If You're Going To Screw Up Big On The Job, Government Is The Place To Do It
Jonathan Turley reflects on the massive screwups in the Obamacare launch and website:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius repeatedly assured Congress and the public that the system was ready after almost a half billion dollars in federal funds and years of preparation. She never informed Congress that her top tech officer (who has now resigned) refused to sign off on the program due to concerns of the lack of full testing and that various experts expressed doubts about the launch. However, Sebelius and her aides insisted on effectively launching in the blind. Putting aside how one may feel about national health care, this would seem an objective measure of the lack of performance. This was the single most important task not just for Sebellius but the Administration and was a failure. For those who have fought hard for health care, the failure played into the hands of critics. Yet, with a program named after a Democratic President, there seems an unwillingness to separate the merits of Obamacare from the poor administration of the rollout of the program. While officials are now profusely apologizing, it seems that (unlike most citizens) high-ranking officials are immune from performance based termination. That is the subject of the column in USA Today.On Oct. 1, millions of citizens came face to face with one of the most embarrassing blunders of our generation. After almost half a billion dollars spent on the computer registration system for Obamacare, the website coughed, sputtered and appeared to descend into an immediate coma as millions tried to log on. One reason is that the Obama administration never fully tested it.
For many, the greatest surprise was not that the government spent wildly on a defective system, but that the failure did not result in a single termination. While the agency's top technology officer, Tony Trenkle, wisely is retiring, the appearance of the still employed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a congressional hearing this week led many to ask a reasonable question: What does it take to lose a government job?
If recent scandals are any measure, the answer is chilling. Of course, one would have thought that a$400 million debacle would fit easily under "fireable offenses." This is particularly the case when contractors testify that it was the administration that decided not to fully test the system. Then there is the use of a contractor that was terminated earlier in Canada for allegedly fouling up the computer system for Ontario.
... one can understand Sebelius' response to critics that "the majority of people calling for me to resign ... are people I don't work for." Indeed, the people whom she works for measure success along political, not performance, lines.
I have no idea how this was built, but I have to believe there are criminal charges of fraud for any contractor or gov't manager that signed off on these systems without proper testing, and I've worked on many gov't software projects and seen companies and gov't collude to do just that, sign off on incomplete, broken, untested crapola with the notion that the next revision of the system will get it right (and usually doesn't.)
And it is unforgivable, this is/was the signature Obama set piece and from Obama on down it was clearly incompetently architected, developed, tested and managed.
jerry at November 8, 2013 1:19 AM
I remember the good old days of $650 toilet seats.
jerry at November 8, 2013 1:29 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/if-youre-going-4.html#comment-4039865">comment from jerryI remember the good old days of $650 toilet seats.
Jerry, just read you on the other entry. You are scoring with the great lines this morning.
Amy Alkon
at November 8, 2013 5:35 AM
Comrades,
If you like your doctor, it is because the Party has correctly assigned them. These doctors follow strict Party guidelines on dispending healthcare materiel. As Comissar Sebelius said, some people die, some people live. The Party will determine who is beneficial to the collective.
Stinky the Clown at November 8, 2013 6:29 AM
Don't forget to point this out:
The same class of people who set up the Web site will also handle your medical history.
Not one them has a job that depends on their performance, and they can use the law to force you to employ them.
That's what you got with your vote.
Radwaste at November 8, 2013 6:48 AM
I was somewhat amused when the exchanges went online and it was a fiasco, but I expected that.
However, I think we're just focusing on the trivial now. I want the exchanges up and running so we can get to the true disaster that Obamacsre will be for our economy and health care market.
JFP at November 8, 2013 7:02 AM
her top tech officer (who has now resigned) refused to sign off on the program due to concerns of the lack of full testing
According to what I understand, that's a major glossing over.
The CIO refused to certify the security of the fool thing. Most likely, it will become the go-to place for cyber criminals looking to do a little identity theft. It contains everything they need.
As for actual consequences, like so much else about this law, they've given themselves a waiver on security. What, you expected heads to roll? just be glad they don't pat themselves on the back and hand out gold stars to all involved!
I R A Darth Aggie at November 8, 2013 7:17 AM
"her top tech officer (who has now resigned) refused to sign off on the program due to concerns of the lack of full testing "
So the one who may have correctly saw it for a disaster, was probably let go. Any where else they would likely be promoted to take over.
Joe J at November 8, 2013 7:45 AM
Screwups in government don't matter because the money rolls in regardless.
Only the truth can damage govt, and then only if people care.
EasyOpinions
Andrew_M_Garland at November 8, 2013 9:23 AM
One I heard today that I don't know the veracity of:
Apparently even Obama stopped calling it Obamacare and started using the phrase "Affordable Care Act" after it was passed, and people saw what was in it.
Then of course the classic quote:
Isn't that the definition of taking a stool sample?
Jim P. at November 8, 2013 7:24 PM
Leave a comment