7 ms·

If I was running a state agency and the federal government told me I could just use their system instead of spending my own money I would definitely take on the

If I was running a state agency and the federal government told me I could just use their system instead of spending my own money I would definitely take on the federal government instead of paying for it. Sometimes the whole "states are their own thing" here in the US goes way too far.

fastball 3y ago
Really depends on if the federal-level system is better or not than what you have, no? Sometimes the stars align and the federal government builds a system that is actually nice to use. But sometimes the system is a steaming pile of shit.
- tilne 3y ago
  It’s a public-facing IT system owned by some government agency in the United States. “Sometimes” is an understatement. (Though maybe this is a failure on my part to update my priors. I’ve noticed that recently some of the systems that led me to form this opinion in the past have become very functional, if not exactly pleasant to use.)
- a_subsystem 3y ago
  What are some that are not steaming piles?
  - knowaveragejoe 3y ago
    There has been a massive effort to improve various federal websites(of which I believe there are hundreds of thousands). These folks have done some really impressive work on overhauling a lot of said systems: https://www.usds.gov/ https://www.usds.gov/
    - mlinhares 3y ago
      I must say I am SOMEWHAT happy with USCIS and IRS, which are the two ones I deal with the most, they actually resemble modern systems and not something made in the 90s.
  - ericbarrett 3y ago
    weather.gov
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Sometimes the stars align and the federal government builds a system that is actually nice to use. > But sometimes the system is a steaming pile of shit. I'm pretty sure I've seen the same outcomes in private business too. Just look at the history of Windows, as one of very many examples.
- gumby 3y ago
  Your statement work if you take "federal" out. It is true in all domains.
ceejayoz 3y ago
In many cases, it was ideological, not fiscal. States opting not to open their own exchange (grey): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#/media/File:ACA_health_insurance_exchanges_by_state.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#/media/File:ACA... States opting not to expand Medicaid (blue): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Medicaid_expansion_map_of_US._Affordable_Care_Act.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Medicaid... (The second chart had more blue at the time; opt-outs have gone from 26 down to 10 now.)
- mlinhares 3y ago
  Such a stupid ideological take from these places, if they really wanted to tank the whole thing they should have built their own exchanges and make them suck just like some states (like Florida) make the unemployment system so insanely complicated many just don't even try to apply for it. I'm glad they're not smart enough to do that though and people were able to get healthcare through the federal exchange. I hope these bigots continue to be evil and dumb, if they get smart then we're really in for a bad time.
  - toolz 3y ago
    maybe if the centralized government gets smart we'll actually have a good time...as it stands our healthcare in the US is abysmal and neither political leaning has any right in name calling - both ideologies have failed miserably.
    - kaibee 3y ago
      > both ideologies have failed miserably. Y'know the ACA originally had a public option in the bill. Guess which side killed that? Why did we even need an ACA-with-private-insurance-companies anyway? The ACA was initially copy of what was implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. It's frustrating that Democrats had to compromise just to end up with a system that only somewhat better than what it replaced, and then get blamed for the result.
      - 3y ago
blastro 3y ago
More states are moving towards the state based model as time goes on
- gumby 3y ago
  This application is one that makes sense to run locally with the fed's implementation as a backstop and baseline (that rases the standard of minimally acceptable) -- and in this case bootstrap as well. California has a good system that is roughly standalone while NY has one (also good) that is integrated into other NY programs. Both fan out into a network of actual humans (mix of private and public sector) that help make it work for people who for whatever reason can't use the online service. It's hard for the feds to do something like that at scale -- for example to have it integrate into other lcal programs.
bee_rider 3y ago
The state is lower-level and, as a result, more accountable to the people. It ought to have more incentive to not screw this sort of thing up. At least, I had much more faith in my state government (MA) to not half-ass this kind of thing.
- galago 3y ago
  The ACA was largely based on the Massachusetts healthcare plan, so they had already successfully implemented much of this.
_ea1k 3y ago
This often depends on how the program is funded. The state may be able to get money to run the system and if they are ok with becoming dependent on that, they might take it. See also, NEVI, where the government is spending billions of dollars to build chargers via a complicated system involving state managed programs. It was passed almost two years ago and hasn't deployed a single site.
liveoneggs 3y ago
Would you also take federal money to expand medicaid coverage to the poor citizens of your state? If so you might not be qualified to be a republican governor. Wouldn't it be much better to hire your friends as IT consultants, make broken systems as confusing as possible, and continuously change the rules, and then starve the half-assed system of funding in an attempt to keep people from signing up for coverage at all? What makes this plan doubly republican-friendly is that all players are your donors and most victims are minorities.
- fragmede 3y ago
  [flagged]
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    … this is just whataboutism. I can disagree with Republican cronyism and the endless "let some private contractor do it poorly" when the Federal government could just do it directly, and poorly, but with less indirection. … I can also disagree with blue state's NIMBYism, "I got mine and screw you" attitudes towards housing, and work to promote things like better zoning laws, fairer tax legislation, better public transit, etc. at the same time. (Note: the parent edited the above comment to add the CNN article. At the time I replied, it was only the NYT link.)
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      It is not whataboutism. It is pointing out outcomes in the other approaches may not be as good sounding as they are. You know how NIMBYism is done in California? It is usually along the lines of "We can't let developers profit!!" and "They are going to build luxury homes and not affordable homes!!".
      - 3y ago
dilyevsky 3y ago
> If I was running a state agency and the federal government told me I could just use their system instead of spending my own money I would definitely take on the federal government instead of paying for it. That’s because you completely misunderstand how government bureaucrats think. You’re not paying for it - the taxpayers do

fastball 3y ago

Really depends on if the federal-level system is better or not than what you have, no? Sometimes the stars align and the federal government builds a system that is actually nice to use. But sometimes the system is a steaming pile of shit.

tilne 3y ago
It’s a public-facing IT system owned by some government agency in the United States. “Sometimes” is an understatement. (Though maybe this is a failure on my part to update my priors. I’ve noticed that recently some of the systems that led me to form this opinion in the past have become very functional, if not exactly pleasant to use.)
a_subsystem 3y ago
What are some that are not steaming piles?
- knowaveragejoe 3y ago
  There has been a massive effort to improve various federal websites(of which I believe there are hundreds of thousands). These folks have done some really impressive work on overhauling a lot of said systems: https://www.usds.gov/ https://www.usds.gov/
  - mlinhares 3y ago
    I must say I am SOMEWHAT happy with USCIS and IRS, which are the two ones I deal with the most, they actually resemble modern systems and not something made in the 90s.
- ericbarrett 3y ago
  weather.gov
wolverine876 3y ago
> Sometimes the stars align and the federal government builds a system that is actually nice to use. > But sometimes the system is a steaming pile of shit. I'm pretty sure I've seen the same outcomes in private business too. Just look at the history of Windows, as one of very many examples.
gumby 3y ago
Your statement work if you take "federal" out. It is true in all domains.

ceejayoz 3y ago

In many cases, it was ideological, not fiscal. States opting not to open their own exchange (grey): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#/media/File:ACA_health_insurance_exchanges_by_state.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthCare.gov#/media/File:ACA... States opting not to expand Medicaid (blue): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Medicaid_expansion_map_of_US._Affordable_Care_Act.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Medicaid... (The second chart had more blue at the time; opt-outs have gone from 26 down to 10 now.)

mlinhares 3y ago
Such a stupid ideological take from these places, if they really wanted to tank the whole thing they should have built their own exchanges and make them suck just like some states (like Florida) make the unemployment system so insanely complicated many just don't even try to apply for it. I'm glad they're not smart enough to do that though and people were able to get healthcare through the federal exchange. I hope these bigots continue to be evil and dumb, if they get smart then we're really in for a bad time.
- toolz 3y ago
  maybe if the centralized government gets smart we'll actually have a good time...as it stands our healthcare in the US is abysmal and neither political leaning has any right in name calling - both ideologies have failed miserably.
  - kaibee 3y ago
    > both ideologies have failed miserably. Y'know the ACA originally had a public option in the bill. Guess which side killed that? Why did we even need an ACA-with-private-insurance-companies anyway? The ACA was initially copy of what was implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. It's frustrating that Democrats had to compromise just to end up with a system that only somewhat better than what it replaced, and then get blamed for the result.
    - 3y ago

blastro 3y ago

More states are moving towards the state based model as time goes on

gumby 3y ago
This application is one that makes sense to run locally with the fed's implementation as a backstop and baseline (that rases the standard of minimally acceptable) -- and in this case bootstrap as well. California has a good system that is roughly standalone while NY has one (also good) that is integrated into other NY programs. Both fan out into a network of actual humans (mix of private and public sector) that help make it work for people who for whatever reason can't use the online service. It's hard for the feds to do something like that at scale -- for example to have it integrate into other lcal programs.

bee_rider 3y ago

The state is lower-level and, as a result, more accountable to the people. It ought to have more incentive to not screw this sort of thing up. At least, I had much more faith in my state government (MA) to not half-ass this kind of thing.

galago 3y ago
The ACA was largely based on the Massachusetts healthcare plan, so they had already successfully implemented much of this.

_ea1k 3y ago

This often depends on how the program is funded. The state may be able to get money to run the system and if they are ok with becoming dependent on that, they might take it. See also, NEVI, where the government is spending billions of dollars to build chargers via a complicated system involving state managed programs. It was passed almost two years ago and hasn't deployed a single site.

liveoneggs 3y ago

Would you also take federal money to expand medicaid coverage to the poor citizens of your state? If so you might not be qualified to be a republican governor. Wouldn't it be much better to hire your friends as IT consultants, make broken systems as confusing as possible, and continuously change the rules, and then starve the half-assed system of funding in an attempt to keep people from signing up for coverage at all? What makes this plan doubly republican-friendly is that all players are your donors and most victims are minorities.

fragmede 3y ago
[flagged]
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
[flagged]
- deathanatos 3y ago
  … this is just whataboutism. I can disagree with Republican cronyism and the endless "let some private contractor do it poorly" when the Federal government could just do it directly, and poorly, but with less indirection. … I can also disagree with blue state's NIMBYism, "I got mine and screw you" attitudes towards housing, and work to promote things like better zoning laws, fairer tax legislation, better public transit, etc. at the same time. (Note: the parent edited the above comment to add the CNN article. At the time I replied, it was only the NYT link.)
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    It is not whataboutism. It is pointing out outcomes in the other approaches may not be as good sounding as they are. You know how NIMBYism is done in California? It is usually along the lines of "We can't let developers profit!!" and "They are going to build luxury homes and not affordable homes!!".
    - 3y ago

dilyevsky 3y ago

> If I was running a state agency and the federal government told me I could just use their system instead of spending my own money I would definitely take on the federal government instead of paying for it. That’s because you completely misunderstand how government bureaucrats think. You’re not paying for it - the taxpayers do