You are only guessing about the surge not happening yet. IIUC getting the most effective company to oversee the repairs (an extra task over the original launch, IIRC the main IT company is not the one overseeing the repairs but it was a company that did a good job with their portion of the project), and paying other experts to dump their current projects to commit to this is not cheap.
It is “happening” but it has not “happened”. So its cost cannot be known. So she was not talking about it.
Man, you highlight the lines in the article but apparently you don’t read them.
“But adding dozens of new contract tech workers means they have to get paid.”
Dozens. Can you show me how that can translate into hundreds of millions of dollars?
And seriously - you are thinking that spending $300M to fix a $350M project is “better” somehow than what was originally reported?
Sure, removing the context will be convincing… not.
You are missing the involvement of the original companies that are still there now working to correct the problems.
It is when it seriously shows that you were a jerk for telling all that I was wrong when I was talking about the original price of the launch.
LOL. You were. But you will never admit it.
As pointed before you are only more evidence of the failure to deal with timelines syndrome that affects conservatives, seek help.
Yeah, cuz “context” can somehow allow the agency overseeing healthcare.gov to know how much “the surge” will cost - before the surge actually did anything yet.
Of course, not noticing that that helps my argument more than it helps yours is also a given. What you are pressing for is to declare that it is more likely that she was making a guess, not very reliable then.
I do think she was now more aware of what the costs are going to be in the short run as the launch failure has to be dealt with now.
She was not. She reported the figure she knew - what the website cost so far. The new costs she has no idea about.
By the way, note the $630M website cost reported on Oct 11th (before any inkling of the “surge”). Just a coincidence I am sure.
Still missing the context, the question was related to this: “But adding dozens of new contract tech workers means they have to get paid.” She then talked about an educated guess about the total costs this and the launch are going to reach.
Fantasies and conjecture - on your part. Not surprising though.
An opinion with no source, the most likely source is still the unsupported early reports.
Nope, it is just your failure to deal with timelines, and to ignore what the people that had access to more information reported.
And as the more recent updates tell us:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/24/how-much-did-healthcare-gov-cost/
Um - that’s an “old” update. Since then for example we know that the QSSI part is $150M (not $85M or $55M as the “old” update indicates). And that’s just for before “the surge”. Quite a big difference, don’t you think?
If you want to mislead others, the last update was on “old” Oct. 30. There is BTW no breakdown of the $150M number. Once again I have to agree with the reports that point out that the original 640 million number was actually including “all of the company’s contracts for a Health and Human Services Department program over the last seven years.”
I cited that update, in an exchange with you, a week ago or so. The date might show “Oct 30” but the article with those numbers was published quite a bit earlier.
Of course you would. Honesty doesn’t fit your agenda.
I didn’t know Pee Wee Herman opened a debating school!
Here is the post where I cite this article for you. Note the date.
Read my posts,** I did noticed that and I told you that I looked at your cite**, what you reported from that was spin. The point stands, fact checkers already reported that more likely numbers were below 300 million and the 300 number was just the potential.
What is more sad? The fact that the Media Matters cite I made cited the WaPo article what you helpfully posted.
If you remember it from back then why do you insist it’s a “recent update”? And the “fact checkers” didn’t know the numbers that came out after they “fact checked”. Like the $196M for CGI or $150M for QSSI. One also has to marvel at the disingenuousness of separating “the website itself” and “the IT to support the web”. Guess what - “the IT to support the web” is part of “the website itself”.