• 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 ??!!


It doesn't feckin' WORK.... PERIOD. It's not a matter of an occasional error. It's so broken most people can't even use the damned thing. Not one of those technologies you mentioned got launched so broken that they were utterly unusable. This is the worst failure in a tech launch I've ever seen. EVER seen. And there's nothing even close. Hell, I can't think of any product launch that has been worse in history. Even the Titanic floated for awhile before sinking.

The cost is ridiculous. The federal government created a single site for 34 states. It's a single implementation that cost 634 dollars. It's not the "interfaces with other government sites" that make it so users can't register or log on. There may well be problems interfacing with other computers and, if there are interfaces with other computers, It's damned near a sure thing given the quality of the code. The problem so visible is upstream from any of that.

There's no excuse for this. Anyone with any IS/IT experience knows that in the private sector heads would roll over such a colossal failure.


And, by the way.... those of you who want to try to compare it to an iphone or an Ipad.... Don't. It makes you look stupid. This wasn't even close to either one in terms of technical difficulty. It isn't an operating system. It's a fecking interactive web site and a simple one at that. For God's sake, we're typing messages into software HERE that's more complicated than the Insurance Exchange Website.
 
PeteEU said:
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?
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. It's ONE website for 34 states. It's not hard to do.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Indeed - how much did Ford sink into the Edsel before they gave up and trashed it?
Click to expand...

Once again, great analogy! :thumbs: Of all the vehicles that have come and gone over the years, most have collectors who save and store one or two for nostalgic reasons. I haven't heard of anyone who collected Edsels! I'm not familiar with the car, but it must have really been a dog!

Greeti8ngs, CJ. :2wave:
 
Papa bull said:
Bullcrap. It's ONE website for 34 states. It's not hard to do.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you are not a tech nerd.. or understand how websites and databases work. Because.. it is hard and takes time.

Any moron can make a basic website for 34 states.. but you try linking that website to multiple databases with personal information and all that.. And then you try to make it multi-functional, with many options and add to that a security layer that is actually secure.... oh and make it possible to input information as well, to be saved in a new or old database, which is dependent on what state you are in..

And then you make that webpage work with 10k hits per second..

Good luck!
 
Yes, but it's the holy and righteous intentions that matter more than whether it actually works or not - and given the intentions are holy and righteous, no price tag is too high for such honorable and exalted motives.

Besides, they have to build and pay for the website before they can know whether it will work or not. It is, after all - Obama"care."

... don'tcha know.
 
Perhaps the Dems shouldn't have hired 'anymoron' to do their little website then.
 
Papa bull said:
Bullcrap. It's ONE website for 34 states. It's not hard to do.
Click to expand...

Actually if you bothered going on to the site.. you would see it was 57 states and territories. Just check the pop down list

Also the website works fine for me.. but granted I did not actually register on it.. oh that adds another level of complexity!
 
EdwinWillers said:
Perhaps the Dems shouldn't have hired 'anymoron' to do their little website then.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but then again the GOP does not have a stellar history in hiring private contractors either... how much was wasted on fraud in Iraq with private contractors?
 
The ACA isn't going to work. It is completely consistent, then, that the website doesn't work either. So, an "A" for consistency and wasting money, and an "F" for everything else.
 
PeteEU said:
Maybe, but then again the GOP does not have a stellar history in hiring private contractors either... how much was wasted on fraud in Iraq with private contractors?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that's a different topic entirely and regardless, it wouldn't be justification for the incompetence so prominently on display now.
 
PeteEU said:
I am guessing you are not a tech nerd.. or understand how websites and databases work. Because.. it is hard and takes time.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. I worked as an applications programmer for one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world with gross sales about the same as Wal-Mart's. I worked in that capacity with different technologies for over 16 years. I know plenty about databases, database queries, GUI interfaces, web interfaces, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not guessing that you don't know what you're talking about. I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about. So what do all these alleged various "databases" contain? As far as I can see, this application could have been programmed to a single database serving all 34 states. So what if it would have 300 million users records?

This wasn't the huge technological challenge you Obamaphiles are trying to make it out to be. And even if it was, with over 600 million dollars and three years, there's no excuse to feck it up the way it got fecked up.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a bit short of 635 million. Your figures are off by a factor of 1,000. That's not even close enough for government work.
 

If you bothered to learn what was really going on, the fed site being maintained for 34 states is the one that's totally hosed. My state is one of them and I still can't use the site. You are on a roll with popping off at the mouth about things you don't know or understand.
 

I've worked GSA contracts..... I know how much prices can get jacked for things.

An 'interactive' website doesn't cost $634m.......
 

Good morning Lady P - there were so few Edsels sold that they are, indeed, collector's items even though they were, as you say, "dogs". It will be like people collecting Obama "Yes We Can" buttons for those who survived the disaster and look back nostalgically - people collect Hindenburg memorabilia too!
 
Fenton said:
You people really stretch to mitigate what are obvious failures.
Click to expand...

"We people" are not trying to "mitigate" anything. I cannot speak for others, but I am on record on this forum, more than once or twice, as an opponent (to put it mildly) of the ACA. In my very humble opinion, it is a horrible piece of legislation.

It doesn't mean that my understanding of the technical problems occurring at the website should be exactly the same as that of some other people who may oppose Obamacare for different reasons, or no reason whatsoever.
 

I see no parralels to this ridiculous law and investments in " technology", which I happen to be a big fan of.

Technology can be quantified and qualified objectively.

And I'm telling you from experience, ( 30 years building and troubleshooting electronic controllers down to the component level here ) that there is little room for substandard designs and botched product releases in my industry as well as other industries that deal with technology in general.

Your trying to equate the Obama administrations websites cost and its failures to a industry that doesn't factor in the politics of a corrupted ideology when they design and release a product.

You're trying to make the case that the explanations from the Obama camp are sincere and truthful. There is very little coming out of the Obama camp that is truthful.

I've heard their excuses, listened to Jack Lew tell Chris Wallace that it's "expected" and we should wait for the 1.2 or 1.3 version of the Website....ridiculous.

What are they running now ? A 635 MILLION dollar Beta ?

Sorry, but I'm not a Obama supporter so I'm not suscepatable to obvious BS.
 

The absurd thing is that I would think supporters of ObamaCare should be among the most pissed off since they'd be the ones most eager to try to access it. It seems to me the that only those supporting the politics of it would be the hardcore partisan apologists for this level of failure.
 

It's not even qualified to be called a BETA release. Basic functionality has to work in BETA. Even the most basic functions of ObamaCare just plain don't work. In a professional environment you'd be called on the carpet for even submitting something this badly broken for testing.
 

Ok, thats fair and I apologize for lumping you in.

But I simply don't buy the " technical difficulties " excuse.

Not after 634 million dolalrs and 3 years. I mean am I suppose to believe this is a beta version ?

I think its down for a couple of reasons.

1) If it were functional millions of middleclass Americans would have learned by now that the cost for all those new subsidies is coming out of their pockets.

2) When it WAS up and running the amount of people that actually signed up was so dismally low, the Obama administration didn't want to admit it.

Given the battle over funding it, NOW is not the time to tell people that their premiums have just been increased under a Democrat mandate.

Next years a big election year, and I think Democrats are full on aware that this law is going to hurt allot of people.

Personally, I don't think Obama is a honest man. I think he lacks integrity, character and humility and will say or do anything to get his way.

The ends justifies the means and the Democrat party are filled with people who subscribe to that idiom.
 
Last edited:

Excellent post.

Equating this to a private products release is a bit desperate but it would appear, the Left will say anything to justify this disaster.
 
Papa bull said:
It seems to me the that only those supporting the politics of it would be the hardcore partisan apologists for this level of failure.
Click to expand...

Technical problems at a government-run mega-website is a predictable and trivial matter. If someone thinks that the damage these glitches cause is even worth discussing, comparing to the enormous harm Obamacare is going to inflict on our health care markets and economy at large, that someone probably does not understand what the real issues are.
 

Technical problems are to be expected. Complete failure to work to the point that it is virtually impossible to use is NOT to be expected. And the fact that ObamaCare itself is a disaster doesn't make the failure of this web launch any less spectacular or less worthy of discussion.
 

The discussion of technical issues is worthy of conversation if its an obvious excuse for something more sinister.

Like where did the better part of 635 million actually go ?
 
Fenton said:
Excellent post.

Equating this to a private products release is a bit desperate but it would appear, the Left will say anything to justify this disaster.
Click to expand...

There is no comparison to a private sector products release. The Edsel might have been a marketing failure but at least you could turn the key, start the engine and roll it off the lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…