1-800-ObamaCare-Denial

'More than a website" is the latest defense of the Affordable Care Act's painful rollout, and liberals are partly right. ObamaCare has larger ambitions than the basket case called Healthcare.gov and the 36 federally run insurance exchanges.

But building the website was supposed to be the easy part. The health law's fiasco of a debut doesn't inspire confidence in those other ambitions, such as re-engineering how U.S. medicine is provided, but it does help explain the modern liberal project.

Related Video

Editorial page editor Paul Gigot on the president's apology for the troubled Healthcare.gov rollout. Photo: Associaetd Press

The White House pitched President Obama's Rose Garden event on Monday as a new transparency, but the event amounted to an infomercial, complete with a 1-800 number. Operators are standing by and "the product is good," the President said. He even encouraged Americans to bypass the website and apply for benefits over the phone or by mail.

Too bad this infomercial lacked tangible information. Mr. Obama might have explained what went wrong, and why, and where the buck stops, or if there is even a provisional timetable for when the exchanges will function properly. Instead he minimized the severity of the problems, perhaps for political reasons. Or maybe he didn't say because the defects are so deep that no one can identify the specific solutions."...

online.wsj.com

Think they should have delayed this rollout by a few more months? Instead they look like idiots.
But this administration is used to having egg on its face.

FredHayek wrote: Think they should have delayed this rollout by a few more months? Instead they look like idiots.
But this administration is used to having egg on its face.

The only folks with egg on their face are the citizens who will need affordable health care.

Since I will be in Prague next month, I've been trying to keep up with Czech politics and news so I arrive in their country with at least some idea of what the popular social issues are at the moment. In my quest for knowledge I found this little tidbit...

Acta Non Verba finds ministry and Prague city hall overspend on IT

The watchdog organization Acta Non Verba has filed a legal complaint against three government institutions for overspending on IT needs. According to a study the organization carried out together with the Anti-Corruption Fund, the Regional Development Ministry, the Prague City Hall and Office for Government Representation in Property Affairs spend well above average on the information technology needs. By looking into 12 public institutions, the study determined that they spend on average 15,000 crowns per employee per year on purchasing and maintaining information technology, while the Regional Development Ministry had spent on average 215,000 crowns per employee per year and the Prague city hall 167,000 crowns.

http://www.radio.cz/en/news

I wonder if the Czech Republic would hire these groups out for a little Information Technology audit of our current administrations healthcare.gov debacle?

600 million dollars for the 20 million uninsured so far...I wonder what the final cost per eventual subscriber will be. 1 billion for only 5 million people signed up?

You crack me up. You fought a gov option, so they bent over to protect private interests.
now you complain that it is a convoluted mess.
as usual take no responsibility for your destructive actions.
Private insurance and private tech companies built it , not gov.
you crazies were so scared of "socialized medicine" that it turned into this mess.
if we just let people buy into medicare, the site works perfectly, we would be ahead instead of behind.
hypocrites

fly off the handle wrote: You crack me up. You fought a gov option, so they bent over to protect private interests.
now you complain that it is a convoluted mess.
as usual take no responsibility for your destructive actions.
Private insurance and private tech companies built it , not gov.
hypocrites

So you think government programmers would have done a better job? :pop
Please explain and show your work.

FredHayek wrote:

fly off the handle wrote: You crack me up. You fought a gov option, so they bent over to protect private interests.
now you complain that it is a convoluted mess.
as usual take no responsibility for your destructive actions.
Private insurance and private tech companies built it , not gov.
hypocrites

So you think government programmers would have done a better job? :pop
Please explain and show your work.

Yes, the Medicare site works great.

FredHayek wrote:

fly off the handle wrote: You crack me up. You fought a gov option, so they bent over to protect private interests.
now you complain that it is a convoluted mess.
as usual take no responsibility for your destructive actions.
Private insurance and private tech companies built it , not gov.
hypocrites

So you think government programmers would have done a better job? :pop
Please explain and show your work.

I dont have to explain anything to you, asshat, shove it!

fly off the handle wrote: You crack me up. You fought a gov option, so they bent over to protect private interests.
now you complain that it is a convoluted mess.
as usual take no responsibility for your destructive actions.
Private insurance and private tech companies built it , not gov.
you crazies were so scared of "socialized medicine" that it turned into this mess.
if we just let people buy into medicare, the site works perfectly, we would be ahead instead of behind.
hypocrites

You evidently have no idea of what you speak...

The most clear data comes from a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from June (pdf), which states that the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) spent “almost $394 million from fiscal year 2010 through March 2013 through contracts” to build the “federally facilitated exchanges” (FFEs) – the complex system that includes Healthcare.gov as well as certain state-based exchanges – the data hub, and other expenditures related to the Obamacare exchange system.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/ob ... site-cost/

Who do you think managed the 55 or more contractors for this project? Who do you think had final sign off on the readiness of the project?

Because the government provides brief, partial descriptions of contracts in USASpending.gov, it is not possible to say which of the contractors with information technology contracts or project management contacts were involved in building the 36 federally run health insurance marketplaces, a responsibility tasked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known by the acronym CMS, or those assigned to develop the federal data hub, which would allow applicants to have their income and family size immediately verified by the Internal Revenue Service.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com ... ntractors/

You've obviously not worked for the federal government on a Information Technology project (I did for 15 years as a programmer) and you really have no clue as to how difficult it is for a contractor to simply do what they know how to do best, especially when you have multiple federal agencies running the show.

You comment are great for the low-information public. In that capacity you've down a wonderful job.