Canadian-built Obamacare Federal Website So Bad It's “Suicidal”

On Friday, Barack Obama spoke to AP on a number of issues. In this interview, Obama was asked what he had to say to the millions of Americans who had tried the Obamacare Green Eggs And Ham—or anyway who had tried to order it—but who couldn't get anything but static and big wastes of time. Obama asked those Americans to try again. Having tried again four times last week, this reporter can confirm the President's Obamacare website SUCKS! That is the judgment of tek experts as well.
Imagine a website so horrible in its design that no hacker needs to attack it—the site attacks itself and brings itself down with distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. That is the description we are now getting of the Obamacare national website, at

Explaining that incompetent web design, by Canadian contractor, CGI Group Inc, and not the numbers of human visitors, likely sank the Obamacare national website, and the entire Obamacare network that depends on it, tek experts told Reuters that the design made the system act as if it had been brought down by hackers.
"[An expert] described the situation as similar to what happens when hackers conduct a distributed denial of service, or DDOS, attack on a website: they get large numbers of computers to simultaneously request information from the server that runs a website, overwhelming it and causing it to crash or otherwise stumble. 'The site basically DDOS'd itself'.'"
In December, 2012, CNBC reported on the heavy involvement of CGI Group in building the health care exchanges for the national Obamacare network:
"CGI Group will also be part of the build-out of exchanges in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Colorado, and the 30 health exchanges that will be built by the federal government in the states that have opted against building their own platforms."
The CNBC article also noted the risks that the corporations and the government were taking:
"[T]he unprecedented scope of the government-led build-out of Obamacare also poses some risks, if the new exchange system experiences big glitches in its debut next fall when tens of millions of Americans try to sign up for new coverage."
And, the article quoted an IBM executive, Cameron Brooks, as saying the key to success in the government-run exchange website would be to "put redundancies in place", and that "one of the things we focus on is making sure there's a solid infrastructure." The redundancies and the solid infrastructure seemed to be absent in the Obamacare rollout experience for millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, after the federal government pulled down the Obamacare national website for obviously needed repairs, President Obama begged the American people for patience, and not to form conclusions about the quality of Obamacare as a health insurance program, on the quality—or lack of it—of the system set up to process Obamacare customers.
"Well, they definitely shouldn't give up...each day the wait times are reduced. Each day, more and more people are signing up, and the product will save you money."
The President offered nothing but assurances to back up those claims, and admitted that he had no numbers yet to confirm that anybody had successfully obtained any cost-saving insurance, or any insurance policy at all, through Obamacare. In fact, what we do know at this point is a mammoth amount of time and money has been wasted by the American people trying to use the broken Obamacare system.

As reported earlier, the feds will not say how many, or how few, people managed to successfully sign up for Obamacare in the first week of operation. Touting a handful of alleged success stories, during a disastrous opening week, the feds initially tried to ignore widespread reports that the Obamacare web system, and particularly the national website, simply were not working. They promised on Wednesday things would be quickly fixed, and that the whole problem—allegedly of too many visitors—proved Obamacare was popular with Americans.

However, as the week went on, it turned out that Obamacare officials had drastically overstated the numbers of people who had visited the sites, seemingly in order to claim a popularity and a reason for the technical problems, that did not truly exist.

Instead, as tek experts were able to examine the nature of the traffic occurring between the Obamacare website and individual user computers, the problem was revealed to be a design issue, that was forcing a huge amount of data to be transferred between the government and the user computers. Why that is, and why some of the data was required just to shop for insurance, has not been explained.

For example, the Reuters article explains:
“One possible cause of the problems is that hitting 'apply' on causes 92 separate files, plug-ins and other mammoth swarms of data to stream between the user's computer and the servers powering the government website...56 were JavaScript files, including plug-ins that make it easier for code to work on multiple browsers (such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer and Google Inc's Chrome) and let users upload files to It is not clear why the upload function was included.”
It was this heavy flow of data back and forth, per individual user, that caused the system to break down. Why the government would require this, and why it would be facilitating the upload of files from the user's own computer to the government's computers, is a useful question to ask, especially in light of the recent Snowden revelations about the extent of government spying on American citizens.

If nothing else, Americans will likely need a lot more reassurance than just having Barack Obama tell them everything is OK, before trusting a government website that attacks itself—and users? That kind of vulnerability is not something Americans should be trusting.