3 ms·

Yes, yes, I agree. This isn't difficult. Right. I mean, here are two guys talking it out. Imagine if you put together a dozen real experts, took them to a n

Yes, yes, I agree. This isn't difficult. Right. I mean, here are two guys talking it out. Imagine if you put together a dozen real experts, took them to a nice resort for a week and tasked the with coming out with a complete definition covering architecture, operations and penetration/scam testing. It isn't like we are trying to build a Star Trek transporter. There is nothing about this that we don't have a pretty good handle on. And that's kind of my point. The government is and was the worst possible project leader for something like this. It isn't that complicated. As I said in my opening to the prior post. I know it's full of holes. At the same time, I know it would be a million times better than what we have now and it would probably cost $595 million dollars less.

hga 13y ago
Works great until that group includes, even if by proxy, someone from IRS IT. Have you ever dealt with any of them? I suspect not, for it's in my experience unforgettable, and unique compared to every other governmental IT person I've ever dealt with. See this diagram drawn from the first set of hearings: I have no idea what HHS's computer systems role in this is ... well, tracking, I suppose. Healthcare.gov is for managing enrollment in plans; does it's remit even include knowing who has what at the moment? "SSN" is I assume the Social Security Administration, and I also assume is to verify citizenship. IRS in theory has all the relevant income data and is the non-criminal enforcer. Equifax is also used for income verification, suggesting IRS isn't up to delivering all that's needed, or not reliable enough. Not part of the government, fortunately!