DescentBB

642 million is the cost for setting up the Obamacare website. I know a number of you know how to set up websites and I have to ask if that is a fair price. In addition, for that amount of money, as the blond bimbo head of the DNC said:

"She said that there is good news in the fact that the servers which support HealthCare.Gov were only designed to handle 50,000 visitors… per day. "

50,000 a day? With a 642 million dollar budget I'm wonder how many players a online game could handle. I know Eve Online handles 50k in a single shard environment. Thoughts?

thoughts? I think you are a real whiner.

Sounds like they bought it from the military.

Yea…sounds a little high.

callmeslick wrote:thoughts? I think you are a real whiner.

So questioning how our tax money is spent makes me a whiner. I know this is another black eye for your much loved program but 640 million is a lot of money for something that is not working very well. Try to answer the question instead of doing a Alinsky.

Well look on the bright side. with the potential for 340 million americans signing up for demcare. It will only take 19 years to get them all signed up.

and woody stop being such a whiner

on a semi related note, I was just out for a bit running errands and futily attempting to tire out a 3 year old boy on a rainy day. I was listening in the car to Moodys' chief financial analyst. He stated that Obamacare did not cause him to even THINK about downgrading his longterm economic forecast for the US. He sees utterly no chance that it can possibly harm. The only reason he didn't UPGRADE the forecast was that it was both too soon to tell if the potential upside can occur and the uncertainty over political nonsense such as we are seeing at present. His gut told him, he said, that the ACA holds the promise for considerable upside over a 10 year period. Further, he noted that in the past 5 years, by his reckoning(and, he noted virtually every major economist agrees), the US has done an admirable job of addressing the recession, and has made major strides to both stabilize the deficit and put itself in a position to sharply reduce the debt over the next 10 years.

callmeslick wrote:on a semi related note, I was just out for a bit running errands and futily attempting to tire out a 3 year old boy on a rainy day. I was listening in the car to Moodys' chief financial analyst. He stated that Obamacare did not cause him to even THINK about downgrading his longterm economic forecast for the US. He sees utterly no chance that it can possibly harm. The only reason he didn't UPGRADE the forecast was that it was both too soon to tell if the potential upside can occur and the uncertainty over political nonsense such as we are seeing at present. His gut told him, he said, that the ACA holds the promise for considerable upside over a 10 year period. Further, he noted that in the past 5 years, by his reckoning(and, he noted virtually every major economist agrees), the US has done an admirable job of addressing the recession, and has made major strides to both stabilize the deficit and put itself in a position to sharply reduce the debt over the next 10 years.

This thread is about paying 640 million for a website that can't handle the traffic....not about the state of the US economy. If you do want to discuss the economy, start your own topic.

no, Woody, you and I both know this is yet another whine about Obamacare and implementation. 640 million dollars is not some ridiculous amount for this scale of project, with all the side stuff that has to go into it(far more complex than a narrowly focused thing like a game server site, etc). Thus, I'll feel free to toss in a dose of overall reality. Thanks.

640 million actual cost, so far, for a website that doesn't work.
It was projected to only cost 97 million for a functioning site.

So, like Obamacare, it is broken, it's cost extremely under reported, and no one knows how much it will end up costing or when it will perform as claimed.

With a track record like that it is bit of a stretch to say he is just whining!

see my point.....oh, and can we provide linkage to ALL the details?

callmeslick wrote:see my point.....oh, and can we provide linkage to ALL the details?

What part would you like to attempt to refute?!?

I'd like to read the details. I get all suspicious, if you can understand, when someone cites a 'DNC spokesperson' about a HHS initiative, that has utterly nothing to do with electoral politics, which is the function of the DNC.

you know, I get suspicious when, in around 45 seconds, one can find this in the BLAZE(a right-wing site). One can only guess the true cost factors:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10 ... 4-million/

I'm going to go tie trout flies for a while and will read your retraction when I return.........

This $640 million story has already been debunked. The total is an aggerate of not just the website cost, but all the planning and preparatory work years before the actual site was constructed plus the cost of development, testing, integration with existing systems, etc. The site actually does work. To say it doesn't shows ignorance of the scope of the task at hand and what is involved with a software project this large (no you can't compare it to a MMORPG, it's apples compared to wing-nuts). The price is large indeed, but when you look at it compared to any other government endeavor the inflated price is no different so it deserves no extraordinary attention.

Now I'll leave the remaining posts in this thread open for idiots to talk in circles about how Obama made their computer crash or whatever unthinking nonsense you can come up with.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:thoughts? I think you are a real whiner.

So questioning how our tax money is spent makes me a whiner. I know this is another black eye for your much loved program but 640 million is a lot of money for something that is not working very well. Try to answer the question instead of doing a Alinsky.

Don't pay taxes, you fool!

woodchip, you need to try harder to find reasons to hate Obama. We're all pretty disappointed in your performance as of late.

callmeslick wrote:I'm going to go tie trout flies for a while and will read your retraction when I return.........

Try listening to the video at the link. It is MSNBC interviewing the ditz. Trouble is slick you start to ejaculate when you find some weak argument refuting a post. So after your fly gets untied you may want to retract.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/debbie-wasse ... enrollees/

DoTheGeek wrote:woodchip, you need to try harder to find reasons to hate Obama. We're all pretty disappointed in your performance as of late.

Actually I don't hate the man. I'll just keep pointing out how inept he is. Even a psychiatrist is pointing out Obama's mental problems:

"President Obama’s rhetoric is finally coming closer to what appears to be his psychological truth: Because America victimized him and countless millions of others, any person or party or movement that opposes his views and does not yield to him is not just his adversary, but abusive, predatory and even threatening. "

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/ ... mentality/

Anyone interviewed on Fox News is automatically suspect in their views.

By the way, the Feds Healthcare site actually works with an older browser, like IE8 (which I tried as an experiment), unlike our fancy shmancy Cover Oregon site that bitched that my browser needed to be updated in order to access the site. Somebody designing the fed's website at least thought about that issue for that 642 million. Now if they could just cut the price of those $1000 hammers.

Did he really use Ablow as a quoted source? Hahaha...what a dork you are woodchip!

That guy said this about Newt's marital parties:

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich's behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here's what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude -- psychologically -- from Mr. Gingrich's behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we'll want to let him go after one.

Only Fox viewers would listen to what someone like this says. How the ★■◆● he has Dr. next to his name I cannot figure out. The guy makes Palin seem like the president of Mensa.

Makes me wonder how much the whole US .gov gig costs. No wonder they shut down all the park sites...

the problem with stuff like the original post is this: We, as a nation, are never going to be able to have a serious discussion about very real issues and philosophies of government without dealing in credible reality. This isn't the first time Woody or Will have come here with something that can be debunked as a flat-out lie within a minute(and that's with my clumsy geek skillz). It speaks to credibility, it speaks to honesty and speaks to personal character. I know others are out there on the web spewing the same lies and more, daily, but let's focus on this little forum. The other day, a cute little multiple guess question was aimed at me, so today I ask Will and Woody.....Do you post obvious lies here because:
a) you are both too stupid to sense that something reeks of BS
b) you are both so lazy as to not bother to check your supposed 'facts'
c) you are both so wrapped up in your extreme ideology that it doesn't bother you, morally, to lie in an attempt to make a point
d) all of the above

You see, this was a classic. Not only was the figure cited in the thread title erroneous, it was off by 700%. Therefore, it is not only a lie, but a blatant one. Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you post when you both do this sort of thing with alarming regularity. I sort of hate to be the one that calls you on the BS most of the time, but I sure as hell don't plan to ever let it stand, so you might both do well to check, and maybe double-check before posting your 'facts'(hint: don't crosscheck Breitbart.com with GlennBeck.com, try to find a range someplace towards moderate or at least sensible). I offer this advice because I take no comfort in these embarrassing little reality-checks, but I have long ago come to realize that what maintains such a high level of public confusion is people reading utter nonsense and outright lies disguised as 'facts'.

$97,000,000.00 for a website...

It may interest you to know that I can come pretty close to comprehending the complexity of such an undertaking. For something like this it's more than likely comparable to the budget of a Hollywood movie, in that there are a lot of people brought together who highly specialize in their fields. Security particularly, on something like this, would come at a premium. When something must be done right, it isn't cheap. That being said, I think somebody made an absolute KILLING on this. That is an insane amount. What we have here (and I've personally witnessed it on a lesser scale), I would think, is a person or person's who doesn't/don't begin to understand the inner-workings web technology, and they were quoted an impressive price for an impressive undertaking by someone who was probably a very good salesman.

To be fair, I would have to know how much of this figure goes to maintaining the hardware behind the website, and for how long. Still, I can't imaging it was a competitive deal by any professional standards. An enterprise like Amazon.com could probably be sunk by that grade of expense.

Just an somewhat educated, blind guess, but I think someone who knew what they were doing could easily cut that expense in half and still host on defense-grade systems. At the same time there's so much involved that it really is hard to be certain, from my point of view. But the website structure itself, apart from security concerns, shouldn't push more than a few million at the very most, IMO, to be extravagant.

The end of the matter, at least, is that someone is making a damn good living off of this. You can be sure of that.

Sadly slick you just keep putting your ignorant foot in your mouth:

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+P ... ailsummary

The 90 mil cost was the original cost estimate. The 640 mil was what it wound up being

slick, I don't think anyone needs to retract their disgust at the cost.

The most clear data comes from a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from June (pdf), which states that the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) spent “almost $394 million from fiscal year 2010 through March 2013 through contracts” to build the “federally facilitated exchanges” (FFEs) – the complex system that includes Healthcare.gov as well as certain state-based exchanges – the data hub, and other expenditures related to the Obamacare exchange system. While GAO states that the “highest volume” of that $394 million was related to the development of “information technology systems,” a more detailed look at that cost shows that a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services. Take that out, and you’re left with roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges – the bulk of which ($88 million) went to CGI Federal, the company awarded a $93.7 million contract to build Healthcare.gov and other technology portions of the FFEs.

What we have is Obamacare = cost over 1.7 trillion and climbing, Obama promised it was going to cost under 1 trillion
Actual web site = 88 million so far, but contrary to some here the vast majority of reports, even from liberal approved media outlets, say it is not working anywhere close to correctly.
However, in order to make the web site have any functionality they spent = 3+ years of systems and technology development that has cost $363 million.....and of course the web site is still not working.

I don't know what is worse, thinking it cost over 600 million and not knowing the details of how much time they had to get it right or now knowing that they have had 3+ years to install and test the software but only spent $363 million dollars to get us to a web site that is broken!

So I tenatively retract any assertion that the thing cost 600+ million reserving the right to adjust my figures as the government lets more facts escape.
And still believe the 363 million and 3+ years is WAY TOO MUCH for what we got.

Re: slick multiple choice
I think it is more like they have been listening to AM radio/fox news vilify/belittle Obama for so long it has been ingrained deep into their personality. Keep in mind they probably aren't really that aware of it on a conscious level anymore, they have just spent 5-6 years every day tuning in to people they enjoy listening to talk about how evil Obama is, so long that it became their reality. To their subconscious Obama is Evil (or in TBs case probably the actual Devil incarnate), so they unquestionably believe anything negative that is said about him and assume anything positive about him or people associated with his "side" is a deception, conspiracy or mistake of some kind.

You don't fact check when someone reminds you the Devil is evil, you just know it is true and repeat it... It is the same thing here.

Krom wrote:Re: slick multiple choice
I think it is more like they have been listening to AM radio/fox news vilify/belittle Obama for so long it has been ingrained deep into their personality. Keep in mind they probably aren't really that aware of it on a conscious level anymore, they have just spent 5-6 years every day tuning in to people they enjoy listening to talk about how evil Obama is, so long that it became their reality. To their subconscious Obama is Evil (or in TBs case probably the actual Devil incarnate), so they unquestionably believe anything negative that is said about him and assume anything positive about him or people associated with his "side" is a deception, conspiracy or mistake of some kind.

You don't fact check when someone reminds you the Devil is evil, you just know it is true and repeat it... It is the same thing here.

I didn't fact check the number because it sounds quite believable knowing the promises of Obamacare vs the actual cost.


Tell me Krom, which is more accurate, to claim the web site only cost 88 million?
Or to include the other couple hundred million dollars for the sites proprietary servers and tech systems and software that the web site needs in order to provide anything to the web site visitor?!?

Yes technically the literal "web site" developer has only been paid 88 million for what the end user sees in his browser, so far anyway. But if you know that 88 million part of the project is solely dependent by design on another 200 million with 3+ years of development that makes up the back end of the 'web site' is it a lie to say the cost was higher than the 97 million claimed cost? We are talking about the ACA web site, in it's entirety, as it is designed to function, which includes the 200+ million more than the 97(88) million slick is citing.

We jumped on the numbers published and it turns out the cost wasn't 700% more...it was only 250% more....

Yea, just a couple of Hannity stooges huh? Obama's 'web site' only costs 88 million huh? The other 200+ million is just coffee machines and stuff that has nothing to do with the web sites functionality... And it is working too right?

The site works. It is not "broken" outside of a few problem areas. It is a complex piece of software and bugs are expected. It is impossible for it to have worked perfectly at launch regardless of how much money was spent. To think otherwise is to misunderstand how software development and the Internet works, especially at this scale. The site and supporting elements seems really expensive for sure, but it is also unique and I imagine a lot of the framework had to be built from scratch. There will probably be a FOX news investigation on this. I'm surprised they haven't named it "website-gate" or something stupid like that yet.

But seriously, I would probably be a good idea to audit the contractors eventually.

woodchip wrote:Sadly slick you just keep putting your ignorant foot in your mouth:

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+P ... ailsummary

The 90 mil cost was the original cost estimate. The 640 mil was what it wound up being

no, it isn't, that is wrong. The budget line item stood at 84 million in August, and they spent another 9 since then. You are still lying.

Will Robinson wrote:]

What we have is Obamacare = cost over 1.7 trillion and climbing, Obama promised it was going to cost under 1 trillion

still determined to dance, huh?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Sadly slick you just keep putting your ignorant foot in your mouth:

http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+P ... ailsummary

The 90 mil cost was the original cost estimate. The 640 mil was what it wound up being

no, it isn't, that is wrong. The budget line item stood at 84 million in August, and they spent another 9 since then. You are still lying.

CGI is the contractor hired to set up the website. You have some proof my link is wrong other than because you say it is?

The government accounting was on the news last night. It showed clearly you are generating bogus numbers. Sorry, but you have no credibility. The number you cite in this link is for total services for Medicare and Medicaid nationwide, over an unspecified time period. In other words, not the cost of ACA website, nor even services around ACA. You're just throwing up smokescreens now, and should be embarrassed at this point, one would think......

Link or it didn't happen

woodchip wrote:Link or it didn't happen

that was from YOUR link...... You just have to find and read the definitions.

The link shows what was paid first to health and human services that then got paid to CGI as contractor for websites. At least that's how the numbers seem to add up. Show me where I'm wrong.

What an extremely uninteresting discussion this has turned into.

prove ur maths right, woodchip! 'Adaway.

Obama doesn't compromise with stupidity, and stupidity is the house Republicans. I'm sorry he doesn't have a more lenient policy.

Some of you guys have gotten to the point where you're wound pretty tight or it's getting personal. Misunderstanding is still the most common occurrence on internet bulletin boards, IMO. Can you back it off a little? I'm convinced that we don't have anyone in this community who logs on to outright lie to people, I think more or less often it's just a case of being sure that what we feel, believe, or accept is also factual, restricted to the proper domain, and presented fairly. We may have to hold each other to the facts now and again, and some of us may own or adopt some bad assumptions, but it doesn't need to get nasty.

you're a Racist/Hater/Liar

Only because the rest wouldn't fit on the badge.