• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Healthcare.gov costs $840M to create

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Genx87 said:
I have no idea where they are in the process. But here is an example of open source software being used that broke the agreement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ng-agreement-copyrighted-software_763666.html

My point about using open sourced software was we paid 840 million dollars for this level of work? They basically copy and pasted others work into their application. And then had the audacity to not credit them for it.
Click to expand...

So programmers are writing original code these days?
 
Healthcare is, arguably, the most complicated industry out there. Chat with somebody who works at a hospital and the systems at one site are complex enough as it were. Now compound that out to something that could cover hundreds of millions of people with all sorts of potential circumstances across several states and sites.

I do not know if $840MM is a reasonable price or not. What would be? I doubt anybody truly knows, because nothing like this has really been done. When you consider how much the U.S. government pisses away on other programs, any revolutionary program coming in under a billion bucks is probably a bargain.

I am sure there were wastes and inefficiencies. Obviously the damn thing didn't work when it was supposed to. But we don't have any context as to what is a reasonable cost to manage one of the most complicated things that we could possibly manage. Without a doubt I would guess we overpaid for it. The question is, practically speaking, by how much?

To think that some schmuck could have done it for a $1MM is so asinine, I already spent more time thinking about it than I should have.
 
senseamp said:
OK, that doesn't negate the fact that Obamacare critics are now focusing on JavaScript comments. Long way to go from the "unmitigated disaster" we were promised. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Oh now you are concerned with promises about Obamacare being broken?
 
Babbles said:
Healthcare is, arguably, the most complicated industry out there. Chat with somebody who works at a hospital and the systems at one site are complex enough as it were. Now compound that out to something that could cover hundreds of millions of people with all sorts of potential circumstances across several states and sites.

I do not know if $840MM is a reasonable price or not. What would be? I doubt anybody truly knows, because nothing like this has really been done. When you consider how much the U.S. government pisses away on other programs, any revolutionary program coming in under a billion bucks is probably a bargain.

I am sure there were wastes and inefficiencies. Obviously the damn thing didn't work when it was supposed to. But we don't have any context as to what is a reasonable cost to manage one of the most complicated things that we could possibly manage. Without a doubt I would guess we overpaid for it. The question is, practically speaking, by how much?

To think that some schmuck could have done it for a $1MM is so asinine, I already spent more time thinking about it than I should have.
Click to expand...

What revolutionary program did they create?

Healthcare.gov doesn't provide healthcare. It matches customers to health insurance. All you need is a website to allow insurance companies to enter insurance plans. And another website to allow customers to enter basic data about themselves. Then you need a simple search algorithm to match customers to plans.

It isn't exactly curing cancer.
 
nehalem256 said:
Saying that people should be hired because of their skillset instead of their skin color or genital type is bigotry now?

I guess its time to pull out my Liberal->English dictionary again.
Click to expand...

Except that wasn't what you were saying at all.
 
Greenman said:
The lesson we learn from all of this is that it pays huge to be friends with the First Lady.
Click to expand...

Slew Foot said:
wasnt Michelles roomate in charge of building the website? no conflict of interest there.
Click to expand...
No, she wasn't. Michelle Obama attended the same school as one of the executives of one of the companies hired to build the web site. That company was first hired during the Bush administration to work on government health care projects.

We see yet again that once a lie is spread through the nutter disinformation machine, it never dies, no matter how many times it's exposed. It simply becomes permanently imbedded among all their other false beliefs.
 
Veliko said:
You need to go back and look at the order that the posts were made you tedious cretin.
Click to expand...

I was

Veliko said:
nehalem256 said:
Wrong. Its my usual dig at liberals.

If you hire people based on the color of their skin, or what is, or isn't, dangling between their legs instead of their competence it shouldn't be a surprise when you fail horribly.
Click to expand...
Disproving your bigotry by demonstrating your bigotry? That's a new one.
Click to expand...

Very clearly you think hiring people based on competence instead of skin color or genitals is bigotry. Which seems like a giant 😵😵😵. To me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top