The latest figures are in on the seemingly bottomless hole that is healthcare.gov, the troubled federal insurance marketplace web site. By any measure, the Obama Administration was grossly negligent in the creation of the system, which ultimately failed on its rollout despite numerous warnings of substandard work, overruns, and major technical problems. It appears that we are not done with bill for the program. A new Inspector General report stated that the Obama Administration issued sixty contracts from 2009 to 2014 to build Healthcare.gov, which had already cost roughly a half a billion dollars by February 2014. However, the Administration has signed new contracts that obligate the taxpayer to cover an addition $300 million, and the estimated value of the sixty contracts totals $1.7 billion. Despite numerous accounts and reports on the mismanagement of this program, there appears to be little real effort to hold anyone accountable as we continue to pour hundreds of millions into this system. The contracts include money to CGI Federal, the well-connected company that was partially response for the disaster in October as well as other controversies in large contracts.
With some contracts obligating as much as $200 million, healthcare.gov has become a major cash cow for some companies like Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and HP Enterprise Services. Of the 60 contracts, nearly $800 million has been committed for the development of the Federal Marketplace as of February 2014.
Worse yet, The Hill is reporting that the Administration is due to pay at least 20 contractors more than their original estimates for work on HealthCare.gov and the rollout of ObamaCare. Thus, the overruns are continuing and, despite the dismal work done on the rollout, even the most dubious companies are continuing to benefit from the windfall. Most notably, while one 2011 contract with CGI Federal was estimated to be worth $93 million at its awarding, CGI Federal could ultimately receive more than $200 million. The CGI Federal contract (and its dismal performance) has been the source of considerable criticism over the companies connections to fundraising for the Obama campaign and personal connection to the First Lady (Toni Townes-Whitley, a senior vice president at CGI Federal, was a Princeton classmate and friend of First Lady Michelle Obama). I am less concerned over the personal relationship allegations (which seen speculative at this point) as with the simple question of how a company (one of a number of companies) could continue to produce subpar work on a major federal project and still receive massive overrun payments.
What is maddening is that the House of Representatives killed one of the oldest programs in the United States, the page program, for $5 million dollars but it barely makes news that we will spend $1.7 billion on a grossly managed marketplace website. Overruns are shrugged off and you will barely find any mention of the IG report among the major media.
Social contract?? Great!! I want the Wall Street social contract.
This effort was a disaster from the beginning. I agree with one of the commentators that this project should have been actually put up more efficiently, less costly, more robust, and as a result quicker than a blackberry bush snarl that entangles and engulfs an unattended back yard.
What often happens with some of these gov’t contractors is they rely on suits that do not fully know what they are doing from a professional experience point of view. They are the type that are sold software systems rather than develop them. They get sold on the notion that since the large number of customers, it obviously must be in the billions in cost. They don’t understand the idea of scalability. The cost to develop a system for 10,000 users from an architectural bases is the most involved part, scaling it to a million users is only a matter of additional resources such as servers and higher speed routing equipment, provided that the core system is properly modeled for scale and does not have contention within the system that magnifies with higher users.
The other doom for this failure was brining in large numbers of entities under different umbrellas to cobble this system together, providing one section or service at a time. This might work in a manufacturing level but it is very problematic in the software world if they are coming from different schools of thought. Having this type of situation, it is frequently the case where parts of the system have different data mode expectations and when they don’t talk the same protocol the system can break. It is also almost guaranteed to be the case when a new system merges with the main system, one not developed together, the two will break the system when merged. The chance of this happening is higher when the two development groups do not communicate with each other adequately. They might have dependencies that do not match. They can also cause systemic problems in that after merge, failures can be cascading and below the surface which need to be traced across multiple areas of development to just arrive at the fix. And the fix can destabilize other parts of the system because there were bad environments that were not utilized until the defective condition spread.
The effort would have been better served to have one or two entities provide the software development located in the same physical development building(s). Having quick interactions between design implementations and creating a good system from the beginning is worth every penny. Also each subcomponent within the larger needs to be cross trained on the other’s system to agree on interoperation and fix bugs together.
The way the gov’t put up such a system reeks of haste to meet unrealistic deadlines, too many irons in the fire, lack of communication, basic incompetence of the contractor to meet the task paid for, and throwing money at the problem in the hope that it will be cured. It was essentially doomed from the start.
How can I demand free stuff, if I shalt not covet?
An oxymoron that is.
Whatever I have is enough.
What I want, I earn.
I Shalt Not Covet.
She means she follows the commandment, “thou shalt not covet,” as she hypocritically supports those who covet and demand welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, social services, utility subsides, WIC, rent control, HAMP, Obama care, Medicare, etc., in order to obtain the property of other people which they covet.
They covet, therefore they deserve to have it.
Oops. That seems to be a contradiction. Why yes, thank you. It is.
You can’t demand what you don’t covet.
You’re talking to the Pope, Nick. This is why, for me, the government is a minimization principle, but let’s face it, we’re not anarchists, so whatever it is that they do, they should do it well. We both know that’s too much to expect, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be exercising eternal vigilance because while I don’t think we’ll ever achieve government competence, after all its not their money, they don’t care, we can still, as a society, strive to minimize incompetence.
Free, What does the govt. do “well?” Name me one service or product that when there is a similar service or product provided by private business that the private sector doesn’t do better. the VA is single payer govt. controlled healthcare. Obama went to the American Legion Convention in NC yesterday and got only some planted people up front applause when he spoke of the VA. Hell, the NC Senate Candidate ran away from him and blasted him in a speech @ the same convention. She got resounding applause.
Annie,
The Social Contract has a direct purpose to provide security for the unalienable right to life, liberty and property. It is not a blank check for bureaucrats to fund their schemes. I suggest if you’re so inclined to open your house and wallet for whatever government program fits your paradigm then nothing prevents you from doing so voluntarily. The rest of us that still cherish our natural rights don’t need to wait for government to tell us how to redistribute our property; we have consistently honored our Social Contract independent of government.
If you don’t like your natural rights then by all means I’ll be charitable and buy you a ticket to Somalia.
Well Paul if I was in the Republican Party, I would fire the person who was so off on the polling in the 2012 election.
annie – I think they have changed pollsters.
Paul, polls are tricky.
Annie – so, should we believe polls or not believe polls?
Who got fired? Look, the policy of Obamacare is one thing, its implementation is another, let’s not defend the typical government boondoggle based solely on politics. We can disagree about what the government should do, but if the government does do it, they should do it well and when they don’t they should be held accountable, I don’t care who it is.
The present system is designed to make a doctor into a millionaire. Plain and simple.
Squeeky, I hate Obamacare. I am waiting for the day Single Payer becomes a reality.
@annie
How I love McCanne’s old, “All the smart and well-informed people agree with us!” and “All the really stupid people are on the other side.” argument.
Why not just judge Obamacare by what it does, and what it costs to do that??? Yeah, some people now have coverage, while many others have lousier coverage than they did before, at a higher cost. And no, if they liked their doctor, many didn’t get to keep their doctor. Meanwhile, that “risk pool” is going to be financed by the taxpayers when it begins running backwards which means either money or debt from taxpayers to insurance companies. And, about 3/4 or more of the people without health insurance still don’t have it. And, the effects from the employer mandate haven’t even kicked in yet because it was delayed until after the election.
I guess if you tell people they are going to get a Cadillac, and then deliver them a motorized bicycle, some of them will be happy for the wheels. Others, a little more chagrined.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If one doesn’t like living with a social contract, that every single advanced society possess, then they are free to move to a country that believes ‘every man for himself’ is a good way to live. Good luck in Somalia.
Coveters? If you mean I covet my own life, liberty and property and that you have no right to take what doesn’t belong to you then yes.
The corruption throughout this administration is bottomless. We’ve barely scraped the surface.
FILTER ALERT: Two posts lost in the filter. Please assist!. I only need the first.
“There must be one overriding opinion hidden in there — pro or con — that good research can isolate, no?”
Well, YES there is; not just the one Progressives are willing to accept as supportive to their cause.
—————————————————————–
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task. Frederic Bastiat
John Oliver, I retrieved your comments at 2:28.
“There must be one overriding opinion hidden in there — pro or con — that good research can isolate, no?”
Well, YES there is; not just the one Progressives are willing to accept as supportive to their cause.
============================================
“Legal Plunder Has Many Names
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.” Frederic Bastiat
John Oliver, I retrieved your comments at 2:16.
COVETERS!