Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riqster

(13,986 posts)
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:45 PM Oct 2013

House “Republicans” cut healthcare.gov funding by 90%. No wonder it doesn’t work well.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/house-republicans-cut-healthcare-gov-funding-by-90-no-wonder-it-doesnt-work-well/

Snips:
Hell, we’re lucky it works at all. Here’s the budget request for building healthcare.gov. 10 billion dollars to build the online exchanges allowing those eligible Americans in a red or purple state to buy health insurance. The Teapublicans gave them 1 billion. And now, they are “outraged” that the online system isn’t working perfectly, and are demanding to know why.

It is pretty safe to say that a NINETY-F***ING PERCENT CUT IN FUNDING had something to do with it. Pretty darned safe.


More at the link.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House “Republicans” cut healthcare.gov funding by 90%. No wonder it doesn’t work well. (Original Post) riqster Oct 2013 OP
If only they could see what they are doing. Coyotl Oct 2013 #1
Sounds like Benghazi and funding for foreign US outposts, all over again. JoePhilly Oct 2013 #2
10 billion, 1 billion.... HooptieWagon Oct 2013 #3
That is baloney....you obviously have no idea how much such an endeavor would cost VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #4
Bullshit. HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #5
The examples you cite are not relevant. riqster Nov 2013 #8
but none of them were that big all at once! VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #10
bullfuckingshit. cali Nov 2013 #19
It needed 20 billion... but oh well... uponit7771 Nov 2013 #14
Lets assume 50 million sign up... HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #18
Let's watch the media report this and dwell on it treestar Nov 2013 #6
Even the alleged "liberals" at NPR barely mentioned it. riqster Nov 2013 #9
Thats why they were questioning Sebalious how they paid for this and that. B Calm Nov 2013 #7
10 billion dollars?? B2G Nov 2013 #11
And if they were given 1 billion, they only spent half of that to date B2G Nov 2013 #12
that's how they work, kill a program, then complain it's not working. spanone Nov 2013 #13
I don't see the cut in the PDF that is in the link in the post... anyone else have a link to the cut uponit7771 Nov 2013 #15
Why would the funding for such a critical piece not be included in the legislation? Seems idiotic. TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #16
bullshit from that fucking LIAR, mr blunt and stupid cali Nov 2013 #17

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
2. Sounds like Benghazi and funding for foreign US outposts, all over again.
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:48 PM
Oct 2013

The GOP works to ensure that government can not work effectively, and then COMPLAINS when it does not work effectively.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
3. 10 billion, 1 billion....
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:02 PM
Oct 2013

The site performs like a $10K site. A good site could have been done for maybe 10 million, with an M. Problem was a flawed bidding process that excluded knowledgable contractors.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
4. That is baloney....you obviously have no idea how much such an endeavor would cost
Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:45 PM
Oct 2013

I didn't even cost $500 million yet. NO ONE would have touched it without such a budget....

THIS thing is a massive and complex project...one of the most complex "websites" ever built.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
5. Bullshit.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:58 AM
Nov 2013

They should have talked to Amazon, EBay, and others. They have complex websites wirh high traffic, and they did it for far less than a billion. Ridiculous to have the problems they're having.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
8. The examples you cite are not relevant.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:20 AM
Nov 2013

First of all, the government has legacy systems, and interfacing with them is not simple. And there are multiple legacy systems, each with varied technologies. E-commerce companies do not have this limitation.

Second, political battles and oversight caused multiple delays and changes.

Both of these are well-known to anyone who REALLY manages large IT projects.

Plus, again, a 90% funding cut is not good for ANY project.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
10. but none of them were that big all at once!
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:06 AM
Nov 2013

they didn't build them that big from the start and you KNOW IT!

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
18. Lets assume 50 million sign up...
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:49 AM
Nov 2013

You think the website should cost $400 per customer? Thats ridiculous.

 

B2G

(9,766 posts)
11. 10 billion dollars??
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
Nov 2013

Surely you are kidding. The largest of the largest software projects couldn't spend 10 billion in 3 years.

 

B2G

(9,766 posts)
12. And if they were given 1 billion, they only spent half of that to date
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:15 AM
Nov 2013

So what good would an additional 9.5 billion have done them?

Money isn't the problem here. It was the timeline and the quality of project management...as well as decision makers not listening to the folks actually doing the work.

TheKentuckian

(25,303 posts)
16. Why would the funding for such a critical piece not be included in the legislation? Seems idiotic.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:35 AM
Nov 2013

The intelligence and certainly the wisdom of our "leaders" is greatly exaggerated. Well connected and educated, certainly.

Brilliant, creative, wise, and insightful? Not so much unless that brilliance is being used against us in a long con.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
17. bullshit from that fucking LIAR, mr blunt and stupid
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:48 AM
Nov 2013

I despise liars.

first of all, the feds paid over 1 billion just on the STATE EXCHANGES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57610154/states-insurance-exchange-websites-cost-taxpayers-$1b-contractors-often-paid-to-do-same-job-in-different-states/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/09/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamacares-error-plagued-web-sites/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017

as someone on Mr. Blunt;s site pointed out: that's the request for 2014.

and what precisely is that 90 billion dollar request meant to cover?

Mr Blunt and Cranky should be called out at every opportunity for wantonly misleading people.

He's a contemptible piece of shit.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»House “Republicans” cut h...