IGX

Day 31 of this thread and all the usual liberal fucktards suspects are all missing in action.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Day 31 of this thread and all the usual liberal fucktards suspects are all missing in action.

They're busy prepping their brotastic turkey day speeches for their families.

The website finally was operational long enough to plug in enough numbers to find out what it would cost for my family. I also played around changing variables here and there and the ACA is not a bad deal - you could get insurance, with moderate deductibles, for what traveler's insurance in the US usually costs. For a lot of people, this would be a good deal.

Terry B. wrote:The website finally was operational long enough to plug in enough numbers to find out what it would cost for my family. I also played around changing variables here and there and the ACA is not a bad deal - you could get insurance, with moderate deductibles, for what traveler's insurance in the US usually costs. For a lot of people, this would be a good deal.

If the doctor/hospital of your choice will take it, it might be - for you.

Unfortunately, for millions of others the numbers won't lead to the same conclusion and their freedom of choice has been terminated by oppression and intimidation. The difference is between a good deal freely chosen and compulsion at the hands of Master. Fuck Master.

Terry B. wrote:The website finally was operational long enough to plug in enough numbers to find out what it would cost for my family. I also played around changing variables here and there and the ACA is not a bad deal - you could get insurance, with moderate deductibles, for what traveler's insurance in the US usually costs. For a lot of people, this would be a good deal.

Except you have to compare it to what was available before. Combine rising health insurance premiums with ACA driven declines in labor force participation, rising ratio of part time to full time work; downward pressure on wages; and general confusion among health care providers-- not exactly fantastic.

Incentive time: free rubbers!

News flash-- if you can't afford to buy rubbers, you probably can't afford to buy health insurance.

Turdacious wrote:Incentive time: free rubbers!

News flash-- if you can't afford to buy rubbers, you probably can't afford to buy health insurance.

Yeah, that's the only reason that people hand out such items.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... 50965.html
More today. Nice of them to break this just as all,the reporters were getting ready to split for Thanksgiving/Hanukah.

It...just...keeps...getting...BETTER.

No fucking security was built into the site...like...none...really.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101225308

Search your feelings Kaz...

On Capitol Hill on Tuesday, a panel of computer security experts raised another fear — that the website is vulnerable to hacking. They said they wouldn't trust their own personal information to the site, although they acknowledged they don't have firsthand knowledge of the system and its architecture.

David Kennedy, head of the Ohio-based TrustedSec, a company that offers to hack into private systems to determine vulnerabilities, told the House Science Committee that a cursory look at the website revealed multiple "exposures" that put it at "critical risk."

Asked about those concerns, Sebelius said: "I feel like it's safe. Absolutely," adding, "when there have been issues identified or flagged, it's immediately fixed."

http://news.yahoo.com/health-website-re ... nance.html

What kind of incompetent fucking company writes this kind of software, and holy fuck, does the US government think they should pork something this important out?

If this HAD been Apple, the entire team and maybe the CEO would have been fired by now.

Who was it that bragged that the site was now working in line with private sector standards? I mean, that's not true, but it's funny that they basically admitted that even a website is too much for them to accomplish.

Should have hired a Google or Apple to do it.

Clusterfuck from concept.

Or any number of web startups. There's a reason companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo etc are acquiring companies that haven't made money yet. It's all about acquiring talent (and there's a ton of talent out there) more than the product itself.

yeah, instead they hire incompetent plodders to build what is perhaps the most important website for American politicians ever.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:yeah, instead they hire incompetent plodders to build what is perhaps the most important website for American politicians ever.

They could have hired Google or Apple and the results would have been the same. As someone who sells and deploys software, I can tell you that a dumb customer can destroy even the best software and implementation plan.

The venders told the Government there were problems at the beginning. They government decided to ignore them and in some cases made them worse.

Apple and Google would have been smart enough to say no thanks.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:yeah, instead they hire incompetent plodders to build what is perhaps the most important website for American politicians ever.

They could have hired Google or Apple and the results would have been the same. As someone who sells and deploys software, I can tell you that a dumb customer can destroy even the best software and imemenatation.

The venders to the Government their were problems. They government decided to ignore them and in some cases made them worse.

Apple and Google would have been smart enough to say no thanks.

Now mix in politicians who have never created anything other than legislation and memos. In their wacked out world that all they do; tell people what to do. The how and why are left to chance. You now have a recipe for a disaster of epic scale.

Double post.

Triple post

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/1 ... eadership/
Peggy Noonan
"The president's problem right now is that people think he's smart."

Batboy2/75 wrote:Apple and Google would have been smart enough to say no thanks.

This is a big factor in so much that the government does. I would love to know more about how they decided to award these contracts. It smells like the "pork first trickle up" method of project management.

That is, it doesn't make much sense when you look at it as a software development project, but it makes total sense when you see it as a means of transferring money from taxpayers, to political supporters / cronies, and ultimately back to politicians.

I would assume that unless the people awarded could be seen as sole sources - the only organization in the world fit to deliver - this all went out to bid. Which is a sham. Naive people think that if there is a bidding process, there can be no shenanigans. You have to be a grown up and accept the fact that the vast majority of politicians trade in influence. This is why people spend millions to get a job that pays what $175,000 a year. Awarding work to low bid doesn't get you any kickbacks, hard or soft. So just accept that circumventing the bid process in a million creative ways is business as usual.

One of the ways of getting rid of your cronies' pesky competition - the people that may underbid them - is making shitty bid specifications, RFPS, etc. It is very easy to make an RFP that no sane contractor would bid on. If the specs are written so that the contractors either take a huge amount of risk or bid an enormous price, nobody's going to bid.

That's why the smart may stay away. Most have been around the block enough to see the hand writing on the wall, smell a rat, and move along. The insider bids because he knows he has an ace in the hole that limits his risk - he knows that his connection will see to it that he isn't held accountable to that spec. He'll get paid what he bids, and he'll get paid more for changes and fixes - even if they were part of his contract! And he'll pass some back to the connection, through kickbacks, contributions, and political support. Everybody gets rich, except of course the poor fuckers that are footing the bill for this party - the taxpayers.

From what I gather this project wasn't awarded to one contractor, it was piecemealed, and the work was divided in a sloppy and haphazard manner. This doesn't make ANY sense from a software development project perspective - it's an absolute disaster - but it makes PERFECT sense from a "divvy up the obamacare pork" perspective.

ccrow wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Apple and Google would have been smart enough to say no thanks.

This is a big factor in so much that the government does. I would love to know more about how they decided to award these contracts. It smells like the "pork first trickle up" method of project management.

That is, it doesn't make much sense when you look at it as a software development project, but it makes total sense when you see it as a means of transferring money from taxpayers, to political supporters / cronies, and ultimately back to politicians.

I would assume that unless the people awarded could be seen as sole sources - the only organization in the world fit to deliver - this all went out to bid. Which is a sham. Naive people think that if there is a bidding process, there can be no shenanigans. You have to be a grown up and accept the fact that the vast majority of politicians trade in influence. This is why people spend millions to get a job that pays what $175,000 a year. Awarding work to low bid doesn't get you any kickbacks, hard or soft. So just accept that circumventing the bid process in a million creative ways is business as usual.

One of the ways of getting rid of your cronies' pesky competition - the people that may underbid them - is making shitty bid specifications, RFPS, etc. It is very easy to make an RFP that no sane contractor would bid on. If the specs are written so that the contractors either take a huge amount of risk or bid an enormous price, nobody's going to bid.

That's why the smart may stay away. Most have been around the block enough to see the hand writing on the wall, smell a rat, and move along. The insider bids because he knows he has an ace in the hole that limits his risk - he knows that his connection will see to it that he isn't held accountable to that spec. He'll get paid what he bids, and he'll get paid more for changes and fixes - even if they were part of his contract! And he'll pass some back to the connection, through kickbacks, contributions, and political support. Everybody gets rich, except of course the poor fuckers that are footing the bill for this party - the taxpayers.

From what I gather this project wasn't awarded to one contractor, it was piecemealed, and the work was divided in a sloppy and haphazard manner. This doesn't make ANY sense from a software development project perspective - it's an absolute disaster - but it makes PERFECT sense from a "divvy up the obamacare pork" perspective.

Hmmmmmm

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.