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

[riqster]

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.

[Coyotl]

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

[JoePhilly]

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.

[HooptieWagon]

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.

[VanillaRhapsody]

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.

[HooptieWagon]

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.

[riqster]

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.

[VanillaRhapsody]

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!

[cali]

19. bullfuckingshit.

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

[uponit7771]

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

[HooptieWagon]

18. Lets assume 50 million sign up...

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

[treestar]

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

Oh, wait.

[riqster]

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

[B Calm]

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

[B2G]

11. 10 billion dollars??

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

[B2G]

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.

[spanone]

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

[uponit7771]

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

[TheKentuckian]

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.

[cali]

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.