Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lead Contractor On Health-Care Web Site Led By Execs From Troubled IT Company

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the friends-in-high-places dept.

Government 227

thomst writes "The Washington Post's Jerry Markon and Alice Crites report that 'The lead contractor on the dysfunctional Web site for the Affordable Care Act is filled with executives from a company that mishandled at least 20 other government IT projects, including a flawed effort to automate retirement benefits for millions of federal workers, documents and interviews show. CGI Federal, the main Web site developer, entered the U.S. government market a decade ago when its parent company purchased American Management Systems, a Fairfax County contractor that was coming off a series of troubled projects. CGI moved into AMS's custom-made building off Interstate 66, changed the sign outside and kept the core of employees, who now populate the upper ranks of CGI Federal.'"

cancel ×

227 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CGI Federal and CMS are literally useless (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444869)

Fire them all with prejudice.

best point to be made here (4, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45445223)

Fire them all with prejudice.

yes do this.

I've read through some comments below & really that's all there is to say about this.

Debating 'gov't VS private sector' can be interesting or it can be excruciating. In this case we can surely fault the government for being dumb enough to pay these companies...so there's that...then of course the companies's work was shit...

Bottom line in thsi case is the same w/ most 'gov't VS private sector' debates....private sector can be more 'cutting edge' than government but government has the accountability of the people.

For the 'rollout' of a long-planned government that has State/Federal differences & the insurance industry there's no reason to spend 100's of Millions on routine IT work.

The US just paid these companies to hire IT workers to make the site to specifications. The gov't could have hired IT workers directly.

The problem with the debate is that so many 'government contracts' are basically ***government subsidies of industreis*** with tax dollars for the businesses in a particular political area, not on market forces.

If government contracts weren't doled out as political favors the data wouldn't be so noisy.

Re:best point to be made here (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 10 months ago | (#45445333)

Shorter: Dilbert's company got the contract, due to their extensive experience in the industry.

Do it in-house, instead. Career professionals are better than contractors.

Re:best point to be made here (4, Insightful)

St.Creed (853824) | about 10 months ago | (#45445357)

Shorter: Dilbert's company got the contract, due to their extensive experience in the industry.

Do it in-house, instead. Career professionals are better than contractors.

You obviously never worked with government employees. The combination of protected work + low pay does not tend to attract the best and brightest, in my experience.

Re:best point to be made here (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#45445783)

So? Other governments don't have protected work and low pay and they are still governments. You don't have to settle for shit. Actually get off your arses and vote and you may get a government that pays more attention to people who are not just in it to play political games.

Re:best point to be made here (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 10 months ago | (#45446041)

So? Other governments don't have protected work and low pay and they are still governments. You don't have to settle for shit. Actually get off your arses and vote and you may get a government that pays more attention to people who are not just in it to play political games.

Let me know if you find a government like that ;)

Re:best point to be made here (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#45445557)

This is really what they need to start doing. Stop hiring contractors who invariably screw them over, do it yourself, then you KNOW how it'll end up working. This isn't like asking someone to develop a 21st century tank. The technology is well established.

The worst part of it (as you'll see in the comments) is when it goes bad people fall back to "incompetent government" criticisms. Might as well put the weight on your shoulders completely instead of allowing your over-paid ass to fumble his load 1/2 to market.

Re: best point to be made here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445755)

"private sector can be more 'cutting edge' than government but government has the accountability of the people."

What a quaint notion. In the real world ideology trumps accountability 9 times out of 10. If you feel otherwise, I'm willing to listen to your explanation on why folks like John Murtha, David Vitter, Marion Barry, etc., etc., can be returned to office election after election.

Re:best point to be made here (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#45445857)

If government contracts weren't doled out as political favors the data wouldn't be so noisy.

If people didnt do shenanigans generally, i dont think anyone would be arguing about the size or role of government anyways.

The point is that people DO do screw things, and having a massive budget and no fear of going under when you screw up doesnt really help things. I feel like if we had set the budget for this website at ~1 million or some such, we probably would have overrun the budget a little but could still have pulled this off.

No no we should trust them this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444871)

It's not like the 5,734,238,948,351 past failures should be held against the Federal Government! We were promised they'd get it right this time, and we should trust them with our lives.

Well thank $DEITY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444877)

It's not the clusterfuck the Medicare Part D rollout under the Republicans was. They had LOTS of excuses for THAT. Just sayin'.

Re:Well thank $DEITY (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 10 months ago | (#45444961)

way to deflect. just because something else is shit has nothing to do with why this is shit, try and stay on topic.

Re:Well thank $DEITY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444981)

(original AC) Just sayin' I don't recall the relentless, endless drumbeat from the press (including Slashdot), or boatloads of grandstanding from the Dems when Part D came out...

Re:Well thank $DEITY (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45445015)

I think what he wanted to say is that fucking up isn't the specialty of just one part of The Party while the other part would've done a great job.

fair comparison (3, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45445163)

he's not deflecting you are...

the whole 'Obamacare rollout has been awful' is such a misreported story...making a comparison to a rollout of a similar program from the other party helps frame the issue properly

Re:Well thank $DEITY (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 10 months ago | (#45445331)

To be fair, a lot of money was made ripping off old people. We all know moving money from savings accounts into the economy is a good thing.

FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444883)

first post

Re:FP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444969)

same AC here -- disregard that, i suck cock

Re:FP (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about 10 months ago | (#45444983)

What are you, like 12 years old or something?

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445003)

Are you hitting on him, pedophile?

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445073)

he is, and what is this?

Software with a sixth sense? (5, Funny)

memebrain (1705284) | about 10 months ago | (#45444887)

The only part of the article that stood out as unusual to me was "AMS-built computer systems sent Philadelphia school district paychecks to dead people". Now that is a seriously innovative program that can find and send a check to someone on the other side.

Re:Software with a sixth sense? (3, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45444899)

Heh. Here in Chicago we let the dead vote. Twice.

Re:Software with a sixth sense? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45445133)

Indeed, we in Illinois are so patriotic that even being dead doesn't keep us from the polls!

Oh, and one of our last two Governors is out of prison I hear (The other one is still there).

Re:Software with a sixth sense? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45445021)

Sending a check to a dead person? Pffft.

Now making a dead person send you one, there's money in that!

the experts in CGI scripting (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444897)

Just the technology for web sites that can scale to serve dozens of concurrent users.

But their bid was lower! (4, Insightful)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 10 months ago | (#45444905)

This is why government contracts are broken. You are forced to go with the low bid in cases like this, so you end up with garbage. Yet, you still end up giving away no-bid contracts to preferred cronies like KBR. All the fascism, none of the quality.

Re:But their bid was lower! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444955)

Wouldn't have mattered if they picked the high bidder. The problem is the law itself, not just the website. The self-righteous arrogance of this administration is only surpassed by the previous one.

Oh, and this company is not exactly unknown in the great white north. Look it up.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 10 months ago | (#45445061)

The self-righteous arrogance of this administration is only surpassed by the previous one.

I'm pretty sure there were some administrations in centuries past that meet or beat 21st-century administrations in this department.

Plus, there are at least 1 or 2 21st-century non-US governments that outdo any 21st-century American administration on this score as well.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444963)

Beltway Bandits

Re:But their bid was lower! (5, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 10 months ago | (#45444965)

What bid . . .?

Revealed: Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is top executive at firm that that built disastrous Obamacare website after being awarded no-bid $93m contract

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477403/Michelle-Os-Princeton-classmate-exec-company-built-Obamacare-website.html [dailymail.co.uk]

. . . it just shows you where the real value of a good education is . . .

Re:But their bid was lower! (2, Informative)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 10 months ago | (#45445027)

Fair enough. This was just regular old cronyism. Not the race to the bottom.

Re:But their bid was lower! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45445033)

Well, some go to college to get to know something, others go to get to know someone...

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445465)

I thought women stopped doing that in the 60's.

Re:But their bid was lower! (4, Interesting)

juliuszs (1269402) | about 10 months ago | (#45445079)

Did you even bother to read it? Did you miss the point that it was Bush administration that approved them for no bid contracts? Did your knee hit your chin? Do you need a dentist?

Re:But their bid was lower! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445243)

Did you even bother to read it? Did you miss the point that it was Bush administration that approved them for no bid contracts? Did your knee hit your chin? Do you need a dentist?

IT'S BEEN OVER FIVE FUCKING YEARS. STOP BLAMING BUSH.

Face it, Obama's a failure. Continuing to blame Bush for every damn thing is pathetic.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445325)

In 5 years, can we repeat that back to you?

Obama isn't a failure. Obama is a more well meaning (at least seeming) version of the previous. McCain would have been worse. His forfeiture of the Vice President seat to Palin nailed that. The republican with dead eyes from last time was not looking out for the population either. It would have been less seemingly well meaning version. Ron Paul would have been the best choice, but the Republican party screwed him over till next Wednesday with their poll antics. Yes, I know Ron Paul wants to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but the President doesn't make the laws. He can only suggest.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 10 months ago | (#45445575)

Oh come the fuck on. This reminds me of a customer defending their snake oil purchase. Neither of them have any ill intent. But just because you voted for him doesn't mean you have to go around defending your decision. This is why politics is such a damn soap opera.

It's not just pathetic (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 10 months ago | (#45445577)

It is counterproductive. If everything is the fault of some guy in the past, long gone from politics, then that lets the current guys get away with whatever they like. We can only hope to improve the decisions politicians make by holding them accountable. If they have an automatic out of "Oh the bad guys in the past did it!" then nothing gets better.

Re:It's not just pathetic (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about 10 months ago | (#45445811)

But that's how it always is. Blame the past administrations for failures, praise the current administration for successes.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445295)

Pretty sure that the current problems started a long time ago. Time for the US citizenry to stand up to cronyism

Re:But their bid was lower! (4, Insightful)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 10 months ago | (#45445239)

And what was the graduating class of 1985's size? In 2012, it was about 1200. So let's say in 1985 there were 1000. Given that this is Princeton, it's likely that SOME of them are doing well in their careers, maybe even so far as to be execs at some companies.

Unless there's even a hint of something illegal (or even unethical) going on here, I'm more likely to chalk it up to pure coincidence. What are they supposed to do - disallow any company with executives that happened to have attended school with the Obamas from doing govt work? If that's the case, I doubt there will be many qualified companies left

No, this just looks like guilt by association.

Rubbish reporting from the UK rubbish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45446087)

Revealed: Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is top executive at firm that that built disastrous Obamacare website after being awarded no-bid $93m contract

Princeton undergrad class sizes are about 1300 students, so it could well be that Michelle Obama and this other person (who BTW was an EVP, not the CEO) scarcely knew each other.

Gee, what are the odds that ANY top official in the administration at some point was in the same place as ANY senior executive at CGI Federal? Especially when you include people like Michelle Obama, who is in charge of what policy area now? Using that kind of standard, you could probably find a suspicious sounding GOP connection there too.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445053)

Such an eloquent argument against privatization (since privatization is the government contracting out its duties, which it can only pay for through tax-payer money).

Re:But their bid was lower! (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 10 months ago | (#45445129)

The reason government contracts are broken is because they exist.

For some reason, in the US it is more politically acceptable to pay a private firm $200K per worker for a government contract than it is to pay $150K per worker to hire people to do the job. And this is not a partisan thing, since the biggest area where this kind of silliness happens is obscenely high military budget, and that gets reapproved without much serious question. It creates a lot of opportunity for graft among anybody controlling a government purchase, costing even more public money unnecessarily.

By contrast, the UK government has an IT department that is in charge of all government websites. If they need more people to do the job, they hire them. If they need fewer, they lay people off. And overall, they get better results for less money because that one department can coordinate efforts in a way the multiple US contractors simply can't do.

Corruption is cheaper than overhead+corruption (1, Troll)

bussdriver (620565) | about 10 months ago | (#45445275)

Government workers might be lazy and a few might pocket some cash before they serve jail time for it but the cost is nothing compared with privatized contractors who have a profit margin which they turn around and use to corrupt the government for the next contract and when they get caught swiping money it is "just good business" or if they swipe too much they get... well, nothing if they "bribe" the right people they just make even more money! Best case, some people get fined a drone takes the fall and the company goes bankrupt; then they re-incorporate and get contracts again under another name. Tax payers indirectly funding the downfall of their own government; the best way to destroy a nation!

All one needs to do to get this in the UK is to get corporations to contribute to industry lobby groups and PR firms (aka "think tanks") to sell the gullible public on their own self destruction... that and getting rid of the BBC.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#45445281)

And this is not a partisan thing, since the biggest area where this kind of silliness happens is obscenely high military budget, and that gets reapproved without much serious question.

...at least the obscenely high military budget, wasteful as it is, produces world-leading results. I think that if a military contractor had been given the task of building the federal exchange website, that it would have come in even more over budget, but it would have at least worked.

The politicians with the purse strings here.dont actually care about the money, but they do care about looking like they do more harm than good. In asymmetric evaluations, its easy to excuse big negatives (such as wasteful overspending) with small positives (such as a working outcome.) This much is obvious given the clearly harmful size of the federal budget yet calls for spending more keep coming out from both the left and right.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445715)

Hmm, are the F-22s flying active duty again then? The F-35s, aren't they like 100% over budget and still not ready to deploy?

But the goverment doesn't create jobs! (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 10 months ago | (#45445441)

Seriously, you are 100% correct in what you say, but according to the GOP, the government doesn't create jobs, and thus, the government can't hire qualified people to do work, but instead needs to outsource it all to private industry, all the while not having the expertise needed to even evaluate the private companies it is contracting to do the work.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 10 months ago | (#45445989)

For some reason, in the US it is more politically acceptable to pay a private firm $200K per worker for a government contract than it is to pay $150K per worker to hire people to do the job.

Because in aggregate the US believes in private enterprise above all else, to the point where we will hand de facto monopolies to cable television providers or mandate the purchase of health insurance from private companies (and only from private companies) before we'd ever stomach the idea of having government get directly involved in anything.

And this is not a partisan thing

Just because it's not "partisan" doesn't mean it's not a decidedly right-wing idea. And it was most certainly a partisan idea until Ronald Reagan won the most lopsided presidential election since 1792, at which point the party of Roosevelt and Johnson had to start positioning itself as "Republican Lite" in order to start winning elections again.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

Daa (9883) | about 10 months ago | (#45445997)

Contractors are preferred because when the contract is over the workers are not still on the government payroll. If they hire workers directly they would be covered by the civil service rules and be effectively employed for life no matter how bad they were. This shows up all the time when there is a need to change or slow down a program the contractors are in the news because of large layoffs.

Re:But their bid was lower! (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45445155)

It sounds more like no-bid cronyism. Obama's from Illinois, after all, where three of our last five Governors served prison sentences.

Re:But their bid was lower! (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 10 months ago | (#45445299)

it is more likely all for the money, i bet a lot of embezzlement and kickbacks are going on, not just fascist but a fascist-kleptocracy

You get what you pay for....lowest bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444913)

Government contacts are pretty much always awarded to the lowest bidder. No matter what.

Re:You get what you pay for....lowest bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445639)

Nope. I bid $4m on a contract that went to another company for $21m - and they failed.

Same ol. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444947)

There's alot of money to be made by doing it badly. And then being paid forever to 'fix' it.

Job security.

So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Québ (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 10 months ago | (#45444959)

Why wasn't an American company chosen? I'm sure IBM or Oracle would have cost less, and it
may have worked initially...

Instead what we end up with for 600 Million is the Canadian

"Sorry"

Re:So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Qu (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445173)

In Montreal, where CGI HQ is based, the organization is referred by many in Quebecois slang "Criss de Gang d'Incompetent" (CGI) == Fucking group of incompetents.
This was taught to me by a former CGI employee.

They are well know (like other three letter oursourcing groups like IBM and CSC) to underbid to get a contract and under deliver. I've heard former high level CGI executives (who after they left) admit this and chuckle about it out loud.

The truth it so many other large firms do the same thing.

Re:So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Qu (0)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 10 months ago | (#45445321)

It was chosen, no-bid, to a political ally of Michelle Obama.

Re:So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Qu (1, Informative)

St.Creed (853824) | about 10 months ago | (#45445363)

It was chosen, no-bid, to a political ally of Michelle Obama.

By the Bush administration. Before Obama was inaugurated.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477403/Michelle-Os-Princeton-classmate-exec-company-built-Obamacare-website.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Qu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445541)

What does being a government approved vendor have to do with anything? Check the right boxes and you can do it too. Twisting facts or plain illiteracy here?

Re:So it is a Canadian Company? Even worse, Qu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445651)

IBM and Oracle are Asian companies, not American. Look at their workforce.

Pb instead of Au? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444979)

Well if they choose a lead contractor instead of a gold contractor what are they supposed to expect?

So the gov't knew? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45444989)

If they already had bad experiences with mishandled projects, why would they give them more contracts?

Follow the money (1)

rossz (67331) | about 10 months ago | (#45444993)

Who are these executives donating to? Who's on the committee that approves IT contracts? When incompetence keeps getting hired, bribery is a sure bet.

Obamacare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445039)

The website will be seen to be only a (small) part of the problem with the program. We need you healthy young rubes (read: typical Slashdot users) to join, so we can loot you in order to pay for the health care for the old and infirm. That's fair, right? I mean, you aren't supposed to act in your own self-interest; that wouldn't be fair.

I wish you luck.

Re: Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445273)

Because you'll all be dead long before you get old. Of course if you aren't, it might be nice if you can afford healthcare. If only young you were around to help you pay for it... I wonder how we could arrange that. No, better to figure you're going to die young and leave a beautiful corpse.

21st time is the charm! (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 10 months ago | (#45445041)

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again.

Re:21st time is the charm! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445159)

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again.

That's what the contractor's loop iteration code looked like.

This is old old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445063)

This must be Slashdot - this is at least 2 months old.

ALLOW ME !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445077)

MOTHER FUCKERS !!

Finally, something we can all agree on! (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 10 months ago | (#45445101)

Liberals hate corporations. Conservatives hate the government.

But when it comes to government contractors like CGI we can all put aside our differences and hate them together.

govt contractors are just awful (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 10 months ago | (#45445105)

i bet they all smoke crack (crackheads in in business suits)

Re:govt contractors are just awful (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45445177)

Bob? Are you OK? [angryflower.com]

Fairfax Co. VA? (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 10 months ago | (#45445123)

Is this some hotbed of programming talent and I missed hearing about it?

When I think about politicians hiring programming based on physical proximity, I can't help but think they've reached the AIG level of not giving a damn what anyone thinks of them, because some variant of "close enough to blow me" is what everyone's going to think of the decision making process.

Of course they are (4, Insightful)

sugar and acid (88555) | about 10 months ago | (#45445137)

The "experience" looked for in a company looking to win a government contract like this is, well a track record in winning government contracts.

They know the tricks and hoops to go through to get to the end and win the contract. They probably also have good contacts that help them win it in the first place.

Ability to actually manage the contract and deliver the result. Pretty much irrelevant.

Basically good bullsh*tters, bad managers.

If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 10 months ago | (#45445157)

why did the award the contract to the same old cronies who have failed before?

Question: where are the really high-traffic websites primarily developed? Ans. West coast (Netflix, Youtube, Google, Yahoo, etc.). Heck, even Oracle is on the West coast. So if the expertise is on the West coast, why use east coast and Canadian companies with no history of successfully building (in time, on-budget) a high-traffic, complex website to develop and deploy a website that is a critical component of the legislation that you regard as your legacy achievement?

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445167)

Its a fucking website, get over it. The real win is in the law itself, you can sign up over the damn phone if you want.

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#45445259)

Yeah, just dial 1-800-FUCK-YOU!

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445305)

The real win is in the law itself

And the prize is shitty coverage and higher premiums all around.

On the plus side, if you're a male and get pregnant, there you are.

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (0)

ScentCone (795499) | about 10 months ago | (#45445335)

you can sign up over the damn phone if you want

Where the people on the other end of the phone write everything down, and then will wait until the web site is working, because they themselves will have to use that same system to interact with the system. And that doesn't get you a paid-for insurance policy. You still have to wait for a bill from the insurer. Regardless, you're not going to get off the phone with an accurate quote telling you what you, personally, will actually have to pay. Just age-related bracket prices.

the real win is in the law itself

You're confused. The law itself is an insane train wreck that is destroying people's current insurance, will jack up prices for everyone who actually pays, and will insure only a small number of the people it was theoretically supposed to cover. It kills jobs, raises the national debt, doesn't do anything to address the reasons that it's expensive to interact with a doctor's practice or hospital, and now introduces massive new vectors for fraud, identity theft, and worse. Plus it has all sorts of nice new features like taxes on your house when you go to sell it, or shiny new taxes on medical devices that will end up doing things like making a trip with your dog to the vet more expensive.

This, to you, is a "win?"

You must be one of those people who's going to be on the subsidized side of the equation, expecting someone else to work part of each day to pay for your visit to the podiatrist for that sore toe you got rock climbing.

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445539)

OP here of that response. I didn't know /. was full of either 1) dick ass republicans or 2) farmed out shills posting as dick ass republicans. If you don't think the ACA is a win for America then argo fuck yourselves.

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (-1, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | about 10 months ago | (#45445683)

OP here of that response. I didn't know /. was full of either 1) dick ass republicans or 2) farmed out shills posting as dick ass republicans. If you don't think the ACA is a win for America then argo fuck yourselves.

Ah, of course. The classic lefty response: no idea what to say about the reality of the situation, so avoid the substance at all costs, and act like a shrill, shrieking idiot and attack the messenger, instead. So typical.

But good to see that, no matter how angry you are that your party has totally been caught in broad daylight with a legislative mess that everyone else said was coming, that you actually agree about the points above. Which you have to, since they're real. You can now resume your ad hominem denial attack, like the child you are.

Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445771)

Same guy here. Guess you forgot to go fuck yourself. No wait, you only like to fuck minorities the lower income families.

It's our culture. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445161)

I don't think anybody else that works in Fairfax considers this a surprise. All of our companies have shady backgrounds with government contracts. Overpaying for a shitty website is just a distraction compared to real world problems.

Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445231)

Thanks for your effortsl

http://th3apps1.blogspot.com/2013/11/hedgehog-game-for-android_16.html

Government vs Private Contracts. (2)

trout007 (975317) | about 10 months ago | (#45445283)

I have experience in both. In a private business contract both parties do their best to meet the terms of the contract. The reason is simple. It's expensive to go to court and bad for future business. I've written unclear requirements. When it was a private contract if they noticed it they would call for clarification and unless it was major there was no charge. A contractor that buckles and dimes you doesn't get a second chance to bid.
A Government contract is different. If there are two ways to interprete a requirement they will always pick the wrong way and do as much work as possible down the wrong path so they get a bigger change order when it's discovered. They never get punished because technically they are right. It just rarely happens in private business.

Re:Government vs Private Contracts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445795)

I work for a military contractor and I gotta call bullshit. We have a number of government contracts that are cost-plus which means the more the company spends, the more money they make. Of course there's a budget that we have to stay under... But my point is that we frequently meet with the customer to report progress, clarify anything that's come up in the past couple of weeks that we're unsure on, or discuss any problems that have arisen. The overriding intent is to complete on-schedule and under-budget (well, as close as possible to the budget limit without going over). Occasionally the customer will insist on changing a requirement and then a budget amendment is discussed and approved...

You've heard of the company I work for.

Geeks love bacon. (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45445315)

We fucking hate pork.

That's a feature (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 10 months ago | (#45445369)

not a bug.

They are supporters (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 10 months ago | (#45445467)

Yeah, but they are Obama supporters, and that it enough to keep them on the job in this benighted country.

On the plus side (2)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 10 months ago | (#45445507)

They preserved the same consistent process. Let's hear it for repeatable software processes.

Cheers,
Dave

Graft all the way down (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45445635)

I don't get why people have not yet figured out that most large federal projects are rife with graft - the only difference is you don't hold the crappy $800 hammer that results, unlike everyone who gets to see the substandard work that results from politically connected projects with something like a public facing website.

This is EXACTLY why federal spending must be reduced, because it is for the large part wasted to a far greater degree than state or city level funding (though there is graft there to, it just cannot be at the level federal graft is).

Government... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | about 10 months ago | (#45445677)

...where failure is rewarded, as long as you can talk a good game.

Re:Government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45446071)

I was warned that voting for Mitt Romney would cause all kinds of problems. They were right !

The Malaysian version for that would be Heitech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45445737)

which totally mishandles the MYR 282 millions project to "transform" JPJ (our version of DMV) from the previous SIKAP system (also done by Heitech) to the new mySIKAP system.

Many months ago, they already knew that the DB2 database won't be able to handle the load, due to poor coding (e.g. SELECT statement without WHERE clause) done by either internal staffs or sub contractors. Instead of getting it fixed, they went live with the new system anyway. Subsequently, the whole nation has been crippled for weeks, as unlike healthcare.gov, there is no alternative to DMV.

The DMV is now asking for taxpayers' money from the government to buy some hefty z12 mainframe from IBM, and nobody has publicly pointed a finger to Heitech.

Why can't they just reuse a working State website? (1)

jayveekay (735967) | about 10 months ago | (#45445741)

There are many States that successfully implemented working websites for the ACA. I don't understand why the Feds can't just license the best of these and clone it 36 times for each of the States that refused to implement their own site.

Which begs the pre-Oct 1 question: Why didn't the Feds just test each of the websites developed by the dozen or so states that implemented their own, then license the best one for cloning purpose for each of the other 36 states?

A simple observation (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45445801)

Skill and proficiency in getting awarded a federal IT project contract seems to be inversely proportional to being able to deliver it.

Headline (1)

dysmal (3361085) | about 10 months ago | (#45445827)

Am I the only person who had to re-read the headline multiple times to understand WTF this article is allegedly about?

why am I not shocked at this? (2)

darkonc (47285) | about 10 months ago | (#45445855)

a company with a history of botching huge government contracts, gets another huge government contract -- and botches it.

I was wondering why this contract was costing so much to do so little.... It is all becoming a log clearer now. These people don't make money off of well managed projects (from the customer's point of view), they make money from BIG projects ... no matter how small they actually needed to be.

I'm sure that the botch is well documented ISO9000 style and all, but success was not necessary for them to get paid.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>