"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/18/2013 10:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/18/2013 8:45 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:



I'm not pushing anything. My political beliefs do not prevent anyone
from obtaining coverage under the ACA.

No, what prevents anyone from obtaining coverage under the ACA is an
impossible to navigate federal website and general lack of interest by the public.

I read somewhere today that the contract to develop the website was given
to a Canadian controlled company who used 10 year old technology in it's
three year development. It also has incurred cost overruns that has more
than doubled the original cost.

Eugene Robinson had it right today when he said, "A group of overly
caffeinated 20 year olds could have done a better job".

Why does the government need to pay extra when the let a contract for a
specified amount for the job? Would you hire a contractor to build a new
swimming pool and then when he gets 25% done, he says oops! I under bid the
price. You will have to pay 3 times as much to get the job finished?


Depends on the type of contract. Some are "fixed price". Many
government contracts are "cost plus" where the actual costs plus an
allowable profit are billed. Contractors to the government love these.

Yup, like the original BART rapid transit contract. The contractors said,
$700 million. Cost plus 10%. About $3.5 billion!