|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot!
Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017
$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate.
Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system.
|
On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot!
Yeah, they were cute. $150mil for iPhone R&D, $650 for Health.gov dev and operation, was it?
On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system.
The iPhone's technology wasn't very revolutionary, the OS wasn't very new. It was really just an iPod with phone tech built in, and the OS is literally the same one used for the iPods.
Now a better comparison would another website like iTunes...which apparently costs $1.3b to run annually.
|
On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system.
And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart!
|
On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart!
Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS.
But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy.
|
On October 27 2013 14:59 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart! Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS. But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy.
Sure, yet obviously the private sector could not handle it* properly. Otherwise Obamacare or health care reform in general would not be on the agenda. That they fucked up with the website is pretty obvious nevertheless. Still those numbers and comparisons are rather senseless.
//edit: * by it I mean of course proper, affordable health care for Americans.
|
On October 27 2013 14:59 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart! Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS. But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy.
You might "expect" it, but you'd be quite wrong in many cases. For most websites that are just websites, those are fairly cheap.
For websites that require a lot of background architecture, a lot of security measures, and are expecting magnitudes more traffic than even popular websites, your costs will rack up quite quickly.
Not to mention that "development" for a piece of technology means creating the system/hardware for a single physical object (plus blueprint and system of reproduction), while "development" for a website actually means everything required from design to launch, including the full server systems and infrastructure to support it.
That said, Healthcare.gov was bloated in costs and wasn't handed off to the most capable company. But if a company like Google or Apple had created it, you would still expect costs around/above $150mil.
|
On October 27 2013 15:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:59 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart! Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS. But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy. You might "expect" it, but you'd be quite wrong in many cases. For most websites that are just websites, those are fairly cheap. For websites that require a lot of background architecture, a lot of security measures, and are expecting magnitudes more traffic than even popular websites, your costs will rack up quite quickly. Not to mention that "development" for a piece of technology means creating the system/hardware for a single physical object (plus blueprint and system of reproduction), while "development" for a website actually means everything required from design to launch, including the full server systems and infrastructure to support it. That said, Healthcare.gov was bloated in costs and wasn't handed off to the most capable company. But if a company like Google or Apple had created it, you would still expect costs around/above $150mil.
Yeah, I don't get that they gave the project to a canadian company(saw it on Colbert and he made good fun of it), when you - at the same time in the same country/GOVERNMENT - have the capacity of running fucking circles around all other intelligence agencies of the world in the IT and telecommunications sector. Nothing against canadian companies obviously, but this one definitely sucked and was not prepared for what was required of them.
Mindblowing really.
|
On October 27 2013 15:04 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 14:59 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart! Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS. But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy. Sure, yet obviously the private sector could not handle it* properly. Otherwise Obamacare or health care reform in general would not be on the agenda. That they fucked up with the website is pretty obvious nevertheless. Still those numbers and comparisons are rather senseless. //edit: * by it I mean of course proper, affordable health care for Americans.
The private sector was never really given an opportunity to handle health care. The costs the US were experiencing were quite clearly not those produced by an unhindered market. But you are right, you wouldn't expect the private sector to handle activities such as socializing the costs for preexisting conditions. That's why government plays the role of subsidizing negative externalities in society. Largely free markets + government subsidizing is always preferable to eliminating the price mechanism and market wholesale.
|
Unfortunately we spent more on health exchange websites than was spent building Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Spotify and received a disappointing and glitched launch. Fortunately this mistake can be overcome and fixed, and in the end it will not matter. What matters is that we are moving forward with a better health care system. Still a ways from perfect, but still not doomed by an admittedly poor technical know-how showing by the government. On the bright side, we can use this as a learning point moving forward with similar initiatives.
|
On October 27 2013 15:28 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:04 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:59 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:54 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:50 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 27 2013 14:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 14:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Why didn't you let those fancy numbers stay where they were? I liked them alot! Which numbers would you prefer? I'm sure you can cherry pick a site that's convenient for you. How about this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017$292,000,000 to produce Obamacare website which doesn't work, about triple the initial estimate. Still more than double the cost of developing the original Apple iPhone, which included revolutionary technology and a new operating system. And the iPhone is related how to this whole healthcare thingy? Oh, now I get it. The iPhone was/is a huge success story and the website a total failure - very smart! Well typically you'd expect a website to cost less than developing cutting edge hardware technology + OS. But don't forget the public sector vs. private sector dichotomy. Sure, yet obviously the private sector could not handle it* properly. Otherwise Obamacare or health care reform in general would not be on the agenda. That they fucked up with the website is pretty obvious nevertheless. Still those numbers and comparisons are rather senseless. //edit: * by it I mean of course proper, affordable health care for Americans. The private sector was never really given an opportunity to handle health care. The costs the US were experiencing were quite clearly not those produced by an unhindered market. But you are right, you wouldn't expect the private sector to handle activities such as socializing the costs for preexisting conditions. That's why government plays the role of subsidizing negative externalities in society. Largely free markets + government subsidizing is always preferable to eliminating the price mechanism and market wholesale.
See, now we are talking  Without the hyperboles and stuff that makes you look overly partisan it's way easier to come to a sensible consensus.
|
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward.
|
On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward.
that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States.
|
On October 27 2013 15:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward. that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States.
I agree and see it mainly as a huge PR and message conveying fuck up, where people who cannot fend for themselves get the short end of the stick. The F35 program really surpassed 1 TRILLION dollars?
|
On October 27 2013 15:50 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:43 Sub40APM wrote:On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward. that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States. I agree and see it mainly as a huge PR and message conveying fuck up, where people who cannot fend for themselves get the short end of the stick. The F35 program really surpassed 1 TRILLION dollars?
In just a single decade. After a decade, problems remain. Not small problems. Large, disastrous ones.
|
On October 27 2013 15:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:50 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 15:43 Sub40APM wrote:On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward. that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States. I agree and see it mainly as a huge PR and message conveying fuck up, where people who cannot fend for themselves get the short end of the stick. The F35 program really surpassed 1 TRILLION dollars? In just a single decade. After a decade, problems remain. Not small problems. Large, disastrous ones.
sorry, but lol... disaster is quite the understatement here. Maybe government really is incompetent.
//edit: you should have seen how insanely critical people were around here when it was time in many EU countries(including Austria) to buy new fighter jets for defense purposes and there were delays and problems and corruption etc.(such seem to be the nature with arms deals...) with the Eurofighter Typhoon. But damn that's a different kind of beast...
|
Sometimes government is incompetent, sometimes it does ok. Pity there's so much resistance to fixing the system.
It really shouldn't be all that hard to deal with things like that and to get what you want for the price you were quoted.
|
On October 27 2013 15:59 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 27 2013 15:50 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 15:43 Sub40APM wrote:On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward. that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States. I agree and see it mainly as a huge PR and message conveying fuck up, where people who cannot fend for themselves get the short end of the stick. The F35 program really surpassed 1 TRILLION dollars? In just a single decade. After a decade, problems remain. Not small problems. Large, disastrous ones. sorry, but lol... disaster is quite the understatement here. Maybe government really is incompetent. //edit: you should have seen how insanely critical people were around here when it was time in many EU countries(including Austria) to buy new fighter jets for defense purposes and there were delays and problems and corruption etc.(such seem to be the nature with arms deals...) with the Eurofighter Typhoon. But damn that's a different kind of beast...
why do you even need an airforce? chinese tax payers will pay for everything via american defense bugets.
|
On October 27 2013 16:08 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2013 15:59 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 15:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 27 2013 15:50 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2013 15:43 Sub40APM wrote:On October 27 2013 15:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The Joint Strike Fighter program has been marred by delays and has become an increasingly large beast of a financial burden, surpassing 1 trillion dollars in current and pending expenditures. Yet the program trudges onward. that has always been the liberals biggest mistake, trying to appeal to the decency of the right when trying to advocate for a healthcare system that would benefit the poor and those with pre-conditions. They should have promoted it as a national security issue. Trillions to defense contractors, but not a penny for the poor is a surprisingly successful policy stance in the United States. I agree and see it mainly as a huge PR and message conveying fuck up, where people who cannot fend for themselves get the short end of the stick. The F35 program really surpassed 1 TRILLION dollars? In just a single decade. After a decade, problems remain. Not small problems. Large, disastrous ones. sorry, but lol... disaster is quite the understatement here. Maybe government really is incompetent. //edit: you should have seen how insanely critical people were around here when it was time in many EU countries(including Austria) to buy new fighter jets for defense purposes and there were delays and problems and corruption etc.(such seem to be the nature with arms deals...) with the Eurofighter Typhoon. But damn that's a different kind of beast... why do you even need an airforce? chinese tax payers will pay for everything via american defense bugets.
Austria is a neutral state and therefore must be able to defend its aerospace(or die trying/negotiate a deal which is more likely than anything...) I don't get the chinese taxpayers paying something and american defense budget stuff.
//edit:
oh you mean china lending money and USA is policing the world with it. Well there hopefully will be a time when the EU steps it up and will be able to speak with one voice, or at least be able to make concerted efforts in many areas - including military in the foreseeable future. Economy wise we are more than capable of competing, so why not militarily and politically.
|
What does Austria need to defend its' airspace from?
|
On October 27 2013 16:21 zlefin wrote:
What does Austria need to defend its' airspace from?
Evil ducks, low flying sparrows etc... D'uh...
It says so in the constitution. Some countries take it seriously what's in there
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
