe interests.
Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the fact that I was never paid for the pole in my front yard or their adding of wires to it. I tend to see it in a rather bleak light. They have too many rights already. I do not subscribe, nor do I steal it, but I can see where the poster is coming from. They did reduce transmitter power to let cable work better, they do have rights of way they should not, and they both charge for the service and show commercials.
They might have a right to protect their assets, but those assets are ill gotten gains.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, how about your neighbor to the north, Canada? We're even larger geographically and are so ethnically diverse that our second largest province has a completely different official language than the rest of the country. And yeah, there's some friction but we make it all work pretty good.
Re:DDOS and Bogusity (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to wonder how much of the crush was due to the Randians, the Baggers, and Koch Whores trying to overwhelm the site
As of two days ago, about a third of the USA (population: 300 million people) had no healthcare. When the whistle blows and they are all at once allowed to get coverage, only a moron wouldn't expect the largest server slashdotting in history. Even if they wanted to, malicous parties would have trouble generating a DDOS that would be more than noise compared to that.
Re: Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
To help a wingnut understand, imagine if the Republican theocrats managed to ban abortion and controlled the presidency, senate, and nearly half the house. The Democrats then refuse to fund the government until women's reproductive rights are reinstated, completely bypassing the legislative process like the teabaggers are trying to do now. Someone like you would go completely bonkers, and in that case, unlike all the wingnut fake controversies, you'd actually be right to go berserk.
Re:Where's the priority (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thought that didn't cross your mind...it did come to someone's mind, which is why the whole program has a several month lead-time rather than an immediate do or die scenario.
You can't log in today? Or yesterday? So fucking what, your coverage under the exchange doesn't start till the new year anyway. They knew the first days would have a pointless crush, that things would go wrong even with the best of intentions, and they knew some people would have bad intentions just to be spiteful, so what did they do?
Not make an immediate deadline that matters one bit. Today is just opening day, you've got months to shop and decide if you're covered under the exchanges.
I'm sure they didn't even provision for the maximum possible load, what would be the point of that? It'd just cost them more money, better to weather the storm, and anticipate human nature. Which is rush in, realize they can wait, and let the herd sort itself out. The only problem is the media who wants us to believe their disaster narrative.
Of course they could have done it some other way, such as giving people days based on SSN or something, but that'd just get the idea of rationing into people's minds.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that the Republicans have gerrymandered districts to create wingnut majority districts to keep toxic politicians in office. If too many rational people are able to vote in a congressional district, the extremists Republicans get replaced with Democrats or moderate Republicans. As it is with these crazy districts, reasonable Republicans get voted out in primaries by the extremist base that's made the Republican party the trainwreck it is today. If the Republicans were still Eisenhower's party, they would have taken the presidency, the senate, and gained a lot of seats in the house. No one who isn't drinking the kool-aid wants to be part of the extremism the Republicans have devolved into.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Like I said in another thread: When a guy with Middle Eastern ancestry takes hostages and threatens people unless his demands are met, it's called terrorism. When a group of politicians in suits takes the government hostage and threatens people's livelihoods unless their demands are met, it's called politics.
What's sadder isn't the 80 or so Republicans that are "representing" their districts (which actually do consist of people opposed to Obamacare), but Boehner who can't see that this is a minority of Republicans and is bending the entire party to their will. He could easily ignore them (let them rant and rave all they want) and work to pass a bill. He can even say "We don't like Obamacare but sadly we don't have the votes right now to repeal/delay it" to somewhat appease the more radical factions. John McCain said this and much as I have problems with the man, he's right there. You want to oppose the law? That's fine. That's your prerogative. But at some point you need to accept that you can't take action against it right now and move on. You can keep working to drum up more support for your side and launch another attack on the bill later, but shutting down the entire government because you don't like something but don't have the support to repeal it is going too far.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Civilized people are fine with Conservatives being able to benefit from our society, but the Conservatives want it all for themselves. They go crazy at the thought of a poor person getting healthcare. They whine that it's so unfair that a jobless person doesn't starve in the streets, when they have to work so hard, and embrace a mirror-mirror version of Christianity based on persecution complex and hatred of anyone smarter than they are.
That this completely fucked up subculture took control of the Republican party is a tragedy. Thanks Nixon and Reagan!
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
The premise here is a false premise. Congress changes laws all the time. The Office of the President proposes changing laws all the time.
Yes, and they vote.
and then they abide by the votes.
however they dont dont keep revoting 50 times trying to get the result they want.
When the Executive branch stops refusing to enforce laws they don't agree with: Immigration laws, Marriage law, even this law itself, which the Executive branch has either delayed or ignored when politically convenient for them, then you can advance this argument.
if a law's validity is in question it is completely within the enforcer's power to withhold enforcement in the face of an impending reversal, as happened with DOMA. besides which, there was nothing to stop enforcing there.
and also, he never stopped enforcing immigration, in fact, more people were deported under obama's first 4 years than in the previous 12.
As for funding. Constitutionally it is the job of Congress, specifically the House, to hold the purse strings. It is their job to refuse to fund endeavors which in their opinion the U.S. government should not be paying for. It has been used in the past to refuse to fund wars, programs and ill considered legislation passed by previous Congresses. It is the reason that many of these House members were elected.
Again: they've tried to repeal it 50 times already
They've lost each time.
And now in denial of their losing side status, they've shutdown the government in a temper tantrum demanding to be given their way.
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
It is over. Voting once or twice to try and change minds is one thing.
Voting FIFTS TIMES AND LOSING EACH TIME is something else.
The discussion is over. They lost. Obamacare is here to stay. Get over it.
We did not have this debate. When we tried members of Congress, specifically democrats, stopped talking to people, because they were being told in no uncertain terms this was unwanted. We did not have this debate because the law that was passed was not argued in detail in either house of Congress prior to it being voted on.
We did have this debate.
We had it for over a year before Obamacare was passed.
We've had it each and every time they've tried to repeal it.
We've gone over the bill in detail. Word by word, clause by clause.
For some reason Republicans havent stopped having this debate, even though they have lost the debate each and every time, FIFTY TIMES SO FAR . The debate is over.
Only republicans live in a fantasy world where there was "no debate" and the bill is this "giant mystery that no one understands". Those are lies, repeated by republicans over and over. But they are lies.
We HAVE had this debate, and Republicans KEEP LOSING IT.
We HAVE discussed the bill, in detail. But apparently Republicans keep forgetting whats those details are.
Republicans are living in denial of reality.
You dont have a clue what you're talking about.
You're full of crap.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
So, what you are saying is the Republican-controlled House is essentially holding hostage the government and the financial stability of the country because they don't like a law that they already got watered down and still voted in? The Republican party has resorted to extortion? It is shit like this that has driven me away from the Republican party. If the Democrats had done this on, say, the gun control push at the beginning of the year, you can bet your ass the Republicans would have literally been up in arms, demanding marches on Washington and screaming bloody murder. This is ridiculous. The job of legislators is to negotiate, to get what is needed done for the good of the people of this country. And right now, what we need most, is to get the government funded (we really don't need to get the debt ceiling raised, what we really need is a balanced budget and reduced spending). You know how in Colorado a few weeks ago 2 state representatives were recalled after the state passed gun control because it was against their constituents wishes? Well, the Republicans in the House are making a strong case for their own recall votes. Stop arguing, strap on your big boy pants, get the government funded, and then spend the next 2 years if you want trying to undercut the ACA. But now is not the time.
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities.
Okay, let's say Obama took them up on that and game out what would happen. The individual mandate is delayed for a year, which removes much of the incentive for people without immediate health problems to sign up for health insurance (because why bother when you could save money by just waiting until you're sick?). The people who are sick (or likely to become sick), on the other hand, still have a big incentive to sign up for insurance, and the insurance companies are obligated to sell it to them. So with only expensive customers in their risk pool, the insurance companies are forced to greatly raise their premiums, which means that healthy people become even less willing to sign up, because now the premiums are too expensive. The ACA enters a death spiral, at the end of which it ends up as a system that offers only unaffordable insurance that nobody can buy. Everyone loses, except for the Republicans, who can now gloat about the "inevitable failure" of the ACA.
No, I can't see Obama going for that, unless he's an idiot.
Who's the villain here?
I'm pretty sure it's the 30 or so Republicans who are holding the rest of the nation hostage, against the wishes of 80% of the American public.