$635 billion ??!!

[JoeTheEconomist]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

The govt. will also pay 24 billion for being closed and related fall-out..

The 24 billion is not what the government will pay. It is a theoretical figure about lost economic activity, measuring things like the value of a park not cleaned for 2 weeks.

 

[Dickieboy]

According to that article, it cost less that $100 million to build the FFE and Healthcare.gov

As I said earlier, the higher #'s are the amount paid to the company for ALL of the services it rendered to the govt which includes a lot of non-FFE work.

Yeah, well...it still doesn't F'N work!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

Remind me.... was that $635M...or was it $635B?

Funny thing was, you never did dispute the actual site costs I cited.

The figure was changed to "more than $500 million". The fact that you seem to believe that $635M is OK says that you have a bigger problem with numbers than the guy who was asking the question.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Yeah, well...it still doesn't F'N work!

Sangha is saying that the article says that it cost less than $100 million (still an absurd figure), but the article says it was $500 million. We are waiting to see what part of the article he read...

 

[Dickieboy]

Sangha is saying that the article says that it cost less than $100 million (still an absurd figure), but the article says it was $500 million. We are waiting to see what part of the article he read...

I'm sure he was referencing this portion:

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.

Obamacare's broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

The figure was changed to "more than $500 million". The fact that you seem to believe that $635M is OK says that you have a bigger problem with numbers than the guy who was asking the question.

Uh....click on the embedded link, Mr. "economist", it wasn't me who thought it was $635B or $635M, I found what the contractors were paid for the website creation. You guys are still off by multiple orders of magnitude (that is a math term by the way, look it up).

 

[sangha]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

I have designed these types of systems, and these are not examples of complicated algorthims. Accessing dynamic databases has been a line of code for more than a decade probably two. Again, I have only gotten to the point where you create the application, which I admit that I gave up on because of the wait. This should be a straight forward system even with income verification and the like.

Though not for two decades, that is true. It only takes a few lines of code to query a SQL database

However, it's only true if the database you're trying to access has an interface

Otherwise, you have to create an interface, or buy one if one is available.

And since we're talking about 36 states, where each states database might be different, it means the programmer has to understand the structure of 36 different databases before he can write the queries.

Which line of that article...

This

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.

Read more: Obamacare's broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

 

[sangha]

Sangha is saying that the article says that it cost less than $100 million (still an absurd figure), but the article says it was $500 million. We are waiting to see what part of the article he read...

$100 million divided by 36 states comes to less than $3 million per state - which sounds extremely low to me.

 

[Dittohead not!]

$100 million divided by 36 states comes to less than $3 million per state - which sounds extremely low to me.

So, now we've gone from 635 billion to 3 million. Sounds like some effective cost cutting.

 

[iguanaman]

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

Yet we could afford $24 Billion for a Teaparty stunt. I'de say that $650 million is a bargain compared to that.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

The 24 billion is not what the government will pay. It is a theoretical figure about lost economic activity, measuring things like the value of a park not cleaned for 2 weeks.

The lost economic activity from the shutdown will cost all Americans AND the Govt. that $24 Billion. We all lose.

 

[Fenton]

I find it funny that you're the one who posted the "ZOMG $650 BILLIONZ!!1" thread, yet it's somehow "the left" that's in the
wrong here.

I also posted that it HAD TO BE A MISTAKE.

Cherry picking and changing what I said are dishonest tactics in a debate.

 

[Fenton]

The lost economic activity from the
shutdown will cost all Americans AND the Govt. that $24 Billion. We all lose.

NOW you people care about the Government wasting money ?

Ironic that you would bring that up on a thread about Obama's website

 

[sangha]

NOW you people care about the Government wasting money ?

Ironic that you would bring that up on a thread about Obama's website

So now you don't care about the govt wasting money

Ironic that you would ignore that on a thread about the govt wasting money

 

[Rainman05]

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

13mil per state? THose are the most expensive websites ever made by man.
but no, I'm wrong. There is an instance where a website cost more than 13mil.
Most Expensive Website in The World | Best SharePoint Design Examples

18 mil. The lucky owner? The US govt.
The reason to make that website?

. According to the Obama administration, the site was developed to provide the highest level of transparency and accountability to the American people. Recovery.gov “2.0″ promises to give U.S. taxpayers more information about where their money is going. Well, one thing for sure, some of this money went to finance the most expensive website in the world!

There is no reason why a website should ever cost over 100k. Even if you put in place the best security ever. So the obamacare sites cost 130x more each.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I'm sure he was referencing this portion:


Obamacare's broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends

It can't be. It clearly says : roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges. The 100 M figure deals with a single contractor.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

The lost economic activity from the shutdown will cost all Americans AND the Govt. that $24 Billion. We all lose.

The $24 billion is an economic value lost, not a financial figure. You can quote but please don't expect me to repect the information. You might as well say it is $50 billion. The cost of the website on the other hand is an actual cash outlay which is confirmed by GAO.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

Though not for two decades, that is true. It only takes a few lines of code to query a SQL database

However, it's only true if the database you're trying to access has an interface

Otherwise, you have to create an interface, or buy one if one is available.

And since we're talking about 36 states, where each states database might be different, it means the programmer has to understand the structure of 36 different databases before he can write the queries.





This

Your quote deals with a single provider of contracting services. The article clearly says that "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".

 

[sangha]

It can't be. It clearly says : roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges. The 100 M figure deals with a single contractor.

Your quote deals with a single provider of contracting services. The article clearly says that "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".

"technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges" does not mean "costs of developing website"

 

[Fenton]

So now you don't care about the govt wasting
money

Ironic that you would ignore that on a thread about the govt wasting money

LOL !!!

Poverty under Obama has shot up 16% and thats with almost 7 Trillion in new structural debt......

Hey I thought you folks said Govt spending increases "economic activity" ?...

Anyway, since the Libs have taken the Presidency and the Senate majority there is not much those on the right can do but to watch you guys destroy the economy.

Its bitter sweet for us because we do love our Country and its sad to watch it being basically robbed by a bunch of corrupt left wing politicians.

BUT reading the wide variety of excuses that include the wholesale blame of a President that hasn't been in office for 5 years is pretry amusing.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

$100 million divided by 36 states comes to less than $3 million per state - which sounds extremely low to me.

I happen to have some design experience in the healthcare industry. We consolidated patient data across insurers to tell clients exactly what they spent their money on. I have no idea how much the system cost to build, but it was a dynamically allocated system which pulled data from insurer files and compiled them into a report. To add a new client (ie a state) took about 2 weeks. If they had a new insurer, the data feed took somne analysis, but the coding took about 2 extra weeks. That was 1991,and the product was SAS.

Here you have nothing that complicated. There we had to merge data elements on a synthetic key. We had to match-up health events with that key from date ranges. Here you are passing name and address information.

 

[sangha]

I happen to have some design experience in the healthcare industry. We consolidated patient data across insurers to tell clients exactly what they spent their money on. I have no idea how much the system cost to build, but it was a dynamically allocated system which pulled data from insurer files and compiled them into a report. To add a new client (ie a state) took about 2 weeks. If they had a new insurer, the data feed took somne analysis, but the coding took about 2 extra weeks. That was 1991,and the product was SAS.

Here you have nothing that complicated. There we had to merge data elements on a synthetic key. We had to match-up health events with that key from date ranges. Here you are passing name and address information.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. It is a well known fact that many sections of the govt are running on ancient technology.

Insurers tend to have fairly modern technology. Imagine how much harder it would have been if your system had to access data from the DMV's of 50 states.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

"technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges" does not mean "costs of developing website"

The man at Digital Trends seems to be pretty reasonable, and from his article you can tell he would like to be wrong. I have put this challenge to any number of people who have your position. Write the counter-piece. It should be easy to write - my guess is that guy would publish your material.

I took some material from his article. I took some from the GAO report to write my article. The number 100 million is so outlandish that I have to imagine that it was right-wing propaganda. Take time to consider this, I have just to find any article on the web that counter-balances his claims. His numbers are pretty conservative considering that CMS is asking for a billion dollars related to the roll-out of the HealthCare.Gov exchange.

I can tell you that he won't publish anything that suggests this website should cost $100 million dollars - mind you it isn't even working yet.

 

[sangha]

The man at Digital Trends seems to be pretty reasonable, and from his article you can tell he would like to be wrong. I have put this challenge to any number of people who have your position. Write the counter-piece. It should be easy to write - my guess is that guy would publish your material.

I took some material from his article. I took some from the GAO report to write my article. The number 100 million is so outlandish that I have to imagine that it was right-wing propaganda. Take time to consider this, I have just to find any article on the web that counter-balances his claims. His numbers are pretty conservative considering that CMS is asking for a billion dollars related to the roll-out of the HealthCare.Gov exchange.

I can tell you that he won't publish anything that suggests this website should cost $100 million dollars - mind you it isn't even working yet.

My income doesn't depend on making attention getting claims based on an absence of information so I'm not going to go to the trouble of writing an article about. However, I have posted several explanations for why his calculation is inaccurate (ie the figures he uses may include a variety of expenses that are not directly related to the development of the web software) and for why the development of the website may not be as simple a task as some have described it be (ie. there may be a need to access databases that do not support such access, numerous databases in various formats, etc)

 

[Fenton]

Re: The Govt Paid What For The ACA Website..... You are #$#$) Kidding Me.

I think if you got an audit that you would find that it was stimulus for the hotel and air industries. But that really does not explain the level of bloat here. My guess is that you have multiple designs going where a change of direction causes the project to return to ground zero.

Here is a better prospective - the most expensive game every developed in the private sector was Grand Theft Auto at 265 million.

And upon it's release it functioned.