Private Sector defeats Public Sector.

[Whistlebritches]

If this article is to be believed it was a bunch of no bid contracts which shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131010/01484924821/

[GBRedneck]

GBRedneck's arrogance and ignorance aside, this really is inexcusable and needs to be fixed. It was kinda sorta a black mark for Obama but now it's kinda sorta a full-blown disaster.

$600 million is enough to pay 3,000 programmers $200,000 each.

 

Anyone who thinks $600 million is a fair price to pay to develop a website probably shouldn't be throwing around terms like "ignorance".

[GBRedneck]

Do you really think it should cost $600 million to develop a website?

It sounds like you might be unfamiliar with what the federal exchange does.

I know what it does. And it's not conjecture that $600 million has too many zeroes.

 

I work with a team of people that maintains a huge volume website that ties into lots of other databases. (I actually work with one of the larger databases.)

Uh huh.

 

I'm still pretty new here, but I get the feeling you're a lib and you think I'm a con.

 

I don't go for those labels. I'm conservative on some things, lib on others. I'm not even anti-Obamacare. But $600 million for a website is highway robbery.

 

Defend Obamacare all you want. But stop defending this expenditure. It damages your credibility and hurts your chance of success with more worthwhile crusades.

[carlfense]

I'm still pretty new here, but I get the feeling you're a lib and you think I'm a con.

 

I don't go for those labels. I'm conservative on some things, lib on others.

[Conga3]

$600,000,000 / $35,000 = 17142 ($35,000 salary ?? out of thin air)

 

40,000,000 / 17142 = 2335 (40 million uninsured was a number that was used right?)

 

2335 / 250 = 9.34 (250 work days in a year)

 

If we simply hired 17K folks and paid them $35K per year, if they were able to "process" 9-10 people per day in their office and perform the duties of HealthCare.gov, in one year they would have signed up 40 MILLION citizens.

 

Hmm....

[zoogs]

http://mediamatters....-website/196585

 

National Review Online contributor Greg Pollowitz tweeted that the CGI contracts Digital Trends pointed to included work that the firm had done for the U.S. government years before health care reform was actually passed into law.

 

Glenn Beck's site, The Blaze, also debunked the number. "While the federal website to signup for Obamacare was riddled with errors and had a rocky rollout, it didn't cost $634 million to build," wrote Liz Klimas. Citing an official inside GCI, The Blaze reported the $634 figure "includes all of the company's contracts for a Health and Human Services Department program over the last seven years."

 

Independently, the Sunlight Foundation estimated it cost $70 million to build the much-maligned website, not $634 million. (Officially, CGI was awarded a $93 million contract for the healthcare.gov job.)

 

And today in his Fact Checker column in the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler looked at the question of the healthcare.gov cost and concluded, "A conservative figure would be $70 million. A more modest figure would be $125 million to $150 million." Kessler noted that the cost for the entire health care project beyond the website would be "at least $350 million."

facts, you so silly

[carlfense]

$600,000,000 / $35,000 = 17142 ($35,000 salary ?? out of thin air)

 

40,000,000 / 17142 = 2335 (40 million uninsured was a number that was used right?)

 

2335 / 250 = 9.34 (250 work days in a year)

 

If we simply hired 17K folks and paid them $35K per year, if they were able to "process" 9-10 people per day in their office and perform the duties of HealthCare.gov, in one year they would have signed up 40 MILLION citizens.

 

Hmm....

How many of you readily eat up the 'story' fed to you . . . Put on your critical thinking caps, and you'll figure out the real story behind the propaganda.

[Conga3]

http://mediamatters....-website/196585

 

National Review Online contributor Greg Pollowitz tweeted that the CGI contracts Digital Trends pointed to included work that the firm had done for the U.S. government years before health care reform was actually passed into law.

 

Glenn Beck's site, The Blaze, also debunked the number. "While the federal website to signup for Obamacare was riddled with errors and had a rocky rollout, it didn't cost $634 million to build," wrote Liz Klimas. Citing an official inside GCI, The Blaze reported the $634 figure "includes all of the company's contracts for a Health and Human Services Department program over the last seven years."

 

Independently, the Sunlight Foundation estimated it cost $70 million to build the much-maligned website, not $634 million. (Officially, CGI was awarded a $93 million contract for the healthcare.gov job.)

 

And today in his Fact Checker column in the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler looked at the question of the healthcare.gov cost and concluded, "A conservative figure would be $70 million. A more modest figure would be $125 million to $150 million." Kessler noted that the cost for the entire health care project beyond the website would be "at least $350 million."

facts, you so silly

Ah... Since nobody had disputed the $600m figure previously in this thread I thought it was an accepted figure.

 

I'll admit I'm trying to ignore this whole thing. I don't venture into the ObamaCare megathread anymore, where someone probably did dispute the $600m figure already.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Conga3

[Conga3]

$600,000,000 / $35,000 = 17142 ($35,000 salary ?? out of thin air)

 

40,000,000 / 17142 = 2335 (40 million uninsured was a number that was used right?)

 

2335 / 250 = 9.34 (250 work days in a year)

 

If we simply hired 17K folks and paid them $35K per year, if they were able to "process" 9-10 people per day in their office and perform the duties of HealthCare.gov, in one year they would have signed up 40 MILLION citizens.

 

Hmm....

How many of you readily eat up the 'story' fed to you . . . Put on your critical thinking caps, and you'll figure out the real story behind the propaganda.

There's a lot more wrong with my formula than that number alone. I don't think we could do ObamaCare without a web site, but huge costs to do rather simple things seems to be common thread in government projects.

 

This isn't an Obama thing, it's an federal government thing.

 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243396/Healthcare.gov_website_didn_t_have_a_chance_in_hell_?pageNumber=1

 

 

The Standish Group, which has a database of some 50,000 development projects, looked at the outcomes of multimillion dollar development projects and ran the numbers for Computerworld.

 

Of 3,555 projects from 2003 to 2012 that had labor costs of at least $10 million, only 6.4% were successful. The Standish data showed that 52% of the large projects were "challenged," meaning they were over budget, behind schedule or didn't meet user expectations. The remaining 41.4% were failures -- they were either abandoned or started anew from scratch.

 

It sounds like building a functional HealthCare.gov web site would be considered a miracle - considering those numbers and the complexity of ObamaCare.

[strigori]

$600,000,000 / $35,000 = 17142 ($35,000 salary ?? out of thin air)

 

40,000,000 / 17142 = 2335 (40 million uninsured was a number that was used right?)

 

2335 / 250 = 9.34 (250 work days in a year)

 

If we simply hired 17K folks and paid them $35K per year, if they were able to "process" 9-10 people per day in their office and perform the duties of HealthCare.gov, in one year they would have signed up 40 MILLION citizens.

 

Hmm....

How many of you readily eat up the 'story' fed to you . . . Put on your critical thinking caps, and you'll figure out the real story behind the propaganda.

There's a lot more wrong with my formula than that number alone. I don't think we could do ObamaCare without a web site, but huge costs to do rather simple things seems to be common thread in government projects.

 

This isn't an Obama thing, it's an federal government thing.

 

http://www.computerw...l_?pageNumber=1

 

 

The Standish Group, which has a database of some 50,000 development projects, looked at the outcomes of multimillion dollar development projects and ran the numbers for Computerworld.

 

Of 3,555 projects from 2003 to 2012 that had labor costs of at least $10 million, only 6.4% were successful. The Standish data showed that 52% of the large projects were "challenged," meaning they were over budget, behind schedule or didn't meet user expectations. The remaining 41.4% were failures -- they were either abandoned or started anew from scratch.

 

It sounds like building a functional HealthCare.gov web site would be considered a miracle - considering those numbers and the complexity of ObamaCare.

Only because the people in charge are tech-illiterate. Think about it. Most companies that are going to fund a $10mil plus project are typically not run by people who have a real firm grasp on the ins and outs of tech of any fashion. And for anyone who has worked for a very large company can relate to, the 'leaders' of those entities tend to not listen, or care, about the facts, only what comes out of their own mouth.

[zoogs]

There's a lot more wrong with my formula than that number alone. I don't think we could do ObamaCare without a web site, but huge costs to do rather simple things seems to be common thread in government projects.

 

This isn't an Obama thing, it's an federal government thing.

 

I agree with this, and I don't think it's a matter of literacy.

 

However, we're still talking about something the private sector wasn't going to do on its own, so I don't think that was exactly an alternative here. I don't know too much about this whole health care business so I'll shut up here for now

[Conga3]

Only because the people in charge are tech-illiterate. Think about it. Most companies that are going to fund a $10mil plus project are typically not run by people who have a real firm grasp on the ins and outs of tech of any fashion. And for anyone who has worked for a very large company can relate to, the 'leaders' of those entities tend to not listen, or care, about the facts, only what comes out of their own mouth.

 

Yup. There was a NYT article that explained why this is a little better...and what can be done. The British had to build a panel or something of tech nerds to oversee the tech in the projects awarded ... making sure things were done right. It makes sense.

 

Looking for the article ....

[Conga3]

There's a lot more wrong with my formula than that number alone. I don't think we could do ObamaCare without a web site, but huge costs to do rather simple things seems to be common thread in government projects.

 

This isn't an Obama thing, it's an federal government thing.

 

I agree with this, and I don't think it's a matter of literacy.

 

However, we're still talking about something the private sector wasn't going to do on its own, so I don't think that was exactly an alternative here. I don't know too much about this whole health care business so I'll shut up here for now

Then your perfectly home here espousing your opinions for us all to ridicule, pick apart, engage in civil discussion.

[rawhide]

Posted this is the ACA thread by mistake:

 

The private sector tech team arriving for healthcare.gov rebuild session.

[tschu]

Let's put things in perspective.

 

Healthcare.gov, ~100-200 million dollars

 

Vietnam War, 738 BILLION DOLLARS

 

Our government has been far more wasteful on many things less worthy than a healthcare exchange.