Obamacare website is FINALLY working

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nozebleed, Dec 3, 2013.

  1. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
  2. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    You'd think that if the tax-payers shelled out $174 million for a website it would have some security features in place, instead of being completely vulnerable.
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    Hyperbolic.

    Is this the level of discussion we're going to have here?

    Of course it is.

    I don't even know why I asked the question.
     
  4. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #5
    How about that shutdown that cost us $24,000,000,000 for the sole purpose of furthering Ted's career? You know, since we're being on-topic an all...
     
  5. EvilQueen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Location:
    In my own world
    #6
    Depends on what you call working. Instead of getting an error message because the site isn't working, you get a message that the site isn't working and you are put into a cue. Semantics.
     
  6. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #7
    I think that you meant queue.

    Healthcare.gov is a disaster, and its multitude of problems have undermined our confidence in the government. That's assuming that we had any confidence in the government after congress' performance these past few years.
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Did anyone read the article? This is about the site not being built with security in mind. Another words the government is helping you distribute your personal information through their incompetence.
     
  8. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #9
    How is anything I said "hyperbolic"?

    The security issues are real:

    As far as the cost goes if you can find a better number please do. I didn't post the $300-$600 million because I thought that would be exaggerating. That should be a damn nice website...

    So either you don't know what "hyperbolic" means or you're just blowing smoke. I don't know which.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    Funny because I'm pretty sure the Healthcare.gov website was built by a private contractor. You get what you pay for.

    If we would have actually invested enough money in building the website from the start, there wouldn't have been these problems. But since half of Congress is perfectly fine with cutting off their nose to spite their face, we end up with this mess.
     
  10. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    There is a ton of hand-waving in that article. What kind of vulnerabilities are we talking about? SQL injection? MITM? What exactly?
     
  11. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    You're not a Republican or Tea Party type are you? You forgot to mention "train wreck". :rolleyes:
     
  12. hulugu, Dec 3, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2013

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    Eh, blaming Congress for nickel and dimming the program ignores HHS's refusal to get a systems integrator to bring all the disparate parts together.

    The federal government, especially the Pentagon seem increasingly unreliable when it comes to acquisitions and programs.

    This article seems pretty good when it comes to the vulnerabilities that reside in Healthcare.gov.

    The biggest problem appears to be the relative ease that attackers may have in creating MITM attacks.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    It's hyperbolic because you imply that no security was built into the site.

    Obviously some security was built in.

    You could have talked about the degree and capability of that security, but instead you chose to describe it hyperbolically as "completely vulnerable" as if no security existed at all.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    Not only would security have to obviously be built in, but would be mandated and required by HIPAA, so it would have had to be there from the start.

    BL.
     
  15. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #16
    Mixed metaphors FTW!: "The patients are driving the asylum's bus that's headed straight towards the Obamacare train wreck"
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    Pass the buck, a true sign of leadership.

    Plenty of money was invested, where it actually went is another question. It's pretty obvious the millions didn't get spent on technology and development.
     
  17. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #18
    Ah! Thank you.
     
  18. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #19
    The administration chose the contractors. It's a government-run website. The government does not get to absolve itself of blame if a contractor that they chose does a poor job.

    No. I believe that the ACA is a good law (I would prefer single-payer), and I believe that it will have great long-term benefits. However, the website IS a train wreck. Have you used it? My home state (Illinois) utilises the national website, and it only started to function correctly this week (security issues aside).

    I believe that the ACA is a positive change, but the implementation of the website was and continues to be terrible. We can't give our elected officials a pass when they deliver poor services simply because we like their politics.

    For what it's worth, I believe that the national loss of confidence in congress is due to the lack of statesmanship in the Tea Party and Republican party. They are an embarrassment to conservatives, and they deserve to be called out on it as well.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    A lot of those issues are pretty bad, but they also aren't that hard to fix to be honest. With clickjacking for example you just need to follow the steps here which are pretty straightforward for any competent developer to implement.
     
  20. MyMac1976 macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #21
    Yes the privates sector screws just about everything up when they're paid a fixed dollar amount..

    The first mistake was having the website built by a contractor and the second was handing millions more people over to private sector insurance companies.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #22

    I don't think HIPPA comes into play as no medical information is needed to sign up for healthcare.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    Sure. I'm not really arguing that the system is fatally flawed, but rather the program has flaws serious enough to allow an attacker to steal data.

    What's important is how people talk about the flaws ("fundamental" "completely vulnerable") versus a clear-eyed examination of what the flaws are and how the site can be fixed.

    The first is a political issue and you'll see partisan hacks flocking to it because that's easy ground to fight from. No one in Congress is capable of discussing "clickjacking," so we'll see big arguments using vague terminology and hyperbole.
     
  23. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    I would expect these issues to be resolved by Christmas to be honest. I could probably fix them as a developer in less than a week - but you have to add QA and deployment to that. If those processes are world-class then add a day or so for both. Otherwise maybe 2-3-4 weeks.
     

Share This Page