The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 07, 2013, 02:49:33 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2488797/Revealed-How-simple-spelling-error-helped-bring-Obamacare-website-cost-630-million.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2488797/Revealed-How-simple-spelling-error-helped-bring-Obamacare-website-cost-630-million.html)
Revealed: How a simple spelling error helped bring down $630 million Obamacare website
A typo in the phrase 'not recommended' hamstrung the Obamacare website's system for determining which insurance plans were fit to offer
The result: Consumers saw fewer options with higher prices
Obama promised in September that 'the average American will have more than 50 different plans to choose from'
'War room' meeting notes, released by a Republican-run congressional committee, revealed hundreds of tech problems
By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
PUBLISHED: 16:07 EST, 6 November 2013 | UPDATED: 16:46 EST, 6 November 2013
A spelling mistake in the words 'not recommended' on the Obamacare website led to the site going down, it was revealed today in internal notes from 'war room' meetings of experts scrabbling to breathe life into the shambolic operation.
The error limited the choices Obamacare shoppers were offered in October and often presented them with overpriced options.
Ultimately, at least some of the website's many outages were brought about by this simple typo, as technicians struggled to give the public an experience that mirrored President Obama's promises.
'In states where the federal government helps run these marketplaces, the average American will have more than 50 different plans to choose from, with different levels of coverage,' the president claimed during a September 26 speech in Largo, Maryland.
'And because insurance companies are competing against one another for your business, a lot of Americans will pay significantly less for their insurance than they do now.'
In large measure, that didn't happen. And a tech team met at least once per day in October to sort out this and hundreds of other technical problems with the ill-fated roll out.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/06/article-2488797-193C446100000578-588_638x394.jpg)
continued...
-
It's been a long time since I've coded a page but a spelling error shouldn't have that effect. It's either within the <> or [] or it's not. XML was just coming into fashion about 12 years ago, HTML4 was the standard, CSS and XHTML also being introduced. Does this sound about right?
-
I call BS on this. A spelling error in the code if XML would result in a schema error. It also doesn't make sense because people were presented with the gold, silver, bronze options. Sounds like an excuse for the soundbite.
-
It's been a long time since I've coded a page but a spelling error shouldn't have that effect. It's either within the <> or [] or it's not. XML was just coming into fashion about 12 years ago, HTML4 was the standard, CSS and XHTML also being introduced. Does this sound about right?
That's about right. It would have generated an error, not give the results they claim.
-
That's about right. It would have generated an error, not give the results they claim.
But the fact that they seem to think a simple spelling error could do what they claim is quite revealing!
-
But the fact that they seem to think a simple spelling error could do what they claim is quite revealing!
Like believing a video could cause a riot and 4 deaths?