General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHouse “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, were lucky it works at all. Heres 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 isnt 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.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The GOP works to ensure that government can not work effectively, and then COMPLAINS when it does not work effectively.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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)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)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)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)they didn't build them that big from the start and you KNOW IT!
cali
(114,904 posts)uponit7771
(91,313 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You think the website should cost $400 per customer? Thats ridiculous.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Oh, wait.
riqster
(13,986 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Surely you are kidding. The largest of the largest software projects couldn't spend 10 billion in 3 years.
B2G
(9,766 posts)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.
spanone
(137,409 posts)uponit7771
(91,313 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,768 posts)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)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.