• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$635 billion ??!!

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Drudgz is reporting the cost to build the Obama-Care website is 635 BILLION ??

Will someone do me a solid and post that link ?

I'm on my crap phone.

You know what, I think the Dems are just ripping us off.

Al'a Kwame Kirkpatrick.

If its a accurate number that is.

From Obama's Green Jobs Iniative ( Billions gone ) to stimulus ( billions wasted ) to THIS ?

It DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

Makes me wonder what they really spent the money on.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Drudgz is reporting the cost to build the Obama-Care website is 635 BILLION ??

Will someone do me a solid and post that link ?

I'm on my crap phone.

You know what, I think the Dems are just ripping us off.

Al'a Kwame Kirkpatrick.

If its a accurate number that is.

From Obama's Green Jobs Iniative ( Billions gone ) to stimulus ( billions wasted ) to THIS ?

It DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

Makes me wonder what they really spent the money on.

650 million.. big difference. That is 13 million per state, or a bit over 2 bucks a citizen.. hardly massive.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
26,111
Reaction score
17,777
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Drudgz is reporting the cost to build the Obama-Care website is 635 BILLION ??


Yeah, I don't see that happening.

I checked out Drudge, and the "article" said it was $634,320,919. That's a bit short of 635 Billion.

On a side note, Drudge could use a new web designer.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
650 million.. big difference. That is 13 million per state, or a bit over 2 bucks a citizen.. hardly massive.

And still pretty freakin' sad at that. Once again, ridiculous overspending by a government that can't afford it..........
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
650 million.. big difference. That is 13
million per state, or a bit over 2 bucks a citizen.. hardly massive.

NO PETE, the article Drudge links to is saying the cost was 635 BILLION, not million.

It doesn't seem possible.

And you can justify down any expense and your Govt ripping you off if you quantify the expense on a per capita basis.

But it doesn't change the fact they're still ripping you off.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
And still pretty freakin' sad at that. Once again, ridiculous overspending by a government that can't afford it..........

LOL you need some perspective... Overspending is 40k for a toilet seat and 2 bucks for an asprin. Spending 13 million per state to implement a massive computer system is hardly overspending.. in fact I would almost say it is underspending. The problem with government computer systems is that they rely on the private sector in most cases and the private sector has a very bad reputation in screwing up big computer systems made for the government. Yes it is in part the fault of government not laying down the conditions correctly, but it is also the fault of the makers for exploiting the situation well knowing it wont work as intended. I have seen it many times, billions spent on big technology programs in government only to fall flat on its face. Government is generally a decade behind on technology in any country and are easily fooled because most elected politicians have zero computer skills so you can feed them any bull**** and get paid for it.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I assume someone made a mistake....I mean it has to be a mistake but lets say it DID cost 635 MILLION.

Almost a BILLION dollars for the desperate piece of trash they're offering up as the FED Health Care Website ?

Yep, we're being ripped off allright.

Obama Kirkpatrick.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
NO PETE, the article Drudge links to is saying the cost was 635 BILLION, not million.

It doesn't seem possible.

And you can justify down any expense and your Govt ripping you off if you quantify the expense on a per capita basis.

But it doesn't change the fact they're still ripping you off.

DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

Then you are being fooled, or Drudge did a massive typo (not the first time) to piss people like you off.

How about just staying away from that idiotic site? :)
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOL you
need some perspective... Overspending is 40k for a toilet seat and 2 bucks for an asprin. Spending 13 million per state to implement a massive computer system is hardly overspending.. in fact I would almost say it is underspending. The problem with government computer systems is that they rely on the private sector in most cases and the private sector has a very bad reputation in screwing up big computer systems made for the government. Yes it is in part the fault of government not laying down the conditions correctly, but it is also the fault of the makers for exploiting the situation well knowing it wont work as intended. I have seen it many times, billions spent on big technology programs in government only to fall flat on its face. Government is generally a decade behind on technology in any country and are easily fooled because most elected politicians have zero computer skills so you can feed them any bull**** and get paid for it.

Your way of justifying Government waste is especially concerning.

Its about as partisan and subjective as you can get.

You're counting every head in the US and then implying Obama-Cares going to service our entire population.

The Government isn't paying for Obama-Care, the middle class is.

I think you've gone off the deep end.

Obvious waste and fraud and your justifying it on a purely arbitrary basis.

You left wingers have hit new lows in these last 5 years defending the most corrupt and incompetent administration in US History.

FYI, the House Committee investigating the IRS's targeting of Americans based on their political lean just released a report.

It ties the IRS's targeting of Conservative groups DIRECTLY to top White House Officials.

Face it, idiots in America elected crooks, and people like you defend those crooks, because you lack the humility to admit that you are WRONG.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DRUDGE
REPORT 2014®


Then you are being fooled, or Drudge did a massive typo (not the first time) to piss people like you off.

How about just staying away from that idiotic site? :)

It linked to a website that reported a 9 digit number.

And it may be a typo indeed, but you're still qualifying a 635 million dollar expense by basing it on a per-capita basis.

Its a bit hypocritical for you to call drudge dishonest, don't you think ?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Your way of justifying Government waste is especially concerning.

I am not justifying anything. I am only pointing out reality and some perspective. 650 million for such a vast website and infrastructure is hardly a lot of money considering it theoretically has to handle 315 million people overnight. You simply dont understand how it is to roll out such sites or technology in general... there will ALWAYS be plenty of problems even for the "best".. look at Apple and iOS 7.

Wasting 40k on a toilet seat, or millions on a bridge to no where.. that is waste.
 

Cyrylek

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,467
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Boston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
. The problem with government computer systems...

In this particular case, as far as understand, the problem is not so much with the Obamacare website, but with the numerous other government sites and databases it is supposed to communicate with. Most of them are, indeed, poorly designed and outdated.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In this particular case, as far as understand, the problem is not so much with the Obamacare website, but with the numerous other government sites and databases it is supposed to communicate with. Most of them are, indeed, poorly designed and outdated.

Exactly, which makes it a major problem. We had a similar issue in Denmark years ago when they wanted to combine all medical records into one massive computer system. Problem was that some hospital areas were not digital yet, others were but had different systems and so on and so on. In the end it cost billions of kroner and was eventually dropped.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In this particular case, as far as understand,
the problem is not so much with the Obamacare website, but with the numerous other government sites and databases it is supposed to communicate with. Most of them are, indeed, poorly designed and outdated.

You people really stretch to mitigate what are obvious failures.

635 Million or Billion over 3 years for a website that doesn't work.

And the left wants us to hand control of our healthcare over to the same Govt thats responsible for this nonsense ?

Honestly, if the website were up and functioning correctly millions of middle class Americans would have figured out by now that THEY are the ones who'll be funding all these "uninsured " individuals.

Another thing, Blitzer on CNN stated he thought the entire law should be postponed because of issues like the Web-site.

Thats sites down for a reason and its not a "code" issue.

Its too close to the midterms for people to be waken up by a accute and substantial increase in their healthcare premiums.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It linked to a website that reported a 9 digit number.

And it may be a typo indeed, but you're still qualifying a 635 million dollar expense by basing it on a per-capita basis.

And am I not allowed to show how much each American paid for this site? Since when is that a political faux pas? Why is it that conservative types hate per capita comparisons and only stick with unadjusted total numbers.. even if the time period is decades? And it was not only per capita I pointed out.. also per state, and the point out other massively wasteful things that are much more idiotic.

Its a bit hypocritical for you to call drudge dishonest, don't you think ?

Drudge is mostly dishonest with his headlines. He might just be a page linker, but he has fallen for many fake stories and his headlines are more than not highly biased towards the right.
 

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am not justifying anything. I am only pointing out reality and some perspective. 650 million for such a vast website and infrastructure is hardly a lot of money considering it theoretically has to handle 315 million people overnight. You simply dont understand how it is to roll out such sites or technology in general... there will ALWAYS be plenty of problems even for the "best".. look at Apple and iOS 7.

Wasting 40k on a toilet seat, or millions on a bridge to no where.. that is waste.

Can you substantiate this toilet seat 'urban myth' as I've heard if repeatedly for 30 yrs? And did the 'bridge to nowhere' actually get built?
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
27,415
Reaction score
6,484
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL you need some perspective... Overspending is 40k for a toilet seat and 2 bucks for an asprin. Spending 13 million per state to implement a massive computer system is hardly overspending.. in fact I would almost say it is underspending. The problem with government computer systems is that they rely on the private sector in most cases and the private sector has a very bad reputation in screwing up big computer systems made for the government. Yes it is in part the fault of government not laying down the conditions correctly, but it is also the fault of the makers for exploiting the situation well knowing it wont work as intended. I have seen it many times, billions spent on big technology programs in government only to fall flat on its face. Government is generally a decade behind on technology in any country and are easily fooled because most elected politicians have zero computer skills so you can feed them any bull**** and get paid for it.

Why would you break this down by state when iut is a federal program?

It is one website with different área per state.

The basic website has to work first before you ccan get into the states.

It is still 635 million for one website.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And am
I not allowed to show how much each American paid for this site? Since when is that a political faux pas? Why is it that conservative types hate per capita comparisons and only stick with unadjusted total numbers.. even if the time period is decades? And it was not only per capita I pointed out.. also per state, and the point out other massively wasteful things that are much more idiotic.



Drudge is mostly dishonest with his headlines. He might just be a page linker, but he has fallen for many fake stories and his headlines are more than not highly biased towards the right.

You're allowed to do anything you like.

Which apparently includes applying your own arbitrary process of justifying massive waste.

You have every right to log on to this site, and post biased and unethical justifications for whats obviously a massive amount of waste.

You have every right to trade objectivity for blatant partisanship.

Look, its what Libs DO HERE.

If you have not noticed since the elction of a Jr Senator with a toilet paper thin resume, the left has been in full on damage control.

It's damned entertaining watching you people desperately struggle to remain relevent after listening to you guys for 8 years critique our previous President for a variety of constructed false narratives and "scandals".
 

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But to the topic I found this quite interesting:

But for the sake of putting the monstrous amount of money into perspective, here are a few figures to chew on: Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $600 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.
Obamacare's broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You're allowed to do anything you like.

Which apparently includes applying your own arbitrary process of justifying massive waste.

You have every right to log on to this site, and post biased and unethical justifications for whats obviously a massive amount of waste.

You have every right to trade objectivity for blatant partisanship.

Look, its what Libs DO HERE.

If you have not noticed since the elction of a Jr Senator with a toilet paper thin resume, the left has been in full on damage control.

It's damned entertaining watching you people desperately struggle to remain relevent after listening to you guys for 8 years critique our previous President for a variety of constructed false narratives and "scandals".

Again I aint justifying anything. It is you that is putting a price tag on this and calling it failure because it does not work perfectly. That must mean that every piece of technology is a failure... the iPhone, iPad, Google, Facebook, Microsoft.. because they all did not work perfectly from the start and still dont work perfectly.
 

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In this particular case, as far as understand, the problem is not so much with the Obamacare website, but with the numerous other government sites and databases it is supposed to communicate with. Most of them are, indeed, poorly designed and outdated.

From personal experience I have tried to get some pricing information with no success. So far I have been able to create an account, get a verification email and activate the account via embed in email. Once log in is attempted I get a 'Authenticating...please wait' screen and no further yet. This has been typical for 4 days now w/4-10 attempts per day.

And yes I have a legitimate need and am not those trolls trying to break the system by overloading (thinking 'on air' pundits now).
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,971
Reaction score
13,561
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why would you break this down by state when iut is a federal program?

It is one website with different área per state.

The basic website has to work first before you ccan get into the states.

It is still 635 million for one website.

One website that connects to every state and various databases that the makers of the website did not create. Do you know how hard that is to do?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
650 million.. big difference. That is 13 million per state, or a bit over 2 bucks a citizen.. hardly massive.

Indeed - how much did Ford sink into the Edsel before they gave up and trashed it?
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
650 million.. big difference. That is 13 million per state, or a bit over 2 bucks a citizen.. hardly massive.

Hardly Massive? It is to build a website, that is beyond a ridiculous amount of tax payer money for a WEBSITE!!!! One that doesn't even work mind you.....
 

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One website that connects to every state and various databases that the makers of the website did not create. Do you know how hard that is to do?

Sure it's difficult but they've had ~3 years and reasonably unlimited funds/resources to get it done...and then there's this:
Major insurers, state health-care officials and Democratic allies repeatedly warned the Obama administration in recent months that the new federal health-insurance exchange had significant problems
Many tried to warn officials of Obamacare website jam
 
Top Bottom