Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
I don't even understand how $300 mill on the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT website is even on your radar. Could it be more efficient I'm sure, but we have been giving Israel $3 Billion a year since 1987. The JSF project is a miserable failure that has cost us almost $400 Billion! and I could go on.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 02:29 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I don't even understand how $300 mill on the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT website is even on your radar. Could it be more efficient I'm sure, but we have been giving Israel $3 Billion a year since 1987. The JSF project is a miserable failure that has cost us almost $400 Billion! and I could go on.

Because I'm a web developer myself, and have developed sites that have more 3rd party integration, and which service a lot more than 500k users/month, and so I know what the costs are. One single web server can handle WELL over 1000 requests per second even with complex database operations. So even if at it's peak the Obamacare site had 50k users in 1 hour (which I doubt), and it took 10 hits + db operations per user, that's still only 138 requests/second. A rack with 1 gigabit internet (which is WAY more than you'd need for this volume) at a tier-1 facility costs $5,000/month. The servers rent for about $500/month. By the time you add a couple servers for load balancing, and some firewalls, and let's say 2 racks for redundancy, your ongoing equipment costs for this kind of site would be no more than $15,000/month. Remember, this is NOT a heavily trafficked site. During the first 2 weeks after launch when traffic was it's heaviest, it still only ranked #3,395 on Alexa, meaning lots of relatively obscure startups (myself included) had sites that handled a LOT more traffic than they did. As far as the development costs, the best design house I know of, Frog Design, would charge around $300k to do the design, usability studies, etc. And, even if you use a top-notch coding house that charges $250/hour, the development costs would be no more than $300k.

So this is a $1 million site, max, and the ongoing infrastructure costs are no more than $20k/month. This is the sort of thing Silicon Valley startups do every day with VC funding of never more than $5 million. But the government spent $300 million on it. Nobody, not even Google, spends anywhere near that kind of money on any web site--certainly not one that is ranked #3,395.

Therefore, while I don't how much waste is going with Israeli aid, and all the other wars, since those aren't my business, I can safely say the government is spending, conservatively, at least 100x more than the private sector would to do the same thing. Obamacare was under the spotlight, so we can assume they put their 'best' team on it. This leads me to believe that, probably, on everything they're doing they're spending 100x more than a private company would.

And this sounds about par for the course. For every $10,000/year we pay in Federal income tax, yeah we probably get the equivalent of $100 worth of services if we were paying a private company. And you guys want to turn MORE stuff over to the government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 01:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 12:09 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Geez Louise! It''s only been up two weeks and your conclusion is that it's bungled? Sure, it's had its glitches, but these are being ironed out and like I said, it worked fine for me!

If it's still foxtrot uniform after two years despite the best efforts to fix it, yes I will conclude it's bungled and broken beyond repair.

But just give it a chance to work! Like I said, the iPhone is more screwed up that ObamaCare is but it's never declared a failure. Give the Affordable Care Act a chance function, THEN evaluate it.

Jeez, you set the bar SOOOOO low when it comes to government. Even _IF_ there were NO glitches, it was STILL bungled because they budgeted $100m, and ended up costing $300m, for what should have cost more like $500,000. Go to any Silicon Valley venture capital firm, and ask them how much money a health exchange startup would need to get launched and service 500k users it's first month (which is tiny peanuts in the internet space). They'll tell you such a startup would be expected to launch the whole business for between $500k and $5m. If, for $5m they didn't get the thing launched smoothly, the founders would be fired and thrown to the street.

So when you say 'give it a chance', how on earth are we, taxpayers, ever going to get that $300m back?! It's gone. It's lost forever. There is no way for the government to make it right.

And regardless, Obamacare is badly bungled because he ran on a promise of a liberal, 'more left' approach to health care. Instead we got crony capitalism, with a massive transfer of wealth from the people to the health insurance companies he was promising to protect us from! We've debated this in another thread and I've challenged anybody to name one other country that forces it's people to buy a product they may not want or use from private, for-profit corporations that are free to set their own prices. Nobody can. Obamacare really is unprecedented crony capitalism.

Obamacare also forces me to (a) give up the doctors I currently use and who I feel give my family the best care, (b) give up the $1 million that I would have been able to pass on to my kids when I'm old because my current health plan is so affordable and the difference is invested © give up access to all the new, cutting edge treatments and medicines that are in other countries, but not the US, and (d) make it harder to live in another country, like Canada, because if I do, I will have to pay for BOTH the Canadian health system AND Obama's health system even though I will never use the latter. So when you say 'give it a chance', there's no way it can undo the damage it's done. I've already received the cancellation notice from my current health insurance company, the only plans they have are 5x higher than what I was paying, and none of them let me pick my own doctors or get non-FDA approved treatments. So, if someone in my family ever gets sick and needs cutting edge treatment outside the US, Obamacare WILL be responsible for their death.

When I first made those 4 claims in the 'fire the government' thread, government defenders insisted I was exaggerating, that it couldn't possibly be THAT bad. But if you follow the thread, ultimately they all backed down and those 4 claims are accurate. It was left off with GirlyMan suggesting that _IF_ I could find an off-shore insurance company to provide the coverage I used to have, _THEN_ I could keep my old doctors if I was willing to pay the Obamacare penalty. But, I've looked, and there are no such off-shore insurance companies, and to do business in the US they are regulated by the US and subject to Obamacare, so Girlyman's workaround is impossible.

That thread shows how faith-based the liberal agenda is. When I first made those 4 claims the response was (paraphrased) that they were outrageous claims, it would be terrible if they were true, but they couldn't possibly be true. So after pages and pages of debates I proved that those claims ARE true, and the liberals just lowered the bar and stood behind Obamacare despite the revelation that their 'faith' was based on assumptions that were false.

Uh, the ACA web portal WAS built by for profit private companies on behalf of the government. If anything, it demonstrates how greedy private firms bilk the US Govt out of millions by intentionally low balling their quotes, then expecting the govt to pay the remainder of the price inflation.

OK, it went over budget. And I think the firms as well as the federal bureaucrats responsible should be investigated and, if necessary penalized for any wrongdoing here. And they are obligated to repair the defects in workmanship immediately so it will run smoothly in the future.

As for Obamacare being bungled because it isn't a single payer system, here's the problem. The Obama administration originally wanted a single payer system but this was roadblocked in congress by the GOP and some conservative Democrats, so the current compromise, which closely resembles Bob Dole's health care plan from '96 was implemented. And despite all the problems with ObamaCare - and it is by no means perfect - it's the best solution out there for the US at this time because 1) the GOP has done everything it can to impede ANY kind of healthcare reform and offered absolutely NOTHING as an alternative, save only the costly default system which only benefits insurance companies, large hospitals, and big Pharma.

I personally would have liked to see a 'try before you buy' solution to the health care problem. We decide on a series of metrics which would indicate the best quality health care for all at an affordable price. We then let the Dems implement a single payer system against the best private reforms the GOP can devise and test it on a trial basis in three or four dozen cities and rural towns throughout the country. The one who can deliver the goods would get the contract and become the health care model for America.

Unfortunately that's now how it worked. And as the GOP has absolutely no solutions save only a bunch of bullshit platitudes about the free marked, fear pimping and invoking Godwin's law, I see no other choice but to say fuck the GOP and to take the ACA, no matter what problems it has.

And, to top it off, despite all the flaws it has, the ACA is actually working! Americans can finally buy health insurance at 60-75% less than they previously did and cannot be turned down for coverage based on pre existing conditions. And if the GOP wants to improve this further , maybe it should get off its sorry ass and go do something constructive like hold the private firms who built the ACA portal accountable instead of this pointless bullshit baiting and sniping they do?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
22-10-2013, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2013 05:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 03:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And you guys want to turn MORE stuff over to the government.

You start from the premise that Gumbymint is bad. That starting position precludes you from entering into any serious objective discussion regarding the proper role of Gumbymint. You may not realize that but the rest of us do.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-10-2013, 05:12 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Romney cooked it up. McCain promised it. Obama delivered. Stop bitching.

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NoSkyDaddy's post
22-10-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:Uh, the ACA web portal WAS built by for profit private companies on behalf of the government. If anything, it demonstrates how greedy private firms bilk the US Govt out of millions by intentionally low balling their quotes, then expecting the govt to pay the remainder of the price inflation.

We agree 1 million %. These government contractors have revolving doors with the government. They leave the contracting firm to work for the government, and while at the government, award their old firm billions in contracts, and then leave the government to return to the old firms where they get millions in bonuses that are only thinly veiled “thank you”. Here's a video about one such contractor, Booz Allen, Snowden's employer, and the billions they bilk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xcbi5SH27c

When I was defending private, free market companies, I mean ones that are selling directly to consumers like you and I, competing for our business. I despise these corporations that are in bed with government at least as much as you.

Quote:ObamaCare - and it is by no means perfect - it's the best solution out there for the US at this time

Really? Why is it a better solution than following the rule of law, outlined in our constitution, which clearly states in the enumerated powers clause that the Federal government has NO jurisdiction over health care, at all, and this must be handled by the states?

If Obama said “I'm going to work with governors to create a single payer system”, he probably could have gotten it passed in the more liberal states, like Massachusetts, which already passed, and was happy with, RomneyCare. And then they'd have a real, single payer system, like Canada and Europe. And if it was successful, it would put pressure on neighboring states. Sure, the conservatives in Mississippi might not have any health care. But, if you're convinced your health care system is a step forward, isn't it better to put it into effect in those states where people think like you, instead of having some compromise bill that both the left and right hate (83% of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, either because it's too left or not left enough).

The problems, like the compromises for Obamacare, were predicted 300 years ago by the founders who knew that it would be impossible to get good laws passed if you do it at the national level, because the country is too divided and diverse, so anything, like health care reform, ends up in chaos, which the special interests and lobbyists feed on so they end up writing the laws, and the result is shit like this.

Quote:And, to top it off, despite all the flaws it has, the ACA is actually working! Americans can finally buy health insurance at 60-75% less than they previously did

You're drinking the cool-aid. In the 'Fire the government' thread I posted a scanned copy of a letter I got from Anthem Blue Cross saying my rates are going up over 500% January 1 because of Obamacare. When the government redistributes wealth like this, they ALWAYS only talk about those on the receiving end--never those on the paying end. Sure, some people who were sick and had pre-existing conditions saw their rates drop. But that's only because young, healthy people are now being forced to pay a lot more to cover their medical care. There is no free lunch. The total we spend on health care is going UP, not DOWN, so if some people see a reduction, remember that's only coming at someone else's expense. And since the young (and presumably healthy) are typically poorer and make less money than older people who have health problems, the extra cost is being born by those who can least afford it. The rich certainly aren't picking up the tab, since they already had Cadillac plans. The ones picking up the tabs are healthy people, like me, who had low cost health insurance plans and are now getting a 500% rate increase.

Are you willing to take a bet? I will bet you, that if we flag this in our calendar's to follow up in 5 years, we'll find that the costs Americans pay for insurance will have risen substantially faster than inflation in the years 2014-2018, and the health insurance companies participating in the health exchange will post record profits in those years, unlike anything they ever made pre-Obamacare. You willing to take that bet? I'll flag it in my calendar, and if I'm wrong, I will gladly write a post saying that you liberals sure were right. But if I'm right, will you write a post and concede “You know the problem Americans are having with skyrocketing health costs? Yeap, we did that.” Will you agree now not to find some other excuse or cop out to blame it on anything but your support of Obamacare?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 05:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Why is it a better solution than following the rule of law, outlined in our constitution, which clearly states in the enumerated powers clause that the Federal government has NO jurisdiction over health care, at all, and this must be handled by the states?

Last time I looked, you wasn't no Supreme Court Justice. Thank God. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-10-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:You start from the premise that Gumbymint is bad. That starting position precludes you from entering into any serious objective discussion regarding the proper role of Gumbymint. You may not realize that but the rest of us do.

No, I started by comparing facts over the development and costs of the government's health care site vs. comparable sites created by the private sector. After discussing the costs involved, and showing that the government was spending at least 100x more to do the same thing, _THEN_ I reached conclusions. That's the scientific method. If you dispute my facts, be specific. I've got links to back up everything I've said. It's not fair to dismiss the whole thing, without disputing anything specific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2013 05:34 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 05:22 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's not fair to dismiss the whole thing, without disputing anything specific.

Exactly. Drinking Beverage

(22-10-2013 05:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Are you willing to take a bet? I will bet you, that if we flag this in our calendar's to follow up in 5 years, we'll find that the costs Americans pay for insurance will have risen substantially faster than inflation in the years 2014-2018, and the health insurance companies participating in the health exchange will post record profits in those years, unlike anything they ever made pre-Obamacare. You willing to take that bet?

Yup. I'll take that bet. Except I'd wager that both premiums will be lower and profits higher. Supply and demand sorta shit and whatnot. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 05:43 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(22-10-2013 05:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 05:22 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's not fair to dismiss the whole thing, without disputing anything specific.

Exactly. Drinking Beverage

Are you suggesting I was not specific? I provided a scanned copy of my notice from Anthem, I listed specific performance statistics for throughput of server requests, specific costs for colocation services, lease prices for servers, hourly rates for coders. What was I _NOT_ specific about? I'm happy to be as specific as you want.

Conversely, you guys (plural) have dismissed my posts, but I can't find _ANYTHING_ specific. I claimed that the number that Americans were 'saving 60% on insurance' was a scam because the reality is SOME Americans are paying less, and others, like myself, are being forced to pay much, much more to make up for it. Do you dispute it? If so, do you dispute my rates are going up 500%? I'm happy to post more scans to prove it. Do you dispute my numbers for server and development costs? If so, which one(s)? I'll provide links to substantiate them.

In my experience, liberals ALWAYS just dismiss everything you say, and when you ask for specifics, they run with their tail between their legs, where libertarians are thrilled when someone wants to talk specifics and like to address everything head on.

Quote:Yup. I'll take that bet. Except I'd wager that both premiums will be lower and profits higher. Supply and demand sorta shit and whatnot. Tongue

Fine, we'll touch bases in 5 years. But, you cannot cherry pick, like @Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver, where you look at ONLY the people who saw a rate cut, and ignore all the other people who are forced to pay for it through a rate hike. Sure, in 5 years, maybe you'll find some people, like those with costly pre-existing conditions, who are paying less than pre-Obamacare, but overall, when you look at the average that everyone is paying for health care, it will be much, much higher.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: