Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:45 PM

riqster (13,986 posts)

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, 2419 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

19 replies	Author	Time	Post
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

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:48 PM

Coyotl (15,262 posts)

1. If only they could see what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 06:48 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

2. Sounds like Benghazi and funding for foreign US outposts, all over again.

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

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:02 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

3. 10 billion, 1 billion....

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.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 07:45 PM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

4. That is baloney....you obviously have no idea how much such an endeavor would cost

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.

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:58 AM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

5. Bullshit.

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.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:20 AM

riqster (13,986 posts)

8. The examples you cite are not relevant.

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.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:06 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

10. but none of them were that big all at once!

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

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 12:04 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

19. bullfuckingshit.

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

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:23 AM

uponit7771 (88,639 posts)

14. It needed 20 billion... but oh well...

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:49 AM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

18. Lets assume 50 million sign up...

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

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:59 AM

treestar (81,220 posts)

6. Let's watch the media report this and dwell on it

Oh, wait.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:24 AM

riqster (13,986 posts)

9. Even the alleged "liberals" at NPR barely mentioned it.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:26 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

7. Thats why they were questioning Sebalious how they paid for this and that.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:14 AM

B2G (9,766 posts)

11. 10 billion dollars??

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

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:15 AM

B2G (9,766 posts)

12. And if they were given 1 billion, they only spent half of that to date

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.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:22 AM

spanone (133,413 posts)

13. that's how they work, kill a program, then complain it's not working.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:25 AM

uponit7771 (88,639 posts)

15. 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

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:35 AM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

16. Why would the funding for such a critical piece not be included in the legislation? Seems idiotic.

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.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 11:48 AM

cali (114,904 posts)

17. bullshit from that fucking LIAR, mr blunt and stupid

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.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)