Yes, cuz $350M is a reasonable figure for a web site.
Among us numnuts, it is considered good form to offer a link to a quoted source, as not all of us have the strict adherence to truth that you pretend to.
What is the OP number again?
But thank you for showing all once again what an obtuse you are.
So why isn’t the hair-on-fire brigade reporting the $350 million number?
There are reports of around $500M (admitting making a mistake at $600M) after adding in the administration, salaries and operating costs.
I did, to Gigobuster, in another thread. He ignored it, so I didn’t give it to him again.
The more agreed value is still around $350. And no I did not ignore it, you however do ignore that other values are speculative and you are still ignoring the value offered by the OP and the right wing media. It remains a lie.
As is this one, anyone can backtrack and see that I did report that I looked at it, the most likely value is still around $350+
Excuse please, but who the fuck is Digital Trends and why should I defer to their expertise?
It is worse than that, the writer even acknowledges that the higher numbers are speculative. I rather go for even the original cite that **Terr **offered and the numbers form other more reliable sources. It is clear the 600+ number is mentioned **now **by many right wing sources with the intention of fooling their viewers, even after corrections are available.
That’s not the link I gave you and you ignored. It was the link from WaPo that gave numbers (much higher than the ones in your sources) that came out of the hearings.
Cuz 350+M is such a reasonable price for a web site.
Let’s break this down for the impaired. First, lets start easy: is $350 million less than $600 million? Take your time, no need to show your work…
We must conclude it is, because the haters felt it necessary to inflate it up to $600+ to make a big enough flag to enrage the Teahadists.
Considering all the complaints from Republican Congressmen and Fox News pundits who are no doubt earnestly concerned about the flaws in the system and are only pointing them out out of a sincere desire that Obamacare be successful and provide its clients with the maximum possible value for their time investment, I think we can conclude that they didn’t spend enough on the website, and that additional funding is needed in order to completely assure our friends on the right that everything is working as it should.
Another certifiable lie from you, my cite actually says that:
“Kessler noted that the cost for the entire health care project beyond the website would be “at least $350 million.””
Once again I’m humoring you by using the value of the proyect “beyond the website” and it is still way under the $600+ million of the OP and the right wing media.
And the idiocy continues, your early post and the Op one that claimed that it was $600+ million is still a lie.
And no, I do not think that the most agreed price is completely unreasonable, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did spend an additional $300 million administering the Part D program in 2007. Just a year after the launch of the program.
It is hard to get a fix on the original costs of the launch and implementation of the plan D, but since a glitch at the beginning did cost $55 million. I have to say that a larger system that is the ACA is just reaching the usual costs overruns seen in projects of this nature. Now, as for the problems, they are still bad but they are not a reason to end the program. Those recommending a complete overhaul of medicare part d back then got it wrong.
Well, heck, GOGO, that Medicare rollout was a Republican initiative, so it worked perfect and was all glitch free, and stuff. Because they are smarter. Or something.
It is not “beyond the web site”. THE web site - front end and back end - cost at least $350M, administration, salaries and operating costs are at least $100M more. And that’s just for now. Who knows how much the “surge” (ROTFLMAO) will cost.
Still the original say so of 600+ millions was a lie, as your laugh reminds us, you still remain a defender of the ones that are misleading many on the right.
It was a mis-estimation. Like the “CGI work only cost $70M” mis-estimation of your source. Or both lies. Take your pick.
Missing the point again, the right wing media has not put a correction about the 600+ million number, after a few days of this it is clear that those sources have other reasons other than informing the public (or the politicians) in mind.
Of course if they are making many Republicans look like fools for repeating what they continue to hear in La La Land it is not my problem.
As even the Veggie Tales can tell you “a little lie can get really big really fast and a big lie can then swallow you up.”
Did your source (mediamatters, I believe) “put a correction” about the real CGI number ($196M) vs the $70M they reported?