PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Taxpayers Shelled Out $634,320,919 To Build Obamacare Website that doesn't work



keymanjim
10-09-2013, 08:59 PM
Along with being the worst built website in history, Healthcare.gov also appears to be the most expensive, and we get stuck with the bill. How lovely.


Via Digital Journal (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/):

It’s been one full week since the flagship technology portion of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) went live. And since that time, the befuddled beast (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/obamacare-website-outage-forces-uninsured-to-use-1800s-technology/) that is Healthcare.gov has shutdown, crapped out, stalled, and mis-loaded so consistently that its track record for failure is challenged only by Congress.
The site itself, which apparently underwent major code renovations over the weekend, still rejects user logins, fails to load drop-down menus and other crucial components for users that successfully gain entrance, and otherwise prevents uninsured Americans in the 36 states it serves from purchasing healthcare at competitive rates – Healthcare.gov’s primary purpose. The site is so busted that, as of a couple days ago, the number of people that successfully purchased healthcare through it was in the “single digits,” according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obamacare-site-goes-live-with-some-glitches/2013/10/01/380a4300-2a9d-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html).
The reason for this nationwide headache apparently stems from poorly written code (https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js), which buckled under the heavy influx of traffic that its engineers and administrators should have seen coming. But the fact that Healthcare.gov can’t do the one job it was built to do isn’t the most infuriating part of this debacle – it’s that we, the taxpayers, seem to have forked up more than $634 million of the federal purse to build the digital equivalent of a rock.
The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records (http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary), appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal. The company originally won the contract (http://blog.executivebiz.com/2011/12/cgi-federal-to-develop-health-insurance-marketplace-under-affordable-care-act/) back in 2011, but at that time, the cost was expected to run “up to” $93.7 million – still a chunk of change, but nothing near where it ended up.


Just so you know, CGI is a Canadian company.

GrassrootsConservative
10-09-2013, 09:07 PM
Progress costs money, keymanjim. Duh.

/Edit: and it's a good thing that money didn't go to healthcare. It went to pixels like the ones you see here.

keymanjim
10-09-2013, 09:16 PM
Then let the progressives pay for it.

GrassrootsConservative
10-09-2013, 09:20 PM
Then let the progressives pay for it.

Please, they can't even pay for themselves.

That's why we have this "Obamacare" shit in the first place.

They need the government for everything.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 07:33 AM
Anyone who believes that it cost that much to build a Website is clearly a Fucking Moron. :rollseyes:

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:56 AM
Anyone who believes that it cost that much to build a Website is clearly a Fucking Moron. :rollseyes:

I have said this and my buddy has said this, if we cannot get the VA up and running in 5 years--a much simpler website with only 2 databases to merge, how did we think we could do this?

From the Washington Post


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

Broadly speaking, the sites have suffered from two types of problems. In the first few days, the system was simply overwhelmed with traffic. Last week was probably one of the highest-traffic weeks the site will ever experience, and websites often discover unexpected problems during their first big traffic spikes. Early users of Twitter remember the "fail whales" (http://readwrite.com/2008/07/17/the_story_of_the_fail_whale#awesm=%7EojMtVXxzRc8PE r) that popped up regularly on the site as Twitter struggled to accommodate surging demand.
That initial traffic rush is now over and the Obama administration says it's buying more servers to cope with future traffic spikes. So in the long run, dealing with traffic volumes shouldn't be a serious problem.


But the exchange may have deeper design flaws. As discussed above, the site needs to interact with a large number of databases operated by various federal and state agencies. If these back-end systems are poorly designed, it could take months or even years to straighten out the mess.


The more fundamental problem is that the system is operating on a tight deadline and a limited budget—at least by the standards of federal agencies. Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars might seem generous, but federal agencies have wasted a lot more money (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/15/us/a-technological-overhaul-of-irs-is-called-a-fiasco.html) with a lot less to show for it in the past.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 07:57 AM
Oh and

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/30/company-with-1-2-billion-obamacare-contract-under-investigation-for-serious-fraud/

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:02 AM
Perspective: US Presidents don't design, Jet Fighters, Aircraft Carriers, Bridges, Life Saving Drugs or Websites.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:09 AM
Perspective: US Presidents don't design, Jet Fighters, Aircraft Carriers, Bridges, Life Saving Drugs or Websites.


No one said that they did. My point was that there were easier ways to accomplish the same task and Washington fucked it up. You'd have to be an old clueless idiot, of which there are entirely too many in the Senate, not to realize what a database nightmare this would be and that you couldn't build this system in that amount of time.

Anyone under 30 could have told Washington that, but they did as DC does: made law, put out a req, took the low bidder.

hanger4
10-10-2013, 08:09 AM
Anyone who believes that it cost that much to build a Website is clearly a Fucking Moron. :rollseyes:

Read for yourself kid.

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:13 AM
Read for yourself kid.

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary

That is the price of the contract, I don't believe they have spent it all yet. I think the Post said they are at 100 billion though. :(

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:15 AM
Read for yourself kid.

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary

Read it yourself ... that's NOT the cost of a Website.

Look ... try this ... Say to yourself, really slowly and ask yourself, does it make common sense to you?

A Web-Site Cost $634,320,919.00 ... so .. does that sound right to you?

Think about it ... you're on a Website now.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:16 AM
Read it yourself ... that's NOT to cost of a Website.

Look ... try this ... Say to yourself, really slowly and ask yourself, does it make common sense to you?

A Web-Site Cost $634,320,919.00 ... so .. does that some right to you?

Think about it ... you're on a Website now.

It cost between the 5 subs around $100 billion and this isn't the "website" Cigar, it's the back end and database "mergers" in that cost. They still have 10 years on that contract with the bulk of the money, $500 billion, remaining.

hanger4
10-10-2013, 08:17 AM
Read it yourself ... that's NOT to cost of a Website.

Look ... try this ... Say to yourself, really slowly and ask yourself, does it make common sense to you?

A Web-Site Cost $634,320,919.00 ... so .. does that some right to you?

Think about it ... you're on a Website now.

We're talking about the feds here cigar.

Say to yourself, really slowly,

$200 hammers.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:17 AM
And the company we picked is being charged by the UK with fraud and over-billing.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:26 AM
It cost between the 5 subs around $100 billion and this isn't the "website" @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294), it's the back end and database "mergers" in that cost. They still have 10 years on that contract with the bulk of the money, $500 billion, remaining.

Then the Head-Line should not be misleading ... this is NOT the cost of a Website, this is the cost of rolling out a Nationwide Infrastructure, support for legacy systems and interface to those systems.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:31 AM
Then the Head-Line should not be misleading ... this is NOT the cost of a Website, this is the cost of rolling out a Nationwide Infrastructure, support for legacy systems and interface to those systems.

Well websites have front and back ends, but I understood it to mean the entire system. I didn't think they meant the front end, but...at the same time the drop downs are because of the back end. Hmmmm. Clearly, it's more a web application than a website.


And, btw, I don't blame Obama for the website. I blame the Democrats in the Senate who wrote the legislation and HHS for creating the contract.

There were cheaper and better ways to get the poor care, and not to be an "I told you so" but Russia's solution is what I was proposing here.

Public hospitals and private ones. If you have an injury or disease and you're poor, go to the public hospital. They have insurance for those who want private hospital treatment and they have many who have no insurance and just go to public hospitals.

Cheaper, easier, more choice.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:34 AM
We're talking about the feds here cigar.

Say to yourself, really slowly,

$200 hammers.

Stop before you begin looking really stupid.

Have you (personally) done anything like this before.

Do you (personally) know anything about large scale integration or have ever done it?

jillian
10-10-2013, 08:36 AM
Stop before you begin looking really stupid.

Have you (personally) done anything like this before.

Do you (personally) know anything about large scale integration or have ever done it?

he seems to be doing this kind of thing on a few threads this morning. he must have gotten up angry.

and it's already been proven the "website" didn't cost the amount alleged...

patrickt
10-10-2013, 08:38 AM
If we go with the usual liberal strategy, if we now spend $634,320,919,000 then it will work. Only the government sees spending more on the same thing as the solution to the problem.

jillian
10-10-2013, 08:40 AM
If we go with the usual liberal strategy, if we now spend $634,320,919,000 then it will work. Only the government sees spending more on the same thing as the solution to the problem.


^^^^^^

more blather from patrick...

libslibslibslibslibslibs

jeeze... take responsibility for something... anything.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:42 AM
Well websites have front and back ends, but I understood it to mean the entire system. I didn't think they meant the front end, but...at the same time the drop downs are because of the back end. Hmmmm. Clearly, it's more a web application than a website.


And, btw, I don't blame Obama for the website. I blame the Democrats in the Senate who wrote the legislation and HHS for creating the contract.

There were cheaper and better ways to get the poor care, and not to be an "I told you so" but Russia's solution is what I was proposing here.

Public hospitals and private ones. If you have an injury or disease and you're poor, go to the public hospital. They have insurance for those who want private hospital treatment and they have many who have no insurance and just go to public hospitals.

Cheaper, easier, more choice.

Wrong ... Republicans didn't want this ... at any cost, and especially is a Democrat was doing the implementation.

NOW was the time to do it or it would never happen.

It's done and we NOT going back to the old system.

That the only way to get Republicans to move, is to do it without them.

If it was up to Republicans, we would have never made it to the Moon.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:43 AM
^^^^^^

more blather from patrick...

libslibslibslibslibslibs

jeeze... take responsibility for something... anything.


It doesn't bother you that we wasted billions to rush through a system 100X more complicated than the VA's system which is still not up and running (Obama promised it by 2009, btw).?

We rushed to meet political goals, not practical ones. You guys need to own that. It's your baby, not the Republicans. They get to own Bernanke and Chief Justice Roberts which are terrible things in and of themselves to have to own.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:44 AM
If we go with the usual liberal strategy, if we now spend $634,320,919,000 then it will work. Only the government sees spending more on the same thing as the solution to the problem.

The old way cost far more and real American Citizens where dieing needlessly.

I know you don't care ... but no one is asking you, that's why Progressives are moving forward ... with or without Conservatives.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:46 AM
It doesn't bother you that we wasted billions to rush through a system 100X more complicated than the VA's system which is still not up and running (Obama promised it by 2009, btw).?

We rushed to meet political goals, not practical ones. You guys need to own that. It's your baby, not the Republicans. They get to own Bernanke and Chief Justice Roberts which are terrible things in and of themselves to have to own.

We wasted 1000x more on Jet Fighter that will never see the light of day, at least not while we're living.

I'd rather waist money on the living to keep then alive.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:47 AM
Wrong ... Republicans didn't want this ... at any cost, and especially is a Democrat was doing the implementation.



Listen to me, because you have me entirely wrong. I want some form of public health. I have argued for it for years. I would 100 million times rather fund public hospitals than the DEA.

100 million times rather fund public hospitals than DHS.

I'm am not against us spending money on health care.

The Democrats did this wrong. They had the votes in the Senate to do this right. I don't blame Obama for Obamacare as much as I blame the Democrats in the Senate.

Obama is a mouth. That's all any president is. You can use it effectively or not.

The Senate pushed this dumbass piece of legislation through and they should own it instead of deflecting, and YOU as someone who supports them and trusted them should be honest enough to call them out on it because deep down you know they did this wrong.

They could have fought for single payer the way Republicans are now fighting to defund Obamacare and it would have happened.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 08:48 AM
We wasted 1000x more on Jet Fighter that will never see the light of day, at least not while we're living.

I'd rather waist money on the living to keep then alive.



I'd rather not waste money. You don't see me arguing for a 718 billion a year defense budget.

keymanjim
10-10-2013, 08:56 AM
he seems to be doing this kind of thing on a few threads this morning. he must have gotten up angry.

and it's already been proven the "website" didn't cost the amount alleged...
Actually, no it hasn't. There's a link that proves that it did.

Provide a different number with proof or get lost.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:57 AM
I'd rather not waste money. You don't see me arguing for a 718 billion a year defense budget.


Bottom-Line, I believe my; our, American Citizens and I think American Lives and Health Care is worth the effort.

If we don't care for our American Citizens, how can we ask anyone else to or expect our own citizens to die for a country that doesn't care enough about their Health Care?

jillian
10-10-2013, 09:04 AM
Actually, no it hasn't. There's a link that proves that it did.

Provide a different number with proof or get lost.

actually, it was proven...

the costs include front to back support for the system over an extended period of time... not the "building" of a website.

if you have a problem with the concept of a discussion board, perhaps you should find another endeavor.

or you could always make your o/p's honest.

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 09:06 AM
Bottom-Line, I believe my; our, American Citizens and I think American Lives and Health Care is worth the effort.

If we don't care for our American Citizens, how can we ask anyone else to or expect our own citizens to die for a country that doesn't care enough about their Health Care?


I agree with you.


Bottom line, the Senate fucked this up and they need to own it. If it's worth fighting for, which I believe it is, then they should have fought the way Ted Cruz and the House fought to do it the right way.

It passed without a single "yes" from Republicans. Meaning they had the power to do it right and they did not.

We are now going to look at this as a huge failure and the opportunity to do it right the first time is lost.

Russia's system with our $$ could work 10x better here than there. It's public and private and wouldn't have flipped Republicans out in the same way that Obamacare did.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:13 AM
I agree with you.


Bottom line, the Senate fucked this up and they need to own it. If it's worth fighting for, which I believe it is, then they should have fought the way Ted Cruz and the House fought to do it the right way.

It passed without a single "yes" from Republicans. Meaning they had the power to do it right and they did not.

We are now going to look at this as a huge failure and the opportunity to do it right the first time is lost.

Russia's system with our $$ could work 10x better here than there. It's public and private and wouldn't have flipped Republicans out in the same way that Obamacare did.


If anyone thought this would work flawlessly out of the box, i would ask them what has ... name on system on this scale that has.

The System still has 23 weeks to work out the kinks; that's an eternity for any database administrator.

Mainecoons
10-10-2013, 09:14 AM
Here you go, Cigar, your morning dose of reality about ObamaCare:


Obamacare website cost more than FACEBOOK, TWITTER, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM... (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/)
'How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?' (http://thehill.com/video/house/327489-boehner-obamacare-threatens-fines-but-fails-to-deliver-care)
Major insurers, Dem allies repeatedly warned Obama admin... (http://www.elpasotimes.com/politics-national/?third_party=many-tried-to-warn-officials-of-obamacare-website-jam)
REPORT: WH knew site might not be ready... (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-may-face-months-glitches-experts-warn/)
POLL: Just 1 in 10 report success... (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/poll-rollout-health-exchanges-gets-thumbs-down#overlay-context=article/anti-government-protesters-dog-taiwan-national-day)
DNC head says site designed for 50,000 max... (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-shocking-insufficient-rambling-response-to-msnbc-on-obamacare-enrollees/)
Once you get in, you can't get out... (http://www.infowars.com/once-you-get-into-the-obamacare-website-you-cant-get-out/)
Crazzzzzzzy code... (https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js)
'It looks like nobody tested it'... (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57606633/obamacare-website-looks-like-nobody-tested-it-programmer-says/)
WASHPOST: Not code, but 'outdated, costly, buggy technology'... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-health-care-sites-problems-highlight-flawed-federal-it-policies/2013/10/09/d558da42-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html?hpid=z3)
CARNEY: 'I Don’t Know' If Obama Has Tried Website... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/carney-i-dont-know-if-obama-has-used-health-care-website/)
Hawaii forced to relaunch after zero sign-ups... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/10/hawaii-relaunching-obamacare-exchange-after-not-selling-any-health-insurance-due-to-software-problems/)
... Will add 2% fee on all plans (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Hawaii-health-exchange-aims-for-Oct-15-relaunch-4881238.php)

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 09:21 AM
If anyone thought this would work flawlessly out of the box, i would ask them what has ... name on system on this scale that has.
Cigar

no one asked for flawless, they asked for working.

So far the only people to have "Obamacare" are those whose insurance companies already sent them change in plan options or people who went to centers.

You cannot build a website of this size with a data base like this in 4 years.

Why isn't the VA's system completed? Its much simpler. Does Obama hate the vets? Does he?

No. It's that systems with multiple data attributes are hard to build.

They should have given it more time.




The System still has 23 weeks to work out the kinks; that's an eternity for any database administrator.

The military took 11 years on their system to work out the database kinks.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:21 AM
Here you go, Cigar, your morning dose of reality about ObamaCare:


Obamacare website cost more than FACEBOOK, TWITTER, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM... (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/)
'How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?' (http://thehill.com/video/house/327489-boehner-obamacare-threatens-fines-but-fails-to-deliver-care)
Major insurers, Dem allies repeatedly warned Obama admin... (http://www.elpasotimes.com/politics-national/?third_party=many-tried-to-warn-officials-of-obamacare-website-jam)
REPORT: WH knew site might not be ready... (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-may-face-months-glitches-experts-warn/)
POLL: Just 1 in 10 report success... (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/poll-rollout-health-exchanges-gets-thumbs-down#overlay-context=article/anti-government-protesters-dog-taiwan-national-day)
DNC head says site designed for 50,000 max... (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-shocking-insufficient-rambling-response-to-msnbc-on-obamacare-enrollees/)
Once you get in, you can't get out... (http://www.infowars.com/once-you-get-into-the-obamacare-website-you-cant-get-out/)
Crazzzzzzzy code... (https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js)
'It looks like nobody tested it'... (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57606633/obamacare-website-looks-like-nobody-tested-it-programmer-says/)
WASHPOST: Not code, but 'outdated, costly, buggy technology'... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-health-care-sites-problems-highlight-flawed-federal-it-policies/2013/10/09/d558da42-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html?hpid=z3)
CARNEY: 'I Don’t Know' If Obama Has Tried Website... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/carney-i-dont-know-if-obama-has-used-health-care-website/)
Hawaii forced to relaunch after zero sign-ups... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/10/hawaii-relaunching-obamacare-exchange-after-not-selling-any-health-insurance-due-to-software-problems/)
... Will add 2% fee on all plans (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Hawaii-health-exchange-aims-for-Oct-15-relaunch-4881238.php)




Ask anyone who's spouting the $600k number; what is this cost? and they will not be able to tell you.

Is it Man-Hours?
Is it New Hardware?
Is it New Software?
Is it Migration Support?
Is it Infrastructure Support or upgrade?
Has all the money actually been spent?

.. go ahead ... ask them and see what they come back with. :grin:

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 09:24 AM
Ask anyone who's spouting the $600k number; what is this cost? and they will not be able to tell you.

Is it Man-Hours?
Is it New Hardware?
Is it New Software?
Is it Migration Support?
Is it Infrastructure Support or upgrade?
Has all the money actually been spent?

.. go ahead ... ask them and see what they come back with. :grin:

None of that matters. It's the whole contract cost and the company awarded as prime already has issues with fraud and waste and not meeting targets for deliverables.

They should never have said it would roll out in 4 years.

As I've said the VA system is much much smaller and less complex and it is still not finished and not because Obama hates the troops, either.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:24 AM
@Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)

no one asked for flawless, they asked for working.

So far the only people to have "Obamacare" are those whose insurance companies already sent them change in plan options or people who went to centers.

You cannot build a website of this size with a data base like this in 4 years.

Why isn't the VA's system completed? Its much simpler. Does Obama hate the vets? Does he?

No. It's that systems with multiple data attributes are hard to build.

They should have given it more time.



The military took 11 years on their system to work out the database kinks.

Back in February 2009 ... all the political internet experts where predicting Obama would cause Gas to go up to $6.00 per gallon.

I'm willing to wait 23 weeks to resolve a network scaling issue ... :rollseyes:

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:26 AM
None of that matters. It's the whole contract cost and the company awarded as prime already has issues with fraud and waste and not meeting targets for deliverables.

They should never have said it would roll out in 4 years.

As I've said the VA system is much much smaller and less complex and it is still not finished and not because Obama hates the troops, either.

It DONE ... Health Care WILL be available for 40Million Americans; by any means possible.

The GOP can now start their Congressional Hearings.

The rest of the World is moving forward.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:28 AM
@Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)

no one asked for flawless, they asked for working.

So far the only people to have "Obamacare" are those whose insurance companies already sent them change in plan options or people who went to centers.

You cannot build a website of this size with a data base like this in 4 years.

Why isn't the VA's system completed? Its much simpler. Does Obama hate the vets? Does he?

No. It's that systems with multiple data attributes are hard to build.

They should have given it more time.



The military took 11 years on their system to work out the database kinks.


BTW ... The VA System was catching up on the backlog; then guess who threw a wrench in the works?

keymanjim
10-10-2013, 09:38 AM
actually, it was proven...

the costs include front to back support for the system over an extended period of time... not the "building" of a website.

if you have a problem with the concept of a discussion board, perhaps you should find another endeavor.

or you could always make your o/p's honest.
There is a web site that doesn't work. It cost the US taxpayers nearly 2/3's of a BILLION dollars.

It that simple enough for you?

Mainecoons
10-10-2013, 09:40 AM
Man, look at the ObamaDrones squirm this morning!

:rofl:

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:41 AM
There is a web site that doesn't work. It cost the US taxpayers nearly 2/3's of a BILLION dollars.

It that simple enough for you?

"The shutdown of government by House Republicans has already cost at least $1.2 billion,
with the tab increasing by $300 million a day. Some estimates are much higher than that."

As of today the tab is @ $2.7 billion ...... tomorrow we will hit $3.0 Billion

I never want to hear a republican talk about the deficit or the national debt again. :rollseyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/governing-by-blackmail.html?_r=1&

It that simple enough for you? :wink:

Cigar
10-10-2013, 09:44 AM
Man, look at the ObamaDrones squirm this morning!

:rofl:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SmithM/2013/SmithM20131010_low.jpg

http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/17/27567_thumb.gif

http://assets.amuniversal.com/8ff13e70136c01312b02001dd8b71c47.jpg

keymanjim
10-10-2013, 10:30 AM
"the shutdown of government by house republicans has already cost at least $1.2 billion,
with the tab increasing by $300 million a day. Some estimates are much higher than that."

as of today the tab is @ $2.7 billion ...... Tomorrow we will hit $3.0 billion

i never want to hear a republican talk about the deficit or the national debt again. :rollseyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/governing-by-blackmail.html?_r=1&

it that simple enough for you? :wink:
3...2...1...deflect!

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 12:23 PM
Ask anyone who's spouting the $600k number; what is this cost? and they will not be able to tell you.

Is it Man-Hours?
Is it New Hardware?
Is it New Software?
Is it Migration Support?
Is it Infrastructure Support or upgrade?
Has all the money actually been spent?

.. go ahead ... ask them and see what they come back with. :grin:


Here is a link to the press release (http://blog.executivebiz.com/2011/12/cgi-federal-to-develop-health-insurance-marketplace-under-affordable-care-act/) when the contract was awarded. It is a 5 year contract (a 2 year base, with 3 one year option periods). I imagine that it is a cost-type contract (rather than a fixed firm price contract). That would explain the increase in the upper limit but it doesn't explain why the independent government cost estimate was so low, or why the contracting officer / government, was so willing to increase the contract ceiling costs by so much.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 12:27 PM
Here is a link to the press release (http://blog.executivebiz.com/2011/12/cgi-federal-to-develop-health-insurance-marketplace-under-affordable-care-act/) when the contract was awarded. It is a 5 year contract (a 2 year base, with 3 one year option periods). I imagine that it is a cost-type contract (rather than a fixed firm price contract). That would explain the increase in the upper limit but it doesn't explain why the independent government cost estimate was so low, or why the contracting officer / government, was so willing to increase the contract ceiling costs by so much.

Ever seen a General Dynamics or Boeing contract? :laugh:

Cigar
10-10-2013, 12:29 PM
3...2...1...deflect!

1 Billion ... 2 Billion ... 3 Billion ... 4 Billion ... soon we'll be talking real money :grin:

Alyosha
10-10-2013, 12:38 PM
Ever seen a General Dynamics or Boeing contract? :laugh:

You're only making my case for tightening the purse strings on the mismanaging and waste of our federal government.

Contrails
10-10-2013, 12:41 PM
Along with being the worst built website in history, Healthcare.gov also appears to be the most expensive, and we get stuck with the bill. How lovely.


Via Digital Journal (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/):
The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records (http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=detailsummary), appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal. The company originally won the contract (http://blog.executivebiz.com/2011/12/cgi-federal-to-develop-health-insurance-marketplace-under-affordable-care-act/) back in 2011, but at that time, the cost was expected to run “up to” $93.7 million – still a chunk of change, but nothing near where it ended up.


Just so you know, CGI is a Canadian company.

I really have to question the math here. First, how can they attribute all of the $634 billion in contracts between CGI Federal and HHS when 3/4's of them existed before the first contract to build Healthcare.gov was awarded in December 2011? Maybe not all of these contracts are for what they think they are.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 12:45 PM
I predict a Benghazi :laugh:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d94869e2016766f00679970b-800wi

Ravi
10-10-2013, 01:22 PM
This is just proof that outsourcing wastes money.

Aside from that, if Republican led states had set up exchanges like they were supposed to instead of screwing over their citizens the federal exchange would have been merely a fallback as it was designed to be.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 01:24 PM
This is just proof that outsourcing wastes money.

Aside from that, if Republican led states had set up exchanges like they were supposed to instead of screwing over their citizens the federal exchange would have been merely a fallback as it was designed to be.

Actually, Governments should Govern and Manage and leave it up the Experienced to implement

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 04:36 PM
This is just proof that outsourcing wastes money.

Aside from that, if Republican led states had set up exchanges like they were supposed to instead of screwing over their citizens the federal exchange would have been merely a fallback as it was designed to be.

Except we had the same problem with our system and it was built in the US and took ten years.

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 05:12 PM
Ever seen a General Dynamics or Boeing contract? :laugh:


General Dynamics all the time. Boeing no. But I assume that you are referring to long term design build contracts of new weapons systems. This website is not that sort of product.

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 05:14 PM
I really have to question the math here. First, how can they attribute all of the $634 billion in contracts between CGI Federal and HHS when 3/4's of them existed before the first contract to build Healthcare.gov was awarded in December 2011? Maybe not all of these contracts are for what they think they are.

It is probably a contract ceiling on a cost reimbursable contract.

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 05:53 PM
This is just proof that outsourcing wastes money.

Aside from that, if Republican led states had set up exchanges like they were supposed to instead of screwing over their citizens the federal exchange would have been merely a fallback as it was designed to be.

Do you know what federalism is?

AmazonTania
10-10-2013, 06:32 PM
Apparently not, because according to them, it doesn't make sense for the Government to create a centralised hub and for everyone to connect through their individual websites through the hub.

Hackers, Coders and Website Developers are going to have a field day with plishing.