5 ms·

As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Devel

by x5n1 11y ago

As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.

afsina 11y ago
As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.
- x5n1 11y ago
  If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things run efficiently.
  - TheBeardKing 11y ago
    But even subcontractors on government projects are subject to the same limitations as the prime contractor. So many limitations and increased overhead are imposed on government contractors, it's not surprising government projects fail in ways a similar private project would not with similar funding.
- rayiner 11y ago
  State engineers we do have (Army Corps of Engineers, NASA) often do a fantastic job.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Government IT has a huge impedance mismatch in the interface from the government agency to the contractors. Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer-based insurance and other "perks" were given tax protected status instead. And for a long time, this turned out to be a more effective system. But accumulated rent-seeking and other problems rendered it less cost effective over time.
- eevilspock 11y ago
  It's amazing how libertarians and others who see free market and the invisible hand as sacrosanct principles don't see how rent-seeking[1] including the private ownership of land is antithetical to those very principles. Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[2][3] and Georgists[4]. The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum. - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking [2] http://geolib.com/welcome.html http://geolib.com/welcome.html [3] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632 [4] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-sponsor-of-the-film-the-end-of-poverty-georgism-capitalism-and-socialism/ http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    I agree - rents are poorly understood. I read epic flamefests on nntp://sci.econ during the last 20 years and that is the only reason I "got it". Sadly, I have to differ on multiple other points: - Substitution pretty much makes resource constraints a nonproblem. We've gotten so good at this that there's a large trade in "antiques" largely based on the numismatic value of old materials. Whether or not the carbon content of the atmosphere counts is a very slowly closing but still open question. Having dealt with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, the probability of an honest solution based on public goods seems bleak. - The planet very well can be largely private. Let it be private and tax the rents. This leaves more open the question "what does government do?". Consider private and public as merely possible management - or finance - schemes, each with weak and strong points. - Perpetual ownership is just a lease with an undefined term. The British renewal rate of 99 years as a standard is just using a different constant. Of course people overvalue their contributions. It takes a long time to get calibrated properly. And when I was a kid, the grownups were a lot more likely to be blunt about this than I am led to believe they are now. But Libertarians are still the "R&D" department for politics.

by x5n1 11y ago

afsina 11y ago

As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.

x5n1 11y ago
If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things run efficiently.
- TheBeardKing 11y ago
  But even subcontractors on government projects are subject to the same limitations as the prime contractor. So many limitations and increased overhead are imposed on government contractors, it's not surprising government projects fail in ways a similar private project would not with similar funding.
rayiner 11y ago
State engineers we do have (Army Corps of Engineers, NASA) often do a fantastic job.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Government IT has a huge impedance mismatch in the interface from the government agency to the contractors. Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer-based insurance and other "perks" were given tax protected status instead. And for a long time, this turned out to be a more effective system. But accumulated rent-seeking and other problems rendered it less cost effective over time.

eevilspock 11y ago
It's amazing how libertarians and others who see free market and the invisible hand as sacrosanct principles don't see how rent-seeking[1] including the private ownership of land is antithetical to those very principles. Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[2][3] and Georgists[4]. The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum. - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking [2] http://geolib.com/welcome.html http://geolib.com/welcome.html [3] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632 [4] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-sponsor-of-the-film-the-end-of-poverty-georgism-capitalism-and-socialism/ http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I agree - rents are poorly understood. I read epic flamefests on nntp://sci.econ during the last 20 years and that is the only reason I "got it". Sadly, I have to differ on multiple other points: - Substitution pretty much makes resource constraints a nonproblem. We've gotten so good at this that there's a large trade in "antiques" largely based on the numismatic value of old materials. Whether or not the carbon content of the atmosphere counts is a very slowly closing but still open question. Having dealt with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, the probability of an honest solution based on public goods seems bleak. - The planet very well can be largely private. Let it be private and tax the rents. This leaves more open the question "what does government do?". Consider private and public as merely possible management - or finance - schemes, each with weak and strong points. - Perpetual ownership is just a lease with an undefined term. The British renewal rate of 99 years as a standard is just using a different constant. Of course people overvalue their contributions. It takes a long time to get calibrated properly. And when I was a kid, the grownups were a lot more likely to be blunt about this than I am led to believe they are now. But Libertarians are still the "R&D" department for politics.