The Obamacare site that was so broken that they had to keep pushing back deadlines cost $94M to build, and now being reported that it's going to cost $121M to fix it.
The cost is closer to $600 million to make the site work and it still breaks down. OBTW it is also vulnerable to Heartbleed. It as well as the rest of the law has been poorly implemented. The website wasn't even tested before it's implementation. There are continuing delays in the mandates required by the law. The whole thing from the crafting and voting on the law through the implementation shows a lack of ability and organization that has been the hallmark of this administration. They were great at getting elected. They continue to be great at screwing up, making excuses and blaming everyone else.
Wasn't the point, but as usual here you are defending it. I was speaking more on the waste of money having to be dumped into this law every time we turn around.
As usual you are here inventing scandals. You know that on a debate forum, someone is going to respond.
Compared to what? What do websites of similar complexity, security, legal accountability, and capacity cost? What do you imagine the website of Blue Cross costs? The ACHA not a small business website. Is $200 million acceptable? I don't know. I bet you don't either. I suspect you would be outraged if it was $20 million or $20 thousand. A five-minute search shows that Oregon built their own heath website and it cost $134 million and experienced major problems, too. It would cost another $78 million to fix, so they are scrapping it and going with the federal system . . . which works, by the way. The Guardian says that big, secure government websites routinely cost over $100 million before staff costs are considered. I'm not seeing the outrage here.
Jay Carney the Douchebag: In today's press briefing, Jay Carney was asked about the number of Obamacare premium payments that have been made. In other words, the total number of people actually, factually covered, not including window shoppers and unpaid accounts. "We dispute their numbers. We don't have hard, concrete numbers, but we dispute them," the press secretary reasonably explained. Carney says this is not data that is traditionally shared with government and emphasizes that the data is coming from "profit-making" companies. Chuck Todd was asking specifically about how many people included in the White House's own reported numbers as successful Obamacare enrollees - the number 8 million that is being touted and bragged about every day - aren't actually covered by insurance at this time, and whether that might change their success line by up to or in excess of one million people. Carney's answer is that he doesn't know, but also no. They don't have the answer, but they dispute the answer anyone else might have. That's like having your cake and denying it, too.
