Live data from Hacker News

We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

digitaltrends.com

191–200 of 239 posts

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#191

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

Medicare is more efficient than private insurers. of course it helps that it just says, F u, we're paying X, instead of making everyone jump through hoops and hoping they screw up and provide an excuse for denial, and Medicare doesn't need to market or grow profits. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef... sounds like this project is a colossal clusterf *k. Innovation and customer service are n…

I think only the weakest level of "market-based" can apply here. The government has grossly intervened in the health care market since the WWII wage and price controls implicitly created the business model of employers playing for health care as non-controlled additional compensation, to the explicit post-WWII requirement for emergency rooms to treat everyone who entered.

Now Medicare shifts quite a bit of additional costs onto others, you need federal government approval for every new hospital bed, I remember reading some time ago that one state's hospitals were screwed because the state and the federal government had incompatible requirements for hot water temperature, etc. The FDA has massive and politicized control over many system inputs such as drugs and devices, the government has failed to intervene when almost every other country insisted companies sell drugs at near cost (our market supports way more than half the cost of new drug development), etc. etc. etc.

And just before Obamacare was passed the government (mostly Federal with states "partnering" Medicaid) was paying for almost half the nation's healthcare.

A market that was thoroughly intertwingled with governments doesn't really seem up to allowing statements like "It just hasn't worked for health care."

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#192
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right - because inefficiency in government programs is a purely American thing. We have affordable, universal health care because we've eliminated all forms of waste & corruption from our governments, and are left with a stream-lined, Indy 500 car pit type system. I don't think so. Get off it already - America doesn't have a decent health care system because insurance companies pay off corrupt congressmen to make sur…

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with him. His point is that the US government has a history of creating huge expensive projects riddled with inefficiencies and which, quite often, yield a disappointing final product. Saying that one of the causes of that is corruption is not exactly refuting the claim.

I believe his main point is that its not just the States that has a corrupt/ineffective government. Other places with there own government problems have managed to gain some form of public free/cheap healthcare.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#193
A law fining Americans for not buying health insurance is not a "tax", it's a fine. It's a civil punishment. Double-speak. The sky is still blue even if the Supreme Court rules its green. The individual mandate is a civil penalty just like a parking ticket. The supreme court is a joke and the commerce clause crap has gone beyond the absurd.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#194
post #177

Reread the article, this is complete nonsense. The $634M number is 6 years of contracts, starting in 2008 (Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010), which doesn't align with his claim that CGI Federal won the contract in 2011. The solicitation number he uses to filter the USASpending.gov site is also tied to a larger PECOS contract, and not to Healthcare.gov like he claims. We're being had guys. This is poor…

Maybe he got the total wrong for healthcare.gov but $634M should be enough to build and run every government website in the US for more than a decade.

You know that not all government websites are public facing, right?

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#195
post #184

Hi, I actually work for CGI Federal on a closely related website to healthcare.gov. There's some inaccurate speculation going on in this thread that I want to correct. Employees at CGI Federal are not payed hourly. Also, a lot of people have mentioned cronyism, which I think is baseless. CGI Federal already had contracts for Medicare.gov and CMS.gov, so when CMS had to build healthcare.gov, CGI was an obvious choice.…

Also, a lot of people have mentioned cronyism, which I think is baseless. CGI Federal already had contracts for Medicare.gov and CMS.gov, so when CMS had to build healthcare.gov, CGI was an obvious choice. This is sort of like saying: Also, a lot of people have mentioned nepotism, which I think is baseless. I've already done work for myuncleisgreat.com and myuncleiscool.com, so when my uncle had to build myunclerules…

hahaha - very true

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#196
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they not also a Canadian company? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group Why we'd be committing to using non-US companies to develop US systems... I guess it must happen sometimes, but on something this ... public?

We should spend tax dollars in the most effective way possible. If we can save money buying a good from a foreign source, more precious tax dollars are available for other vital government services. You would need to do a lot of handwaving to try to argue that spending more money on "american-made" goods, just so that we can feel better psychologically, is a better use of tax money than, say, cancer research. I'm not…

I didn't say anything about "american made" goods specifically.

"effective" can be measured multiple ways. The more money that's spent on US companies keeps the money in circulation in this country longer than sending it directly to a Canadian company (even assuming they have some US-based contractors on the project).

More to the point, the project is primarily code development, which isn't substantially cheaper in Canada than here (again, not sure where the work was done, and by whom, explicitly). All things being somewhat equal, services money should by default be spent with US companies.

From what I understand, this was a no-bid contract, so how could CGI being "most effective" ever have been the case? Unless, of course, the overhead of a bid process was factored in to the equation; then, sole-sourcing can always come out ahead.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Been there, done that. Never again. Federal government consulting firms hire warm bodies at the lowest price possible. They are the people who employ the college students from Java shops (because a degree is a must, of course) who barely learn Java and then grow up to never touch another programming language in their life. Knowing anything from MS or Oracle is double plus good for your resume. You're totally rep…

Wow. This ruined some of my ambitions, but thank you for the warning and stories.

Please do not let this discourage you. The stories are, sadly, quite accurate depending on which company you work for (there are better situations than bodyshops) but we can't afford to give up.

Dive in and help change things. This is a monumental challenge that requires more people that know a better way and are willing to act.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#198
post #177

Reread the article, this is complete nonsense. The $634M number is 6 years of contracts, starting in 2008 (Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010), which doesn't align with his claim that CGI Federal won the contract in 2011. The solicitation number he uses to filter the USASpending.gov site is also tied to a larger PECOS contract, and not to Healthcare.gov like he claims. We're being had guys. This is poor…

At what number do we stop saying this is hilariously large? Even if the actual cost was 1/10th of that, it's still 60 million.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#199

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

This is a really good talking point, but the fact is the existing (mostly private) healthcare system is huge, expansive, riddled with inefficiencies, and is a disappointing product.

Saying that the new government healthcare system is inefficient and disappointing is not enough to malign it - it has to be equally or more inefficient and ineffective than the system it's replacing.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I am just not getting the outrage other people seem to have here. "Buy my product or I'll charge you $3000" provokes ire, as does a subsequent "oh BTW, the website key to buying my product sucks, but that won't persuade me to delay enforcing the $3000 even though I've given all my buddies such wavers." Such gun-to-the-head tactics tends to elicit verbose nit-picking. Not hard to understand, even if you don't…

It is very questionable whether a tax penalty is equivalent to "gun-to-the-head tactics". Speaking of a tax penalty: where did you get $3000 from? "The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher." - from https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-healt... Som…

Even if it's just $95, the point is the same: if you don't buy this product, you are fined and the police power of the state can be brought down upon your head if you don't pay up. Endless stories abound of people losing homes, savings frozen/confiscated, incarcerated, etc. over non-payment of seemingly trifling amounts. Heck, the whole Branch Davidian incident (50+ day standoff, dozens shot or burned to death) boiled down to alleged (!) non-payment of a $200 tax.

And it's not that a person doesn't have health insurance (though some truly don't need it, being sufficiently wealthy), it's that one is penalized for not having a particular kind of health insurance. Some of us are quite content to pay our way cash, insuring only for catastrophic events...but, for some reason, our legislators deem that punishable, requiring us to sign up for undesirable services at outrageous costs via a grossly dysfunctional website.

This nation was created in opposition to such taxation & penalties, hence a lot of citizens stressing out despite "it's just a little fine, so pay & be done with it." A government which threatens[1] severe consequences for non-compliance with "trivial" regulations should not be surprised by severe pushback from those not inclined to comply.

[1] - for all the "we won't garnish your wages etc." verbiage on the website in question, I'm not seeing any legal basis for anything other than IRS-standard severe consequences for non-payment of penalties.

Post reply on HN