If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Jon Stewart delivers blistering takedown of Obamacare rollout: "Dems can't spin this turd"   (mediaite.com) divider line 143
    More: Amusing, Democrats, obamacare  
•       •       •

1675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 7:38 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 07:42:27 AM
Yes, the roll-out of the website was a farkup and should have been handled better. Now it just needs to be fixed.

Try getting a similar reply from a "real american" conservative republican when one of their projects go tits-up.
 
2013-10-22 07:44:36 AM
Not that the asshats on here aren't willing to keep on lying about this.

Frankly, the fact that a website doesn't work isn't nearly as upsetting as the constant lying about it.
 
2013-10-22 07:45:27 AM

BullBearMS: Not that the asshats on here aren't willing to keep on lying about this.

Frankly, the fact that a website doesn't work isn't nearly as upsetting as the constant lying about it.


Yes, yes, we know you are concerned.
 
2013-10-22 07:49:08 AM

Smoking GNU: Try getting a similar reply from a "real american" conservative republican when one of their projects go tits-up.


Democrats can admit that the Obamacare website rollout has sucked and needs to be fixed ASAP.  But bring up something like Iraq?  Republicans will still tell you there were WMDs and that Saddam was behind 9/11.

/The "big lie" theory does work really really well.
//Maybe Obama should try that angle and just start saying that there have been no new cancer diagnoses since Oct. 1 or something.....
 
2013-10-22 07:56:58 AM
I loved the John Oliver bit far more than I should have.
 
2013-10-22 07:57:03 AM
You know, if only there had been a way to break this large national group down into sub areas within the larger nation.  Yeah, and we could have had each of those sub areas be in charge of their own web site.  That would have made the load a lot less and let the federal government compartmentalize what it needed to do!
 
2013-10-22 08:00:31 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Smoking GNU: Try getting a similar reply from a "real american" conservative republican when one of their projects go tits-up.

Democrats can admit that the Obamacare website rollout has sucked and needs to be fixed ASAP.  But bring up something like Iraq?  Republicans will still tell you there were WMDs and that Saddam was behind 9/11.

/The "big lie" theory does work really really well.
//Maybe Obama should try that angle and just start saying that there have been no new cancer diagnoses since Oct. 1 or something.....


But Bush already?
 
2013-10-22 08:01:31 AM

fatandolder: But Bush already?


Nope, but keep working on your reading comprehension.  You'll get to that 7th-grade level real soon!
 
2013-10-22 08:02:19 AM
Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.
 
2013-10-22 08:05:02 AM

BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.


This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.
 
2013-10-22 08:10:04 AM

pueblonative: You know, if only there had been a way to break this large national group down into sub areas within the larger nation.  Yeah, and we could have had each of those sub areas be in charge of their own web site.  That would have made the load a lot less and let the federal government compartmentalize what it needed to do!


If that were true, then states like NY with non-teatard governors would have setup their own sites and they'd be working fine after a couple of days worth of tweaking.
 
2013-10-22 08:14:24 AM

pueblonative: You know, if only there had been a way to break this large national group down into sub areas within the larger nation.  Yeah, and we could have had each of those sub areas be in charge of their own web site.  That would have made the load a lot less and let the federal government compartmentalize what it needed to do!


I think they've figured out a way to throttle it. I've been waiting five days for my registration confirmation email.
 
2013-10-22 08:14:55 AM

amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.


I agree only so far in that it would be a good deal if it had worked as advertised.

Yes, they will fix it but it should have been good on roll out.  I think the issue with so many states refusing to manage their own exchanges is under-reported.  Yes, there is a gradient in that some states are doing great (Kentucky) some states aren't (Really Maryland? You are going to let KENTUCKY beat you in this?) but the amount of pressure on the federal system certainly didn't help matters.  I am sure they expected a handful of states to refuse to manage their exchanges, but over half?  That certainly wasn't planned for.

Its still inexcusably full of errors, but its not like their aren't reasons for it.  Incompetence certainly played a roll but there is a lot more to this shiat fest than someone screwing up.
 
2013-10-22 08:17:51 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.

I agree only so far in that it would be a good deal if it had worked as advertised.

Yes, they will fix it but it should have been good on roll out.  I think the issue with so many states refusing to manage their own exchanges is under-reported.  Yes, there is a gradient in that some states are doing great (Kentucky) some states aren't (Really Maryland? You are going to let KENTUCKY beat you in this?) but the amount of pressure on the federal system certainly didn't help matters.  I am sure they expected a handful of states to refuse to manage their exchanges, but over half?  That certainly wasn't planned for.

Its still inexcusably full of errors, but its not like their aren't reasons for it.  Incompetence certainly played a roll but there is a lot more to this shiat fest than someone screwing up.


Well said. but even so, incompetences like this should be punished to some degree.
 
2013-10-22 08:18:01 AM

amiable: The actual web portal part cost around 55 million


The New York Times has reported the cost of the system many ties now.

For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in.

Since the system doesn't work as a whole, it's silly to focus on the cost of any one part.
 
2013-10-22 08:18:42 AM

amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.


Actually your defense is wrong too.
It started out at an estimated cost of 94 mil but shot up to 292mil by may of this year and now with all of the fixing who knows how much that will cost.. last minute / overtime programming isn't cheap
I even linked to a NBS/MSNBC article so you would be upset if it was cnn/fox or someone else you aren't politically alligned with.... just in case

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitche s -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite ">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitc hes -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite
 
2013-10-22 08:19:18 AM

BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.


They didn't have 3 years, since they were told to wait until after the Supreme Court ruling:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/22/239197047/how-politics-se t- the-stage-for-the-obamacare-website-meltdown?sc=ipad&f=1001
 
2013-10-22 08:22:22 AM

Bartman66: amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.

Actually your defense is wrong too.
It started out at an estimated cost of 94 mil but shot up to 292mil by may of this year and now with all of the fixing who knows how much that will cost.. last minute / overtime programming isn't cheap
I even linked to a NBS/MSNBC article so you would be upset if it was cnn/fox or someone else you aren't politically alligned with.... just in case

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitche s -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite ">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitc hes -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite


Funnily enough I read the 55 million dollar figure on a Fox website.  The website you linked does not cite a 292 million dollar figure, most of the websites like the Blaze and such touting this are conflating the website cost with the cost of setting up the exchanges.  I imagine it will end up costing a lot more to get the mes fixed, but saying it cost 600 million at the outset is just untrue.
 
2013-10-22 08:23:47 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: I think the issue with so many states refusing to manage their own exchanges is under-reported. Yes, there is a gradient in that some states are doing great (Kentucky) some states aren't (Really Maryland? You are going to let KENTUCKY beat you in this?) but the amount of pressure on the federal system certainly didn't help matters. I am sure they expected a handful of states to refuse to manage their exchanges, but over half? That certainly wasn't planned for.


The problem is that they threw away an entire year of development time over the political decision not to release the rules and regulations the program would operate under until after the November elections were safely past.

They were afraid they would become a campaign issue, so they tied the developers hands and made them wait.

So instead of having two years to develop and test the system, they didn't get to start writing code until this spring and never had time to test many parts of the system at all.
 
2013-10-22 08:25:46 AM

BullBearMS: amiable: The actual web portal part cost around 55 million

The New York Times has reported the cost of the system many ties now.

For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in.

Since the system doesn't work as a whole, it's silly to focus on the cost of any one part.


The only part that is not working is the website. Even still, you can go to the website, get the cost information, dial the toll free number and sign up relatively easily.

If we could harness the power of right wing whining over the fact that it will take a few weeks to fix a website, it would solve our energy problems for millenia.
 
2013-10-22 08:25:56 AM

amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.


That's good to finally hear. I've had enough Blue Team fans quote the figure without argument that I started to figure it was true.

Still an order of magnitude more than it should be, but now it's in standard government bloat range.

It's adorable that you think this will cost less than a stealth bomber per year.
 
2013-10-22 08:26:40 AM
But, but, I thought Jon Stewart was an 0bammy shill? I guess he has to play the other side now and again?
 
2013-10-22 08:27:40 AM
"blistering takedown"

That's some bullshiat mountain level hyperbole.
 
2013-10-22 08:28:12 AM

czei: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

They didn't have 3 years, since they were told to wait until after the Supreme Court ruling:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/22/239197047/how-politics-se t- the-stage-for-the-obamacare-website-meltdown?sc=ipad&f=1001


OK, then I'd have to hire about 5 people.
 
2013-10-22 08:29:25 AM
The US Healthcare website is screwed up.

Now, on to some of the more ridiculous talking points:

Amazon and other large retailers can do it, why can't we?

This is amazon when it first rolled out (along with other large sites) http://mashable.com/2011/12/11/old-web-design/
Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc had time to perfect their designs.  Amazon started in 1995.  The argument could be made though that those sites did work when first released - so you got me there.

This is just like a retail website, why can't it work as well as a private site?

When a private company makes a website, it usually has a lot of say in what software it will use, etc.  One of the features(?) of the healthcare.gov site is that it ties into an IRS database in order to provide income verification for those signing up to check for subsidy availability.  And that is just one of the numerous agencies it has to connect to, along with all the legal and technical hurdles each one provides (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/21/1249417/-Healthcare-gov-isn -t -just-a-website-dagnabbit)

They've had 3 years to make it - why isn't it made?

True, the PPACA was passed in March 23, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_ Ac t) giving it over 3 years to have the website completed.  Assumptions were made that turned out to be untrue (A lot of states did not set up their own exchanges).  Also, with Supreme Court challenges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patien t_ Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act), a huge election in 2012, and multiple challenges from State and Federal Governments, no one was sure if the PPACA was even going to exist by 1 Oct 2013.  You can argue that they should have been making it until definitively told not to stop, but with all the volatility in Government and shifting standards, you could see why the site may not be perfect.


In the end of the day, the PPACA website healthcare.gov is a flop.  It's broken, and as a cornerstone to people getting decent health care, we deserve better.  But to paint the picture as some sort of walk in the park that was screwed up and will forever be screwed up is extreme.
 
2013-10-22 08:31:57 AM
BMFPitt: It's adorable that you think this will cost less than a stealth bomber per year.

A stealth bomber costs approximately 1.5 billion.  The cost estimates from the CBO for obamacare indicate that once the premiums start coming in it will actually be a cost savings:   http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Now those may be incorrect, but that's the data we have.
 
2013-10-22 08:36:45 AM
How much of "The site doesn't work" is actual problems with the site, and how much of it is healthcare PR flaks calling in every favor they can in the hopes of turning minor but real problems into the media's fantasy of a disaster so people won't even try to sign up?
 
2013-10-22 08:41:28 AM
To pull yet another apt comparison, consider GTAV. The game that cost $200M to make, and netted $800M its first week.  They had huge pre-order numbers, so they had a good indication of what server capacity they'd need. They've also done this before.  It's not Rockstar's first multi-player game.  Even with $600M in cream, the multiplayer part took 3 more weeks to launch, and 2 weeks after that to actually get people to log in.  And they still had problems with people's information just disappearing.

So, $400M for a website to do what no one else has done before, when they were told to start working, stop working, start working, cancel the project, start working, stop working...  This isn't an "I told you so" moment for the GOP.  It's the equivalent of stepping on the backs of the president's shoes and saying, "Why are you tripping yourself?"
 
2013-10-22 08:44:07 AM

amiable: Bartman66: amiable: BMFPitt: Still haven't decided whether I should be more outraged about the coat or the innate terribleness of the site.

$600 million for something that I could have built better by myself if given the 3 years they had to build it? People should go to jail for those contracts.

This is also a lie.  The 600 million dollar figure is the cost of all of obamacare, including setting up and maintaining the exchanges.  The actual web portal part cost around 55 million (fair enough that is still a chunk of change).  considering we are revamping the entire healthcare system of the US for less than a third of the cost of a Stealth bomber I think it is a pretty good deal.

Actually your defense is wrong too.
It started out at an estimated cost of 94 mil but shot up to 292mil by may of this year and now with all of the fixing who knows how much that will cost.. last minute / overtime programming isn't cheap
I even linked to a NBS/MSNBC article so you would be upset if it was cnn/fox or someone else you aren't politically alligned with.... just in case

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitche s -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite ">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21025507-obamacare-glitc hes -govt-contract-for-troubled-site-has-swelled-gop-targets-sebelius?lite

Funnily enough I read the 55 million dollar figure on a Fox website.  The website you linked does not cite a 292 million dollar figure, most of the websites like the Blaze and such touting this are conflating the website cost with the cost of setting up the exchanges.  I imagine it will end up costing a lot more to get the mes fixed, but saying it cost 600 million at the outset is just untrue.


?? From the article "The U.S. arm of a Canadian company, CGI, had the biggest role of the many contractors that worked on the rollout. It won the contract in October 2011. At the time, it had an estimated cost of up to $94 million. By May of this year, that cost ceiling had swelled to $292 million."

I am guessing that you just skimmed thru the NBC article.
To get this fixed isn't going to be cheap ether.
 
2013-10-22 08:50:41 AM
Bartman66:

?? From the article "The U.S. arm of a Canadian company, CGI, had the biggest role of the many contractors that worked on the rollout. It won the contract in October 2011. At the time, it had an estimated cost of up to $94 million. By May of this year, that cost ceiling had swelled to $292 million."

I am guessing that you just skimmed thru the NBC article.
To get this fixed isn't going to be cheap ether.
 

Again, this cost includes the setup of the exchanges as well as the cost of the website.  The cost of the website portion is substantially less:   http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-ma y -face-months-glitches-experts-warn/
 
2013-10-22 08:50:48 AM
Fight tooth and nail to prevent it, then biatch and moan when the rollout isn't perfect or biatch and moan if it gets delayed because you've fought tooth and nail to prevent it

And the GOP wins either way
 
2013-10-22 08:52:39 AM
But all the ConservativesTM on FARK told me that Jon Stewart is a libby lib who never calls out the Dems for anything!

My world is upside down!
 
2013-10-22 08:55:34 AM

RobotSpider: To pull yet another apt comparison, consider GTAV. The game that cost $200M to make, and netted $800M its first week.  They had huge pre-order numbers, so they had a good indication of what server capacity they'd need. They've also done this before.  It's not Rockstar's first multi-player game.  Even with $600M in cream, the multiplayer part took 3 more weeks to launch, and 2 weeks after that to actually get people to log in.  And they still had problems with people's information just disappearing.

So, $400M for a website to do what no one else has done before, when they were told to start working, stop working, start working, cancel the project, start working, stop working...  This isn't an "I told you so" moment for the GOP.  It's the equivalent of stepping on the backs of the president's shoes and saying, "Why are you tripping yourself?"


Mentioning Diablo III's 'Error 37' fiasco - from a company that's used to its servers eating a gun every time they add a new expansion to WoW and it will eat that gun no matter what they do - can still induce rage in the ardent PC gamer.  That farker still lags, too.  EU just pitchforked at Blizz for most of a week or so because it was functionally unplayable.

Big guns, used to these things, still don't have a perfect methodology for a major new rollout.  A government nailing it on the first try?  I would like my free unicorn if that happened.  The healthcare site sucks, but it'll get fixed.

/d3 on the console is so much better it's almost depressing
 
2013-10-22 09:03:23 AM

KhamanV: RobotSpider: To pull yet another apt comparison, consider GTAV. The game that cost $200M to make, and netted $800M its first week.  They had huge pre-order numbers, so they had a good indication of what server capacity they'd need. They've also done this before.  It's not Rockstar's first multi-player game.  Even with $600M in cream, the multiplayer part took 3 more weeks to launch, and 2 weeks after that to actually get people to log in.  And they still had problems with people's information just disappearing.

So, $400M for a website to do what no one else has done before, when they were told to start working, stop working, start working, cancel the project, start working, stop working...  This isn't an "I told you so" moment for the GOP.  It's the equivalent of stepping on the backs of the president's shoes and saying, "Why are you tripping yourself?"

Mentioning Diablo III's 'Error 37' fiasco - from a company that's used to its servers eating a gun every time they add a new expansion to WoW and it will eat that gun no matter what they do - can still induce rage in the ardent PC gamer.  That farker still lags, too.  EU just pitchforked at Blizz for most of a week or so because it was functionally unplayable.

Big guns, used to these things, still don't have a perfect methodology for a major new rollout.  A government nailing it on the first try?  I would like my free unicorn if that happened.  The healthcare site sucks, but it'll get fixed.

/d3 on the console is so much better it's almost depressing


What do you mean, "almost"?
 
2013-10-22 09:04:22 AM

amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.


Another lie?
 
2013-10-22 09:06:01 AM

BullBearMS: amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.

Another lie?


No.
 
2013-10-22 09:06:56 AM

amiable: BullBearMS: amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.

Another lie?

No.


Yes. Yes it is.

You seem quite prolific with lies on this subject.

Why is that?
 
2013-10-22 09:07:14 AM

BullBearMS: amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.

Another lie?


Also:  Conservatives have been lying constantly about Obamacare for 3 years, and now you are concerned with "lying."  Lulz.
 
2013-10-22 09:08:47 AM

BullBearMS: amiable: BullBearMS: amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.

Another lie?

No.

Yes. Yes it is.

You seem quite prolific with lies on this subject.

Why is that?


I have no idea what you are talking about, enlighten me.
 
2013-10-22 09:12:05 AM

amiable: BullBearMS: amiable: BullBearMS: amiable: The only part that is not working is the website.

Another lie?

No.

Yes. Yes it is.

You seem quite prolific with lies on this subject.

Why is that?

I have no idea what you are talking about, enlighten me.


That's funny, you've been whining about me posting links to the various problems having nothing to do with the website for hours now.

Must they be posted into every single thread before you will stop lying about it?
 
2013-10-22 09:13:18 AM
They should just make it a partisan issue and lie about the causes of the problems, blame republicans. If they can turn it into a partisan issue just the republicans speaking through their right wing media about it will further that notion that there are "sides" to this story. Fix it in the meantime though.
 
2013-10-22 09:13:33 AM

amiable: Bartman66:

?? From the article "The U.S. arm of a Canadian company, CGI, had the biggest role of the many contractors that worked on the rollout. It won the contract in October 2011. At the time, it had an estimated cost of up to $94 million. By May of this year, that cost ceiling had swelled to $292 million."

I am guessing that you just skimmed thru the NBC article.
To get this fixed isn't going to be cheap ether. 

Again, this cost includes the setup of the exchanges as well as the cost of the website.  The cost of the website portion is substantially less:   http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-ma y -face-months-glitches-experts-warn


So both sites are talking about the total costs of getting the website to work has skyrocketed. NBC says 290+mil amd Fox says it started out at 90+ mil and is going up from there. They had three years to get this done and it has been embarrassingly bad.
But eveb on the left they are pretty much quoting the NBC numbers of the website rollout being trippled in costs and will cost that much more by the time they ever get it fixed. I have a tendency to believe the NBC site over the Fox in this case.
Even CNN is quoting the higher numbers than NBC: Over 300mil and growing (3-5 times the initial costs)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contract s /">http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contr acts /
 
2013-10-22 09:13:46 AM
BullBearMS:

That's funny, you've been whining about me posting links to the various problems having nothing to do with the website for hours now.

Must they be posted into every single thread before you will stop lying about it?


Really?  Could you point those posts out?
 
2013-10-22 09:16:58 AM
Bartman66:

So both sites are talking about the total costs of getting the website to work has skyrocketed. NBC says 290+mil amd Fox says it started out at 90+ mil and is going up from there. They had three years to get this done and it has been embarrassingly bad.
But eveb on the left they are pretty much quoting the NBC numbers of the website rollout being trippled in costs and will cost that much more by the time they ever get it fixed. I have a tendency to believe the NBC site over the Fox in this case.
Even CNN is quoting the higher numbers than NBC: Over 300mil and growing (3-5 times the initial costs)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contract s /">http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contr acts /


Again look at the CNN article, the 55 million I cited originally is the cost of the website: "the web hub."  The other costs are those associated with setting up the infrastructure of the exchanges.  I agree it will cost more in the end to fix the problem, but saying "the website cost 600 million" is just wrong.  the exchanges themselves are working, as evidenced by the people who are simply calling in to sign up.
 
2013-10-22 09:23:05 AM

amiable: BullBearMS:

That's funny, you've been whining about me posting links to the various problems having nothing to do with the website for hours now.

Must they be posted into every single thread before you will stop lying about it?

Really?  Could you point those posts out?


Oh, I can just post them inline again.

In March, Henry Chao, the chief digital architect for the Obama administration's new online insurance marketplace, told industry executives that he was deeply worried about the Web site's debut. "Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience," he told them.

Two weeks after the rollout, few would say his hopes were realized.


For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in. The growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House, which has refused to say how many people have enrolled through the federal exchange.

"These are not glitches," said an insurance executive who has participated in many conference calls on the federal exchange. Like many people interviewed for this article, the executive spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not wish to alienate the federal officials with whom he works. "The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, 'It's awful, just awful.' "

One person familiar with the system's development said that the project was now roughly 70 percent of the way toward operating properly, but that predictions varied on when the remaining 30 percent would be done. "I've heard as little as two weeks or as much as a couple of months," that person said. Others warned that the fixes themselves were creating new problems, and said that the full extent of the problems might not be known because so many consumers had been stymied at the first step in the application process.

Confidential progress reports from the Health and Human Services Department show that senior officials repeatedly expressed doubts that the computer systems for the federal exchange would be ready on time, blaming delayed regulations, a lack of resources and other factors.

By early this year, people inside and outside the federal bureaucracy were raising red flags. "We foresee a train wreck," an insurance executive working on information technology said in a February interview. "We don't have the I.T. specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are."

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, warned in June that many challenges had to be overcome before the Oct. 1 rollout.

"So much testing of the new system was so far behind schedule, I was not confident it would work well," Richard S. Foster, who retired in January as chief actuary of the Medicare program, said in an interview last week.
 
2013-10-22 09:25:13 AM

BullBearMS: amiable: The actual web portal part cost around 55 million

The New York Times has reported the cost of the system many ties now.

For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in.

Since the system doesn't work as a whole, it's silly to focus on the cost of any one part.


Ah, I thought I saw that more than once.

Phone system works. Sounds like it's just the website. Got a link for that too?
 
2013-10-22 09:25:53 AM

amiable: BMFPitt: It's adorable that you think this will cost less than a stealth bomber per year.

A stealth bomber costs approximately 1.5 billion.  The cost estimates from the CBO for obamacare indicate that once the premiums start coming in it will actually be a cost savings:   http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Now those may be incorrect, but that's the data we have.


You seem to be very confused. That CBO report says that the cost will be $130 billion per year ($1.3T over 10 years.) Also, premiums are not paid to the government, they are paid to private companies, in many cases mostly or in full by the government.

The other CBO report linked from that one to talks about how a repeal would cost $700 billion due to increased Medicare costs, but that is now and has always been a fiction. The CBO always notes it as such in budget projections that make the same assumption, because it's been there in theory for 20 years and has never happened.

Plus a chunk of that is the medical device tax that Democrats are going to trade for a budget in January, anyway.
 
2013-10-22 09:27:35 AM
I feel like a broken record (welcome to the media) but maybe instead of voting to repeal or defund the program a few dozen times, a certain group could have been trying to improve what became LAW...
 
2013-10-22 09:28:10 AM
 
2013-10-22 09:28:58 AM
So, I said the only part that wasn't working was the website.  You said this was a lie and to prove it you cited an article talking about why the website wasn't working?   Maybe I should parse this out for you so you can better understand:  when you say the statement "only the website isn't working" is a lie, it is incumbent on you to show what other parts of Obamacare aren't working.  It's not the exchanges themselves, because lot's of folks have gotten insurance, despite the technical problems with the website.  So what other parts aren't working?  I link to a discussion of why the website is not working does not support your point.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report