5 ms·

$293M.... I'm just consistently angry over how much this cost. There are so many moving pieces, and while I understand that, $293M for one piece. Half a billio

by nathas 13y ago

$293M.... I'm just consistently angry over how much this cost. There are so many moving pieces, and while I understand that, $293M for one piece. Half a billion for a website. Christ.

segmondy 13y ago
Sorry, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you call it, "a website" Or is google just a website? Is yahoo.com just a website? Did you look at the infograph? How much do you think it will take to talk to 5 agencies and 300 insurance providers that have 4500+ health plans, and get them to agree/adhere, understand their EXISTING system and build a site? I'm not justifying the expense, but let's not trivialize the task at hand and call it just a website.
- ddoolin 13y ago
  Presumably the interfacing with insurance providers is done on the backend (not included in the $295M). It's possible that QSSI took all the content from the providers and standardized it for display in the front, near trivializing what you mention. Just a hunch, and not saying it isn't complex, just not $295M complex.
dm2 13y ago
Seriously, that number is staggering. CGI Federal literally ripped off the government, screwed the American people badly, and "stole" hundreds of millions. They should never be allowed to work on another project again and should be required to refund the government. The project managers should be fired and publicly humiliated. I STILL cannot even login to the website. The site has said "The system is down at the moment." for the past two weeks. The only reasonable explanation that I can imagine is sabotage by someone who didn't want Obamacare to succeed, the same thing that happened in Congress recently.
- joering2 13y ago
  > The only reasonable explanation I can imagine is sabotage by someone who didn't want Obamacare to succeed It depends how you define "success". While most people assume success as a well-oiled healthcare machine that is affordable and cares about you then yes, they have failed. However, if you have done your homework on Obama and Democratic party (in biggest part), you will understand that they already greatly succeed - that is they shoved a huge tax (that over 10 years grow to 10% of your income, starting with 1% next year) in american's throat. While congress pass the law and Supreme Court upheld it, rest is just a statistic noise. Who care congress has 11% approval? Who care Obama has vanishing approval rate and his administration cannot catch up with any "phoney" scandals they getting into every month it seems? Its all irrelevant. After all, they did not hire 16,000 new physicians; they hired 16,000 new IRS workers that will be responsible for collecting what you lawfully owe. That's all! Its all about the taxes; its never been about you or your health. The only way Obama ACA would be more successful is that every single american throw a towel and say "screw it, I will pay the fine, this is too complicated!". That would be the best scenario for the Obama and the gov. > the same thing that happened in Congress recently. I think you mean the shutdown. It was so pathethic that it is funny. Imagine situation when you drive to work every day. And then every weekend you go out and drink and drive. The cop pulled you over twice but he let you go with a warning. You keep drinking and driving. Then one day he pulled you over, boom! DUI, license revoked. Then you go to your friends and family and you complain that because of this cop now you cannot do your work, because you drove to the office every day. If you agree with this reasoning then yes Reps were responsible for shutting down the Gov and not letting Congress do their work.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  I think you misunderstand what goal government contractors, and the government officials that manage their contracts, are working toward. It's not a full-featured, working product. It's money. The contractors want more contract money. The government workers want visibility and job security. These things "work" in the contracting system by having contractors that play the same game the government workers play: which is needlessly and pointlessly extending contracts, mainly by fucking things up while fulfilling the technical letter of the contract.
31reasons 13y ago
If you hire 10 web developers fulltime for 2 years, it would come down to ~$7000 hourly rate per developer.
- pan69 13y ago
  10 web developers couldn't even remotely come close to building/implementing a system like this. This is not a web development project but an enterprise integration project. What you see as "the website" is just the tip of the ice berg. It's like saying that a car is just a steering wheel and four wheels because that's all you "see" but you don't know what's going on "under the hood". However, I do agree that the costs for this are extravagant and there are certainly signs of "government milking" visible here.
  - 31reasons 13y ago
    Seriously ? Give me specifics where exactly do you think $300 million go? Look at the slides its not for the complete system but the "front end" of it. Most of the software they use is Open Source, Cloud services/hardware is dirt cheap and Software Developer salaries are not that high.
showerst 13y ago
Not that it becomes a reasonable number, but according to the Post[1], it's more like 175 million. So 20% of a billion dollars... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/...
spoiledtechie 13y ago
Thats just the contract cost.... Numbers are estimated near $340M and the GAO just came out with current costs sitting at $320M but harder liners are coming out with numbers near $620M. By the time its done and fixed, its estimated at $1B. Put that in your head...
us0r 13y ago
thats just the federal part. CA, HI, WA, KY, and many other states are hundreds of millions (billions) more.

by nathas 13y ago

$293M.... I'm just consistently angry over how much this cost. There are so many moving pieces, and while I understand that, $293M for one piece. Half a billion for a website. Christ.

segmondy 13y ago

Sorry, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you call it, "a website" Or is google just a website? Is yahoo.com just a website? Did you look at the infograph? How much do you think it will take to talk to 5 agencies and 300 insurance providers that have 4500+ health plans, and get them to agree/adhere, understand their EXISTING system and build a site? I'm not justifying the expense, but let's not trivialize the task at hand and call it just a website.

ddoolin 13y ago
Presumably the interfacing with insurance providers is done on the backend (not included in the $295M). It's possible that QSSI took all the content from the providers and standardized it for display in the front, near trivializing what you mention. Just a hunch, and not saying it isn't complex, just not $295M complex.

dm2 13y ago

Seriously, that number is staggering. CGI Federal literally ripped off the government, screwed the American people badly, and "stole" hundreds of millions. They should never be allowed to work on another project again and should be required to refund the government. The project managers should be fired and publicly humiliated. I STILL cannot even login to the website. The site has said "The system is down at the moment." for the past two weeks. The only reasonable explanation that I can imagine is sabotage by someone who didn't want Obamacare to succeed, the same thing that happened in Congress recently.

joering2 13y ago
> The only reasonable explanation I can imagine is sabotage by someone who didn't want Obamacare to succeed It depends how you define "success". While most people assume success as a well-oiled healthcare machine that is affordable and cares about you then yes, they have failed. However, if you have done your homework on Obama and Democratic party (in biggest part), you will understand that they already greatly succeed - that is they shoved a huge tax (that over 10 years grow to 10% of your income, starting with 1% next year) in american's throat. While congress pass the law and Supreme Court upheld it, rest is just a statistic noise. Who care congress has 11% approval? Who care Obama has vanishing approval rate and his administration cannot catch up with any "phoney" scandals they getting into every month it seems? Its all irrelevant. After all, they did not hire 16,000 new physicians; they hired 16,000 new IRS workers that will be responsible for collecting what you lawfully owe. That's all! Its all about the taxes; its never been about you or your health. The only way Obama ACA would be more successful is that every single american throw a towel and say "screw it, I will pay the fine, this is too complicated!". That would be the best scenario for the Obama and the gov. > the same thing that happened in Congress recently. I think you mean the shutdown. It was so pathethic that it is funny. Imagine situation when you drive to work every day. And then every weekend you go out and drink and drive. The cop pulled you over twice but he let you go with a warning. You keep drinking and driving. Then one day he pulled you over, boom! DUI, license revoked. Then you go to your friends and family and you complain that because of this cop now you cannot do your work, because you drove to the office every day. If you agree with this reasoning then yes Reps were responsible for shutting down the Gov and not letting Congress do their work.
Iftheshoefits 13y ago
I think you misunderstand what goal government contractors, and the government officials that manage their contracts, are working toward. It's not a full-featured, working product. It's money. The contractors want more contract money. The government workers want visibility and job security. These things "work" in the contracting system by having contractors that play the same game the government workers play: which is needlessly and pointlessly extending contracts, mainly by fucking things up while fulfilling the technical letter of the contract.

31reasons 13y ago

If you hire 10 web developers fulltime for 2 years, it would come down to ~$7000 hourly rate per developer.

pan69 13y ago
10 web developers couldn't even remotely come close to building/implementing a system like this. This is not a web development project but an enterprise integration project. What you see as "the website" is just the tip of the ice berg. It's like saying that a car is just a steering wheel and four wheels because that's all you "see" but you don't know what's going on "under the hood". However, I do agree that the costs for this are extravagant and there are certainly signs of "government milking" visible here.
- 31reasons 13y ago
  Seriously ? Give me specifics where exactly do you think $300 million go? Look at the slides its not for the complete system but the "front end" of it. Most of the software they use is Open Source, Cloud services/hardware is dirt cheap and Software Developer salaries are not that high.

showerst 13y ago

Not that it becomes a reasonable number, but according to the Post[1], it's more like 175 million. So 20% of a billion dollars... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/...

spoiledtechie 13y ago

Thats just the contract cost.... Numbers are estimated near $340M and the GAO just came out with current costs sitting at $320M but harder liners are coming out with numbers near $620M. By the time its done and fixed, its estimated at $1B. Put that in your head...

us0r 13y ago

thats just the federal part. CA, HI, WA, KY, and many other states are hundreds of millions (billions) more.