FUSTERCLICK (c)

Original Content | Nov 16, 2013 | by Laz A. Mataz

[Lazamataz]

People should join the Laz ping list. :)

[PGalt]

People should join the Laz ping list. :)

Yes, they should. I'm already on. I was on when the "satisfied customers" were only in the double digits. (Let's see…where did I put that receipt with my number on it?)

BUMP (thanks Laz)

[TheOldLady]

TOL, I bet this money is earmarked for the 2014 elections.

Doubtless. They'll get it all back with crony capitalism support from O'Boingo.

[Lazamataz]

Yes, they should. I'm already on. I was on when the "satisfied customers" were only in the double digits.

Ah.... those were the days.....

[kevkrom]

Your numbers are fine, within the assumptions you make, which is a marginally competent customer who actually wants the thing built correctly.

Problem is, some of the biggest factors in the disaster were that HHS kept changing the regulations and requirements, provided no realistic statement of work or concept of operations, and proactively suppressed necessary technical detail to avoid any “leaks” of it to program critics.

So, your team would still have failed. Just a lot less spectacularly, most likely.

[Lazamataz]

I have a 9 month requirements-nailing-down phase (see the thread body for that). In the contract, I would build in the clause that they have 9 months to work with us to have a Business Requirement and a Tech Spec put together. Fail, and we get paid and walk from the project.

[Lazamataz]

Ping!

[RikaStrom]

Very nice, excellent. :-)

[cynwoody]

Where they made it complicated was in wanting to prevent his seeing the plans, and their prices, until AFTER he had entered all the info to determine the subsidy, and making sure that reporters couldn't get at the pricing info by repeatedly entering different locations, ages, and sex.

Yes, and that's further proof that they are not only incompetent but evil.

There was absolutely no need to require an applicant to identify himself merely to review the choices.

[Hildy]

Excellent. Excellent.

[no-to-illegals]

Came to your last post so you would know I read it all from you and the posters to your thread. Enlightening and entertaining. Thanks Laz!

[greeneyes]

I have zero to do with computer programming. I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express either, but it seems to me that the government website should not have even been necessary.

A page on the existing HHS website listing the Ins. Companies participating, and their contact info, and maybe a link to the Ins. Company’s website is all that should have been necessary.

The major insurers already have websites. They didn’t need a stinkin’ government website.

What would that have cost? Very little comparitively speaking I am sure. Cluster Click? You betcha.

[okie01]

The major insurers already have websites. They didn’t need a stinkin’ government website.

However, such an approach would've left the insurance company websites in control of the portal to Obamacare.

When you're objective is total control, you're not interested in farming anything out.

[greeneyes]

However, such an approach would’ve left the insurance company websites in control of the portal to Obamacare.
*******************************************************

Exactly. We don’t need no stinkin government website and their maniacal desire to have total control over the “little” people is neither needed nor appreciated.

[okie01]

We don’t need no stinkin government website and their maniacal desire to have total control over the “little” people is neither needed nor appreciated.

In which case, we don't need Obamacare in the first place. Which makes who runs the website academic...