Obama has given the GOP the very reason for delaying the individual mandate for a year.
However, computer experts say the website has major flaws.
"It wasn't designed well, it wasn't implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it," said Luke Chung, an online database programmer.
Chung supports the new health care law but said it was not the demand that is crashing the site. He thinks the entire website needs a complete overhaul.
"It's not even close. It's not even ready for beta testing for my book. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if my organization delivered something like that," he said.
Even at Obama-friendly Wonkblog, the software experts are saying that Obamaware isn't ready for prime time, saying that "it could be there in six months". Less charitably, it could not be there in six months. More here.
You know it's bad when you have over three years to come up with a workable Interweb platform and the result is an "inexcusable mess".
You know it's bad when Obama was warned--for months--that the web portal wasn't ready but goes ahead with it anyway.
You know it's bad when the top official at HHS couldn't muster a coherent answer when queried by an Obama-friendly host, instead giving Stewart spinny, vague happytalk.
The top appointee in charge of Obamacare goes on national television and either can't or won't tell Stewart how many actually signed up? Eh. (EDIT: In Iowa, the number is five, so it's understandable that Sebelius would give no numbers to the Daily Show anchor.)
You know it's bad when a knuckle-dragging Republican can think of a better answer on keeping the individual mandate than the top official at HHS.
You know it's bad when reporters can't find actual enrollees who actually bought a health plan through Obamaware.
You know it's bad when the citizens who have spoken glowingly of enrolling in Obamacare through Obamaware are bald-faced astroturfers.
You know it's bad when it's harder to un-enroll from Obamacare than to enroll.
You know it's bad when you spend over three-fifths of a
trillion billion dollars and all you get is a lousy, stinking barely workable website. EDIT: The article updated the figure to over $500 million.
You know it's bad when Democrat-friendly Wolf Blitzer is on board with delaying things (although he clarified that he was talking about Healthcare.gov and not the individual mandate, how can you force people to sign up for a health plan under the threat of a financial penalty when the linchpin--the main vehicle for getting one--is so flawed?)
You know it's bad when the Canadian firm primarily responsible for Obamaware either won't talk publicly or is under a gag order.
Speaking of Canada, this might explain some things...
I suggest a merger.
Anyway, back to Obamaware. The thing is, if Obama and his administration are going to be this incompetent on this software boondoggle, what confidence does that give us for the rest of a plan that influences one-sixth of our economy? I'm not the only one who is skeptical. What we do know is that when it comes to getting elected, Obama did quite well with IT and such. But when it comes to IT and such for governing? Feh. This is a failed presidency, led by a partisan man who cannot be trusted.
UPDATE 1: More from Peter Suderman. The designers had a capacity benchmark when Medicare Part D was rolled out (more potential enrollees, but fewer using the Internet), so the planned capacities for Obamaware are a little bizarre.
UPDATE 2: More as an afterthought than anything, the New York Times pegs the cost of Obamaware at "over $400 million". The sourcing for the story is moving into Sy Hersh territory.
“These are not glitches,” said an insurance executive who has participated in many conference calls on the federal exchange. Like many people interviewed for this article, the executive spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not wish to alienate the federal officials with whom he works. “The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, ‘It’s awful, just awful.' ”
Interviews with two dozen contractors, current and former government officials, insurance executives and consumer advocates, as well as an examination of confidential administration documents, point to a series of missteps — financial, technical and managerial — that led to the troubles.
The only named interviewed sources were two federal officials, one retired federal official, two software contractor representatives, and an insurance industry lobbyist.