2 ms·

That's incorrect. The entire system, far beyond just the website included those costs. The company that actually built the site got it for a $93.7 million con

That's incorrect. The entire system, far beyond just the website included those costs. The company that actually built the site got it for a $93.7 million contract. The HALF A BILLION DOLLARS you are remarking also include exchanges facilitated by the government for individual states. Finally, that $93.7 million was over 3 years, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Now, you can armchair things all you want, but the technical elements of building the healthcare.gov website did not cost HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!1!

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hga 13y ago
You make some good points, so how about the point that's really getting to me? THREE AND A HALF YEARS That is, March 23, 2010 to October 1, 2013, 2 days after the Congress was finished with it. The Administration's CTO should have been bird dogging this from about then, along with the HHS specialists who we know have a clue (CMS.gov and Medicare.gov). They've had plenty of time to get the basic signup system working ... that should have been undergoing stress testing a long time ago, not failing on people as attested to in this discussion. We often talk about the triad of time, money and quality. They've had plenty of time, and obviously quality was punted. Is anyone claiming they didn't have enough money to the point it could have caused this level of failure?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Okay, so whoever I replied to deleted their message. They are the ones who wrote "HALF A BILLION DOLLARS." Anyways... > THREE AND A HALF YEARS Seriously... I just did it to highlight the fact that's it stupid. Please tell me you're only doing it for the same reason? =) But anyways, no, the site didn't take three and a half years to make, as is clear by anyone taking a few minutes to do a bit of research. Anyways, getting to the heart of the matter: > Is anyone claiming they didn't have enough money to the point it could have caused this level of failure? I don't know and I don't care. I honestly think that question is irrelevant. Who cares if anyone is asking that?
  - hga 13y ago
    Doing the emphasis that way is stupid in Hacker News context, I just did it to mirror the now deleted message. Although I do think it deserves really serious emphasis, not because "the site didn't take three and a half years to make" but because they had three and a half years to make the whole system. And the very simplest part of it, the up front registration, is reliably being reported to frequently fail hard. If this rather small and uncomplicated part of the system is badly screwed up, the horrors lurking below.... As for the money, I care because I'm a student of success and failure, ever since a year after I got heavy exposure to a great Version 6 UNIX(TM) system I then learned about Multics, and wondered why the latter failed (in shore, GE sold their computer business to Honeywell). So I listed the three things that are said to be in tension, "you can have only two" is a common saying, and pointing out that this system did not seem to fail due to two of them, it had lots of time (one reason to sole source it), and quality was sacrificed, so what about the third, did it have enough money? If it had sufficient money then we've got to look deeper.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hga 13y ago

You make some good points, so how about the point that's really getting to me? THREE AND A HALF YEARS That is, March 23, 2010 to October 1, 2013, 2 days after the Congress was finished with it. The Administration's CTO should have been bird dogging this from about then, along with the HHS specialists who we know have a clue (CMS.gov and Medicare.gov). They've had plenty of time to get the basic signup system working ... that should have been undergoing stress testing a long time ago, not failing on people as attested to in this discussion. We often talk about the triad of time, money and quality. They've had plenty of time, and obviously quality was punted. Is anyone claiming they didn't have enough money to the point it could have caused this level of failure?

jasonlotito 13y ago
Okay, so whoever I replied to deleted their message. They are the ones who wrote "HALF A BILLION DOLLARS." Anyways... > THREE AND A HALF YEARS Seriously... I just did it to highlight the fact that's it stupid. Please tell me you're only doing it for the same reason? =) But anyways, no, the site didn't take three and a half years to make, as is clear by anyone taking a few minutes to do a bit of research. Anyways, getting to the heart of the matter: > Is anyone claiming they didn't have enough money to the point it could have caused this level of failure? I don't know and I don't care. I honestly think that question is irrelevant. Who cares if anyone is asking that?
- hga 13y ago
  Doing the emphasis that way is stupid in Hacker News context, I just did it to mirror the now deleted message. Although I do think it deserves really serious emphasis, not because "the site didn't take three and a half years to make" but because they had three and a half years to make the whole system. And the very simplest part of it, the up front registration, is reliably being reported to frequently fail hard. If this rather small and uncomplicated part of the system is badly screwed up, the horrors lurking below.... As for the money, I care because I'm a student of success and failure, ever since a year after I got heavy exposure to a great Version 6 UNIX(TM) system I then learned about Multics, and wondered why the latter failed (in shore, GE sold their computer business to Honeywell). So I listed the three things that are said to be in tension, "you can have only two" is a common saying, and pointing out that this system did not seem to fail due to two of them, it had lots of time (one reason to sole source it), and quality was sacrificed, so what about the third, did it have enough money? If it had sufficient money then we've got to look deeper.