|
|||||||
| Politics, World Affairs Change up the chat and talk about important issues of the world |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Obama care
The gov spent over $600 million to build a website that does not work. Computer experts have said they could have build this for under a million. Either way $600 million is ridiculous. Not to mention it does not work. So they will have to spend more money to fix it. What another $600 million of taxpayer money?
One elitist said one time there are no accidents. I do not think they are incompetent. I think certain high level people pocketed the money. The pres included. You need a lot of pay off money to fundamentally transform the country to socialism. Either that of Obama is trying to put the country more into dept so the USA is not exceptional anymore. He wants every country to be equal. I think I remember him talking about this. 
|
|
#3
October 26th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is nuts is a $640 million dollar website that does not work or was never tested. lol
|
|
#4
October 26th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read it was a no-bit contract to build the site for one of MOs friends!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/mi...acare-website/
|
|
#5
October 26th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
All BS. There were three contractors engaged to create the website. At least 2 of the three contributed more to Republicans than Democrats in the last 2 elections.
Some of the difficulty with the site -- and the reason only about 250K people were signing up per week -- is that the site was bogged down by "visitors" who may or may not have been there to break the site. Plenty of evidence there were both denial of service attacks and individuals 'encouraged' to hit the site heavily. Millions per hour. Yes, there are some issues, but that's just how web development goes sometimes. Meantime, the government has wasted $1.5 trillion (not a typo) on a fighter that doesn't seem to work, and may not be fixable. But yeah, it's all about the web site.
|
|
#6
October 26th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is another one stating no competetive bidding:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...dward-snowden/ "To a previously authorized cyber engineering firm, CGI, who held a very special status - “Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity.” As the Washington Examiner outlined: Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut. Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance. CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building Healthcare.gov, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal. Instead, it appears they used what amounts to a federal procurement system loophole to award the work to the Canadian firm." *Cannot find anything on 3 firms bidding on thts when I googled, do you have a link?
|
|
#8
October 27th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What strikes me as odd, as someone who has done a lot of web architecture is the complaint that a "last minute decision" to limit browsing to people who had registered would be a significant problem. It would likely cut 90% of the traffic out, since looky-loos both benign and not, would be all over the site. And RW sock puppets were spreading the rumor that people were getting $4000 fines after simply registering on the site, which was a tactic designed to reduce visits. So if not traffic (which was reported as robust but not overwhelming) was causing slowdowns, there was another cause. Best explanation I've heard was that cookies from the registration page were added to the cookies related to plan browsing and that sessions were simply carrying too many cookies. Weak explanation, but somewhat plausible. I'm disappointed that a better general contractor wasn't found.
|
|
#9
October 27th, 2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why are you so worked up about a stupid website? Yeah, it doesn't work right yet, it cost too much and there are questions about how the contract was awarded. *yawn* What else is new? This is your government at work, no different than in years past.
Like, who friggin' cares? They will get it working, in spite of all the DDOS attacks from Tea Party hacktivists. What should we do? Impeach Obama? Put him on trial? Aren't there more important things to freak out about?
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
