5 ms·

Remember that healthcare.gov was created by two different groups. The front-end people did an okay job. The back-end people is the Canadian company that has m

by ck2 13y ago

Remember that healthcare.gov was created by two different groups. The front-end people did an okay job. The back-end people is the Canadian company that has messed up.

pluc 13y ago
The Canadian company is called CGI.
- carlosdp 13y ago
  Funny enough, I have experience working with them and I knew they had no clue what they were doing. How did the government not figure it out? -__- It's the kind of company that is years behind on programming practices and over-charges in the millions because their clients never have any clue of the difference between good/bad software. They tend to target markets that have almost no real software servicing it so there is nothing to compare it to (eg. commercial insurance).
  - frogpelt 13y ago
    How did the government not figure it out? This has been a theme. Unfortunately, I expect it to continue.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > How did the government not figure it out? Government procurement is an incredibly coreographed ritual with a minefield of rules and regulations designed to make the process as human-proof as possible. Unless there was conclusive evidence about CGI's lack of clues, the process would continue with them.
paulwithap 13y ago
Sounds like the Canadians are launching a subtle campaign of cyber warfare against us. It's the only explanation.
paulwithap 13y ago
Sounds like the Canadians are launching a subtle campaign of cyber warfare against us. It's the only explanation.
bhauer 13y ago
I've not paid much attention to this, but your comment just hit me right in the face. We spent $650M on this thing—and the three-orders-of-magnitude-too-high price can only be explained by a nonsensical favoritism for firms that can navigate our minefield of regulations and the selection process... and we ended up selecting a Canadian firm? I am not especially patriotic, though I also don't really think patriotism is a bad thing. Nevertheless, learning that the contract was awarded to a Canadian firm makes me reel. I mean no slight to Canadians, but if we are going to overspend by 100x, let's at least send the money to our cronies in the United States! Just for appearances.
- flavor8 13y ago
  > We spent $650M on this thing No, that's right wing spin. We spent $94M on this thing. Still absurd, but don't be misled by the spin campaign. Also your math is off. A $10M price tag wouldn't be totally ridiculous. Consider the cost of a team of 50, including QA, design, product guys, engineers, management, lawyers, analysts, data entry, etc for a year. Add 30% to cover risk. So, it's somewhere in the 10x too expensive region.
  - sigzero 13y ago
    No it's not "right wing spin". The bigger number is total awards to CGI as a company and the $94M is what they got for doing their part of the healthcare system. People are just confusing the two.
    - flavor8 13y ago
      It absolutely is right wing spin. Yes, the bigger number is the total awards to CGI. But the story being pushed by the right wing is "we spent $650M for a website that doesn't work", which has confused a lot of people. $94M for a website is absurd, and reeks of incompetence and bureaucracy. $650M for a website would be downright fraudulent. It's not a coincidence that it's the latter number that's being talked about.
      - 13y ago
coldcode 13y ago
The front end was pretty decent using Jekyll and other open source items and I think that was what was all that was hosted in github. The back end was never public nor was it intended to be I think. The back end is the crappy thing. But people keep confusing the two even on HN. The whole thing is so politicized I'm not surprised that truth and reality are the first to go. I wish HN could be the font of reason in a sea of moronity.

by ck2 13y ago

Remember that healthcare.gov was created by two different groups. The front-end people did an okay job. The back-end people is the Canadian company that has messed up.

pluc 13y ago

The Canadian company is called CGI.

carlosdp 13y ago
Funny enough, I have experience working with them and I knew they had no clue what they were doing. How did the government not figure it out? -__- It's the kind of company that is years behind on programming practices and over-charges in the millions because their clients never have any clue of the difference between good/bad software. They tend to target markets that have almost no real software servicing it so there is nothing to compare it to (eg. commercial insurance).
- frogpelt 13y ago
  How did the government not figure it out? This has been a theme. Unfortunately, I expect it to continue.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > How did the government not figure it out? Government procurement is an incredibly coreographed ritual with a minefield of rules and regulations designed to make the process as human-proof as possible. Unless there was conclusive evidence about CGI's lack of clues, the process would continue with them.

paulwithap 13y ago

Sounds like the Canadians are launching a subtle campaign of cyber warfare against us. It's the only explanation.

paulwithap 13y ago

Sounds like the Canadians are launching a subtle campaign of cyber warfare against us. It's the only explanation.

bhauer 13y ago

I've not paid much attention to this, but your comment just hit me right in the face. We spent $650M on this thing—and the three-orders-of-magnitude-too-high price can only be explained by a nonsensical favoritism for firms that can navigate our minefield of regulations and the selection process... and we ended up selecting a Canadian firm? I am not especially patriotic, though I also don't really think patriotism is a bad thing. Nevertheless, learning that the contract was awarded to a Canadian firm makes me reel. I mean no slight to Canadians, but if we are going to overspend by 100x, let's at least send the money to our cronies in the United States! Just for appearances.

flavor8 13y ago
> We spent $650M on this thing No, that's right wing spin. We spent $94M on this thing. Still absurd, but don't be misled by the spin campaign. Also your math is off. A $10M price tag wouldn't be totally ridiculous. Consider the cost of a team of 50, including QA, design, product guys, engineers, management, lawyers, analysts, data entry, etc for a year. Add 30% to cover risk. So, it's somewhere in the 10x too expensive region.
- sigzero 13y ago
  No it's not "right wing spin". The bigger number is total awards to CGI as a company and the $94M is what they got for doing their part of the healthcare system. People are just confusing the two.
  - flavor8 13y ago
    It absolutely is right wing spin. Yes, the bigger number is the total awards to CGI. But the story being pushed by the right wing is "we spent $650M for a website that doesn't work", which has confused a lot of people. $94M for a website is absurd, and reeks of incompetence and bureaucracy. $650M for a website would be downright fraudulent. It's not a coincidence that it's the latter number that's being talked about.
    - 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago

The front end was pretty decent using Jekyll and other open source items and I think that was what was all that was hosted in github. The back end was never public nor was it intended to be I think. The back end is the crappy thing. But people keep confusing the two even on HN. The whole thing is so politicized I'm not surprised that truth and reality are the first to go. I wish HN could be the font of reason in a sea of moronity.