No, that's what happens when you award a government contract based on something other than merit and skill. Obama hired an IT contractor from Canada that even the Canadian government had previously fired for ineptitude. http://washingtonexaminer.com/canad...nd-troubled-obamacare-website/article/2537101 You're making stupid arguments, I suspect, in order to goat Lucrum into a flame war.
I do have to laugh... CGI tried to hire me a while back and they wanted to pay me less than half of what every other IT Contracting firm pays. They look for cheap (mainly immigrant labor) rather than good. The results with the Obamacare site and their other previous IT disasters should not be a surprise.
From your interesting article... this is the point in a nutshell. "Many, many years ago, I worked for an e-commerce startup here in Silicon Valley, and I ended up (sort of by default) in charge of trying to open up the government market for what we were doing. It involved meeting with a slew of all-too-slick, ex-politician, ex-military "consultants" with no technical knowledge whatsoever, who, for $15k to $25k/month retainers plus a (large) cut of any deal, would drink hard liquor and promise to "connect" us with big companies with government connections, and then help us sneak past the government bidding process to get no-bid contracts. It was an eye-opening experience that highlighted for me that getting government contracts in the tech world was very much about who you knew, rather than any actual knowledge, skills or experience. While this was quite a long time ago, it would appear that little has changed." When success is not based on merit and quantifiable things such as sales and profits... it becomes all about who you know and back door payments and corruption. As Willie Brown once said the problem with San Diego is that its politicians sellout for too little. Which is kind funny in terms of economic thought. The projects which get approved are the ones which generate so much profit they can pay off politicians.
CBSâ John Dickerson: Obama Headed Toward âCredibility Death Spiralâ if it doesn't get the Affordable Care Act up and running soon http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-john...ward-credibility-death-spiral-over-obamacare/
BRET BAIER, HOST: Jonah, what about today's speech in the Rose Garden and your take on kind of the president and what he was trying to do and what he did. JONAH GOLDBERG, NATIONAL REVIEW: Yeah, I thought it was a very strange decision to have essentially a campaign rally-style event for what has long ago already become the worst IT disaster in American history. I mean, that's a settled issue that even the defenders agree with now. And the sort of applause line stuff with the human props - half of whom either haven't even enrolled yet or just enrolled yesterday - and the almost Chauncey Gardner-esque sort of, âThe product is good, the insurance is goodâ repetition. All of it was a very strange decision, and I think at the end of the day might come back to haunt him if these problems continue. And I think every technical guy you talk to says these problems are going to continue. For those missing the reference, Chauncey Gardner was the lead character in the fabulous 1979 film "Being There." Played by the late Peter Sellers, Gardner was a mentally handicapped man with the intellectual capacity of a first grader who through bizarre luck befriends a wealthy supporter of the president and eventually counsels the chief executive thereby becoming a household name. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...defending-worst-it-disaster-ame#ixzz2iQ8usYSw
<iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/116415811"></iframe>
I just now read the article linked to above. I noted that while it contains some information that is undoubtedly correct, it also contains a lot of major misstatements and errors. The chief one being the implication that there were no companies contracted with experience in building complex internet websites. That of course is a ridiculous implication. I think the Washington Post article is a far more reliable appraisal of the companies chosen to build the ACA website. The Post article points out that the contractors did not receive the final specifications until Spring (Feb?) of 2013 from DHS. The contractors were under a lot of time pressure to roll out something by the deadline. That doesn't excuse the shoddy work, but it does help explain it. Obviously the deadline should have been rolled back a few months to allow more beta testing. Most likely the companies over-promised in their zeal to nail down the contracts.
This proves not that Hannity is an idiot but that he is showman. No one believes that he is THAT dumb! The government probably should have sole sourced the entire software package to one company if they wanted it to work out of the box. The great advantage of that approach is that you know exactly who to blame. There are a lot of companies that could have pulled this off, but they all would have needed more time.