Slashdot Mirror


Accenture Faces Mid-March Healthcare.gov Deadline Or 'Disaster'

PapayaSF writes "TheHill.com reports that Accenture has two months to fix HealthCare.gov by building a 'financial management platform that tracks eligibility and enrollment transactions, accounts for subsidy payments to insurance plans, "provides stable and predictable financial accounting and outlook for the entire program," and that integrates with existing CMS and IRS systems.' The procurement document, posted on a federal website, states that if this is not completed in time, there will be 'financial harm to the government' and 'the entire healthcare reform program is jeopardized.' Risk mitigation (which pays insurers who enroll a higher-than-expected number of sick patients) must be accurately forecast, or it might put 'the entire health insurance industry at risk.' Accenture will also have to fix the enrollment transmissions, which have been sending inaccurate and garbled data to insurance companies. Because the back-end cannot currently handle the federal subsidies, insurers will be paid estimated amounts as a stopgap measure. The document also said that officials realized in December that there was no time for a 'full and open competition process' before awarding Accenture the $91 million contract. What are their odds of success?"

147 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is government software like this thing not open source? What is the motivation for it being closed source?

    1. Re:Open source by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Money.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two reasons:

      1. People are (god help me, I feel a fedora sprouting from my head and hairs growing from my neck as I type this) sheep. Your average person would lose their goddamned shit if they didn't have someone telling them what to do and when to do it. This is the end result of an education system that teaches blind love of authority, followed by corporate structures that do the same with regard to their employees. Thinking is hard. Decisions are tough. Et cetera.

      2. The only way to resolve the problem of the system is to vote in people who will change it. But if we vote for the wrong people, those other people might get elected! And they'll destroy us all! We'd better just vote for our team. Oh, yes.

    3. Re:Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your average person would lose their goddamned shit if they didn't have someone telling them what to do and when to do it. This is the end result of an education system that teaches blind love of authority, followed by corporate structures that do the same with regard to their employees.

      Mod down! Mod down! Mods, do what you're told, because you've been told!

    4. Re:Open source by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you insane? What free software contributor would want to wade through 10,000+ pages of Obamacare? Somebody actually printed it out, and you need a forklift to move it around. And that's just Obamacare, there are mountains of other gov't health/tax/payroll regulations to go through before you write a single line of code.

      Open source is only possible for software that developers want to make, where the developers determine the features. Nobody in the universe is masochistic enough to sit through meetings day after day and work through nights and get grilled by congresscritters for no pay.

    5. Re:Open source by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would assume the simply tendered out the process and got a bunch of quotes (tender responses) from companies on the government preferred supplier list. Any companies not assumed "big enough" were discounted out of hand. Then they would have had 2 or 3 left over (because at the very start of the process, they would have decided to immediately short list down to 2 or 3 people at most because bigger numbers than that is too hard to comprehend) and had some presentations from them about their success stories and then asked themselves "who was the cheapest?" and "who have I heard of before?".

      That's how it works here in Australia, anyway.

    6. Re:Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you dense? Do you think Open Source means that people work for free? Accenture (or some other contractor) would implement it, get payed by the Government and put it on Github for example. Anyone could identify problems and point them out. The requirement of open source and an open process would be a requirement from the Government.

    7. Re:Open source by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..its entirely possible for the government to put a simple line into the RFQ...

      *implementation must be open source and the contractor hands over all ownership and copyright of the product

      now, without that line.. they have them by the balls, basically. and the headline is incorrect.. it's not disaster for accenture at all, it's a disaster for the government only.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Open source by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      Accountability, deadines

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    9. Re:Open source by knarf · · Score: 1

      Knowing the company behind this boondoggle I guess the reason the code is not open source is to protect the innocent developers who might otherwise happen to get a glance of said code to their eternal detriment and damnation. Snow crash for real...

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    10. Re: Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you sound no less like sheep, spouting off the "people are sheep" meme.

    11. Re:Open source by c10 · · Score: 1

      Paid.

    12. Re:Open source by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is bound to be true, but not necessarily in the way people think.

      Suppose you're the Department of Health and Human Services, and you've been tasked with developing and fielding Healthcare.gov. You turn to your crack team of in-house developers of massively scalable consumer-facing web data processing systems.... except you don't have one. You don't even have people experienced with *procuring* such a system. This is for your whole agency a once-in-a-lifetime event.

      So, you turn to contractors. However you can't go to the *best* contractors. Government procurement and accounting rules are so onerous that you must turn to a small number of contractors who specialize in absorbing large volumes of government money. Government IT procurement is a public-private system that tends to combine the worst features of each sector.

      I've worked with government the federal, state, and local level, and there are a lot of very good people in government that any private sector firm would be happy to employ. But government agencies are not by nature agile. The best run agencies become very, very good at repeatable operations -- performing the same sets of duties over, and over again. When faced with a challenge outside their normal duties, agencies are at the mercy of contractors.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Open source by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      or it might put 'the entire health insurance industry at risk.'

      haha.

      Healthcare.gov sounds more like bitcoin everyday.

      And bitcoin is open source?...

    14. Re:Open source by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      People being mostly followers is part of basic human nature. There's no point in getting your panties in a bunch over it because it will never change (at least in our lifetimes).

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. The odds of success are zero by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    Unless the US Government threatens to bankrupt them via liquidated damages its unlikely the healthcare system will ever work properly. A sentence of death concentrates the mind wonderfully.

    1. Re:The odds of success are zero by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. I see no mention anywhere of "penalties" or "personal liability".

      I bet those people who are busy pocketing money wouldn't be so eager to sign government contracts if they put words like those in them.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:The odds of success are zero by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      What I read is "Dead Accenture, if you don't like the healthcare reforms, all you have to do is fail this two-month project to kill it off. We won't hold it against you.".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:The odds of success are zero by Megane · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say "Dear Accenture", but I like your Freudian slip. A dead Ass-enter is a good Ass-enter.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:The odds of success are zero by DexterIsADog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why is everyone responding couching this in terms of a binary success/failure? I have worked in the health insurance industry for 20 years, through lots of business, state regulation and federal regulation clusterfuck deadlines, and the typical pattern is;

      Note that a deadline is approaching in a year or so
      Meet occasionally to marvel at how complex the change will be until 6 months before the deadline
      Assign a team to do the work with 4 months to go
      Have an "oh shit! ALL HANDS ON DECK!" come-to-Jesus meeting two months before the deadline where the CEO kicks some rhetorical ass
      The team works like hell to implement what they can
      Mid-level managers identify the *least* required functionality to avoid firing/contract penalties/lawsuit and/or prosecution
      Deliver *something* that technically meets the requirements
      Get an "attaboy" from the CEO on the heroic work done by everyone involved

      I'm not even being sarcastic. This is how it works. ICD-10 ring any bells?

    5. Re:The odds of success are zero by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Good catch! :)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:The odds of success are zero by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Also the people pocketing that money, are the ones who donate to the election campaigns of the Congressmen who approve such contracts. It's basically money laundering; since they cannot pay for their campaign expenses directly with the government's money, they split it with a second party to do half assed work.

    7. Re:The odds of success are zero by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      Well, when the "requirements" are delivered late, wrong, and in the form of self-contradictory regulations ...

      Right. Expand the scope up a level from the contractor to the customer, and the model is exactly what I described.

    8. Re: The odds of success are zero by douglas.w.goodall300 · · Score: 1

      It's that darn spelling corrector that changes words on the fly to what it thought you meant.

  3. = NILL by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    How do you fix a Rube Goldberg foundation under a building? You demolish it and start over.

    1. Re:= NILL by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You are now on an NSA watch list.

  4. Two months? by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two months is barely enough to understand the problem and to start reading top level documents. Not even looking at the code. Most of those tasks are system-level, and it will be essential to understand what data formats each of those entities wants - before some poor code monkey is given signed requirements to generate that data.

    1. Re:Two months? by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Different contractor.... Typical business practice would dictate that they not start working on the project until there is some prospect of making money.

    2. Re:Two months? by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      they have had a couple years to work on this, why are they dragging their nuts

      Because the first 18 months will have been spent picking out nice furniture for the new offices.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Accenture isn't a technology consultancy they are a management/operational excellence company, they farm technology work out to Avanade. This has no chance of being a complete success, but Avanade is decent.

    4. Re:Two months? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Two months is not even enough to organize the people doing it. For a project this size, it is amazing if anything productive gets done after 6 months.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Two months? by BoFo · · Score: 2

      Plus, there was tremendous scope creep. The healthcare.gov website was designed to only front end the entire qualification/enrollment process. After determining if the customer was qualified and in which state the party lived, the work for the government website was done. Then the user was passed to the website for the state. The Supreme Court then came along and increased the task by ruling that individual states could opt-out of the program. Now healthcare.gov had to be able to apply rules from the 26 states that chose to deprive their less fortunate citizens of reasonably priced health insurance. That increased the complexity of the project at the last minute but the deadline was fixed. I know I've been in those sort of projects and the roll-out isn't pretty.

    6. Re:Two months? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Accenture isn't a technology consultancy

      http://www.accenture.com/us-en/company/pages/index.aspx
      " About Accenture
      We are one of the worldâ(TM)s leading organizations providing management consulting, technology and outsourcing services"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture#Workforces
      "Solutions: The Accenture Technology Solutions subsidiary focuses on the specific technology skills needed to deliver projects or outsourcing arrangements. Comprises the majority of Accenture's employees in delivery centers[1] in developing countries like Brazil, India, and the Philippines."

      Avanade is decent

      I hadn't previously heard of them, but on Google their name seems to come up in conjunction with Microsoft rather too often for my liking.

      [1] Coding sweatshops.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. 0% by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No chance at success. Just like the rest of ObamaCare, a misconceived piece of legislation that managed to take a market plagued by serial distortions of preferential tax treatment for third-party insurance and actually make them worse by larding on an individual mandate and even larger subsidies to insurance companies.

    And the worst is yet to come, when some 80 million additional employer-sponsored policies are cancelled.

    The failure of the website is just the cherry on top of incompetent conception, planning and execution all along the line. It can take Apple or Microsoft 6 months to fix the bugs in a major release to an X.1 release, and Accenture is supposed to take someone else's far-more-dysfunctional code-base and make it work in 8 weeks?

    Not going to happen, and just another example of the serial dishonesty and manifest incompetence of the Obama Administration.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:0% by reboot246 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, it's working just like it was planned. The goal was to destroy the health insurance companies and then go to a single-payer system. The disaster will come when that is realized. When your health care is in the control of the government, the government has you by the balls. Sounds great, huh?

    2. Re:0% by DexterIsADog · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...And the worst is yet to come, when some 80 million additional employer-sponsored policies are cancelled

      Is this a realistic prediction? I ask because your link is almost two months old, it's a Fox News story with the usual bias against the administration, and the underlying "facts" come from the American Enterprise Institute, of whom George W. Bush gushed, '"I admire AEI a lot--I'm sure you know that," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people."' And we know how that administration turned out.

      I'm not looking for Rachel Maddow's take, but how about something within the last month, from a source that's not rabidly anti-Obama?

      Thanks.

    3. Re:0% by abirdman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see how placing control of health care in the hands of government is more scary than having health care in the hands of piranha-capitalist medical care organizations. Healthcare Inc. is an extremely powerful and vicious adversary, bankrupting millions every year, and basically preying on the weakest and sickest among us. I've worked in a side industry (medical malpractice insurance) for 20 years, and I know the entire medical industry is a vicious money-grab from bottom to top.

      I'll take my chances with the government over any possibility of getting a fair deal from the likes of big-pharma, big-hospital, big-insurance. The logic of this choice becomes more clear the closer to retirement age we get, or the less healthy we get. A thirty year-old who contracts a leukemia that would have been fatal 30 years ago may likely be saved from the disease today, but their finances will likely never recover-- even if they're insured. By the time we're 75, we'll basically be signed over to the system, healthy or not. Would you rather petition the government or UnitedHealthcare? I'll take the former, though I respect those who choose the latter.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    4. Re:0% by ckatko · · Score: 1

      The reason is, most Slashdotters want to have their cake and eat it too. Corporations are evil, and so is big government. So it's win-win for complainers.

      After having a chronic disability and spending three years bedridden going to doctors every week or two, I am qualified in my opinion that the current system is a complete piece of shit with doctors misdiagnosing me, prescribing me medicine without telling me the side-effects (read: I almost died once), I was super close to getting those tainted spinal injections that hit the news, the entire industry thinking judging me and saying I was an "addict" when all I wanted was to get better and finish my degree, and more.

      And if the current system is a complete piece of shit, then ANYTHING that suggests change is worth it, no matter how pragmatically flawed. Because it got us TALKING ABOUT IT. And even if the system gets temporarily worse, it will then be seen as "changeable" and it'll be more apt to get better over the long run. The biggest thing Obama's healthcare bill did was got people to start being vocal about how shitty and how much the current system really needs changing. The idea that merely talking about it made you a "socialist" eventually got drowned out by real concerns.

    5. Re:0% by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the same here in Australia. The Government won't drop you because of a pre-existing condition, and I have friends whose lives were devastated by losing a family member, but who were not turned out of their house to finance the rather extensive care over a couple of years (and the care was comprehensive, and brilliant).

      Does it add to my tax burden? Yes, it does, and I don't give a flying f**k that it does, because I care more about people living better, than I do the few cents I pay in each tax dollar. Priorities.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  6. Slim..... and None by kenwd0elq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Especially for Accenture, a company with a fairly consistent record for failure in large IT projects, especially for government IT projects.

    But at that, the chances of something that can be spun as "successful" are greater for Accenture than for Deloitte. Not by much.... but some.

  7. Time for them to change their name again by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's Accenture. They write contracts DESIGNED to make a profit if they fuck up.
    I know the name change had reasons other than getting away from the bad reputation of Andersons, but it did have that side effect. If they have a front page for a week fuckup it won't kill them but I bet they'll change their name.

    1. Re:Time for them to change their name again by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They were never connected with any company by the name of Anderson.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Close to 100% by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It'll be "good enough". Accenture built the California site, which works fine, and the insurers really want it to work, so they'll accept less than perfect.

    Of course, the summary is designed to make everyone say "THERE'S NO CHANCE!!" It's kind of insulting in its blatant demagogy, but I've come to expect that here.

    1. Re:Close to 100% by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If they really plan on doing it in two months, then the only way they can reach that deadline is by tacking together pre-existing parts, or by debugging code that is mostly working already.

      If they are planning on writing major pieces of the system, or even relatively minor pieces, then there really is no chance they will succeed. At two months, if they are planning to design, code, and test more than 20,000 lines, it's going to be very difficult.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Close to 100% by artor3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two months isn't a real drop dead date. They'd certainly like it to be done by then, but it's not like everything gonna go down in flames if the insurers only get estimated payments, with adjustments coming in a couple quarters.

    3. Re:Close to 100% by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Obama will just decree that they can have more time, breaking his own laws once again

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Close to 100% by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      why would this be modded down? Obama has a history of breaking the law. He cannot simply grant extensions and wavers from the law, or grant extensions to the law yet he continues to do so in regards to ACA. Between delaying the employee mandate, to delaying the signup date.

      someones sig says it best, troll != i disagree

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Close to 100% by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Not to burst your bubble, ganjadude, but the reality is that Obama is not "breaking the law" in making the changes he has. Specifically, the law itself - you know the actual legislation - does not have all of these dates hard-coded. Typically, it just allows the secretary of HHS to establish them. If not, the House Republicans would already be drafting their impeachment articles.

  9. Disaster for who? by jaymzter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the headline writers are a bit confused on who exactly is facing the disaster here, and it's certainly not Accenture.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  10. Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh fuuu....ccccckkk! They screwed up the NHS database in the UK and now they moved on to the US. Don't any deep pocketed government read the news? Why hire totally incompetent assholes? I wonder if they are the same pricks who wrote that divide-by-zero code which crashed a French space rocket.

  11. America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no longer any point to these discussions of American inability to accomplish anything useful.

    1. Fifteen years ago, Americans cheered as their neighbors were fired en masse while their retirement accounts were savaged by the dot com crash and corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    2. Eight years later, Americans cheered as their still unemployed neighbors were thrown from their homes by bald-faced institutional fraud while corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    3. Now, Americans cheer as their government passes, then ratifies a plainly unconstitutional monstrosity which deprives millions of families of affordable health care while corporations help themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    Americans once valued education and competence. Americans followed people they respect. American leaders took care of the people they led.

    But the word "American" no longer has any meaning to the people who live in this country. The average person is embarrassed to claim the name "American." Those who do are reviled, jeered and looked on with suspicion.

    We have completely forsaken our integrity, our parents, our country and everything it ever stood for. Flying the flag over the narcissistic wreck this country has become is nothing short of blasphemous.

    The men who died at Appomattox, and Normandy, and Lexington and the Somme died for nothing. We have abandoned our neighbors to the winds and freed our government to claim any power it wishes and to use it however destructively it wishes without even the slightest electoral consequence. America no longer has a soul.

    And that is why all the king's horses and all the king's men can't build a web site.

    1. Re:America Cannot Compete by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Lot's gets accomplished in the US.

      It's the US government that can't accomplish anything but ever grander clusterfucks.

    2. Re:America Cannot Compete by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      A private sector who has no incentive to succeed. Why deliver working software in 6 monthes when you can claim you need two more years and twice the initial money and are reasonably certain to get obtain it ?

    3. Re:America Cannot Compete by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Why is Obamacare unconstitutional?

    4. Re:America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.

      There is no such thing as an interstate health care market. In fact, practicing medicine across state lines is a felony in all 50 states, even if you have a medical license elsewhere.

      2. The only way the Supreme Court could possibly ratify the Affordable Care Act was to declare it a tax, which justified it under the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.

      This despite the fact the U.S. Government repeatedly argued on the record that the ACA was not a tax.

      The problems with calling the ACA a tax are:

      A. If it is a tax, it is unconstitutional on its face under the origination clause in Article I Section 7. Only the House may originate a bill for raising revenue. The ACA originated in the Senate.

      B. If it is a tax, it must be apportioned under Article I Section 2 and Article I Section 9. The apportionment requirement is the only mandate that is repeated twice in the Constitution. There can be no doubt the ACA is a direct tax (regardless of the Supreme Court's hand-waving) since all citizens of the United States are liable to pay it. Since the ACA is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional.

      C. If it is not a tax, there is no power in Article I Section 8 that justifies it, therefore the tenth amendment governs. Health care is a state issue, and the Federal government may not interfere.

      3. When the ACA was ratified by the Supreme Court, the case was being heard illegally. Under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any case in which a state is a party. Original jurisdiction means the case must be first heard in that court.

      However, the Supreme Court was hearing on appeal when they ruled the ACA constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a case in which 26 states were plaintiffs. Further, the district courts that heard the case in the first place had no jurisdiction to rule for or against it either. District courts have no jurisdiction over such cases at all.

      Therefore the Supreme Court ruling was and is illegal. The ACA has therefore never been ruled legally constitutional. That means the 26 states that sued to overturn it still have a case and under the 14th amendment, must have their day in court.

      The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. The tenth amendment, Article I Sections 2 and 9, and Article III Section 2 are all the Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI. Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other authority in this nation other than a plurality of states may overrule it.

      Therefore, the ACA is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

    5. Re:America Cannot Compete by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.

      It wasn't unanimous. Some of the justices accepted the commerce clause justification.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:America Cannot Compete by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But... you sound like one of those "The government doesn't have authority to levy income tax" whackos.

      If the supreme court ruled it was legal, there is zero chance the supreme court is going to come back and say it tried the case illegally. Even if you are correct- which you probably are not.

      And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional. Full Stop.

      It may suck in other ways. It may be poorly implemented. It was definitely passed in a slackdash way.

      But you are wasting your life energy and merely looking irrational continuing to pursue this particular line of argument.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:America Cannot Compete by BoFo · · Score: 1

      I agree, and the sooner that America gets rid of their biggest government clusterfuck, the US Military, the sooner the entire world will be better off. American exceptionalism - we're number one in terrorizing the weakest and most pathetic countries in the world. More torture and more drones. Perhaps Accenture could be put in charge of the Military Industrial Complex so with the resulting disaster after disaster military effectiveness could be reduced to the size where it could be drowned in a bathtub.

    8. Re:America Cannot Compete by khallow · · Score: 1

      ...Americans cheered...

      Didn't happen. Looks to me like your definition of "cheering" is so loose that even you can be considered to be "cheering" for these things.

    9. Re:America Cannot Compete by khallow · · Score: 1

      And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional.

      No, it merely means that they said it's constitutional and official processes mostly stop - unless Congress cares enough to start removing Supreme Court justices. At this point, it'll have to be at the ballot box. Frankly, I think the process will take a long time, if ever, because resistance is diffuse and uncoordinated, and a lot of people are ok with unconstitutional law as long as it favors themselves.

    10. Re:America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      If the supreme court ruled it was legal, there is zero chance the supreme court is going to come back and say it tried the case illegally.

      That's why Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court and limit its jurisdiction. You'll find it spelled out in Article III Section 2, and you'll find the Supreme Court's unanimous concession of this Congressional power in the 1869 case Ex Parte McArdle.

      And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional. Full Stop.

      The Supreme Court said Dred Scott was constitutional too.

      But you are wasting your life energy and merely looking irrational continuing to pursue this particular line of argument.

      The case that will likely overturn the ACA is already working its way through the D.C. Circuit. If that is not successful, a future Congress will simply repeal it.

      And if I look irrational so do the Attorneys General of Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Nevada, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Ohio, Kansas and Maine.

      Never before in the history of this nation have a majority of the states filed suit to have a law overturned. The Supreme Court's subsequently flippant handling of this case, along with their self-contradictory ruling (it's a tax so it's legal, it's not a tax so it doesn't have to be apportioned) only proves they have no respect for the majesty of such plaintiffs or respect for the people those plaintiffs represent.

      The Constitution is nothing if we don't defend it.

    11. Re:America Cannot Compete by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      No again. If the supreme court said it's constitutional, then it's constitutional.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    12. Re:America Cannot Compete by khallow · · Score: 1

      If the supreme court said it's constitutional, then it's constitutional.

      Welp, they didn't get my sign off on that assertion. So I disagree.

    13. Re:America Cannot Compete by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Now can you tell us how the presence of fringe on the flag in the court causes them to be illegitimate?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    14. Re:America Cannot Compete by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. My context was really "in the next couple decades" as my post was focused on pragmatism.

      It is entirely possible that after we are dead, another supreme court will rule this is unconstitutional.

      It is extremely unlikely (impossible) this will happen during the next 20 years. The SC does change positions but it doesn't flip-flop.

      It's unlikely this will happen 20-40 years from now.

      You need look no further than the shock and depression after Romney wasn't elected and the immediate acceptance of Palin as a quality candidate to see how irrational the republican party has become. It's hurting them. It was clear the prior august that Romney wasn't going to win. It was obvious that Palin wasn't qualified within two weeks (and I'm being generous).

      A significant part of the republican party (I'd guess about a third but perhaps half) has accepted reality on the ACA and is moving on to fight it other ways. It's widely accepted that now that the ACA actually is providing health care- it will not be terminated. That's reality.

      It's painful because the part I identify with most (the tea party) also has the highest wackjob percentage. I'm a strong fiscal conservative who thought the Sequester was brilliant (insufficient of course but brilliant nonetheless).

      As a fiscal conservative, it's equally obvious that the current method of paying 10x the cost in the emergency room to treat people is very innefficient and our health care cost is higher and our outcomes lower than 27 other first world nations.

      We will not let people to take personal responsibility for their health care and as a result bleed out on the sidewalk outside the hospital because they skipped insurance. We will not let people with pre-conditions die in a similar fashion.

      Given those priors- it's clear we must have a different system and we should treat health care is more like national defense or the road system.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:America Cannot Compete by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      1. The Tenth amendment says the Feds must have Constitutional justification for what it does. It does not specifically limit government powers, but just emphasizes that the Feds have no more jurisdiction than the Constitution says. The Supreme Court was acting according to this.

      2. What the Executive branch argues for public consumption does not affect the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA penalty is a Constitutionally permitted tax.

      A. "Origination" is a slippery word. Not having read the ruling, SCOTUS may have found a corresponding origination in the House.

      B. Ah, another idiot who never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment. That one allowed the income tax, among other things. It was passed specifically because, before its enactment, a US income tax was unconstitutional.

      C. Who cares about the jurisdiction of the suit? Whether or not the suit was properly brought, the Supreme Court has ruled. It is hardly likely to change its rulings and reasoning if another case is brought. As far as still having a case, yes, they can bring another suit, but it will almost certainly be decided the same way, assuming the Supreme Court hears it.

      Frankly, I trust the Supreme Court over a guy who argues the constitutionality of a tax without considering the Sixteenth Amendment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      It does not specifically limit government powers

      The word "reserved" in the Tenth Amendment specifically limits the power of the Federal government.

      The Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA penalty is a Constitutionally permitted tax.

      They have also ruled the ACA penalty is not a constitutionally permitted tax.

       

      Ah, another idiot who never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment

      The 16th Amendment did not repeal the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. It only exempts income tax from apportionment. The ACA penalty is not an income tax.

      Who cares about the jurisdiction of the suit?

      That's an extraordinarily ignorant question. Jurisdiction is the foundation of due process, separation of powers, representative government and the Constitution itself. You might as well ask "who cares if the president passes his own laws?"

      Whether or not the suit was properly brought, the Supreme Court has ruled.

      Another statement of towering ignorance. The Supreme Court's "ruling" in a case where they have no jurisdiction has the same legal weight as the "ruling" handed down by my last slate of dinner guests.

      It is hardly likely to change its rulings and reasoning if another case is brought.

      Then it is Congress' responsibility to overrule them and, where legally permitted, to strip them of jurisdiction so they don't issue any further illegal rulings.

      Frankly, I trust the Supreme Court over a guy who argues the constitutionality of a tax without considering the Sixteenth Amendment.

      The Sixteenth amendment is strictly limited by its own language to taxes on incomes. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, nor with the apportionment requirements of Article I.

    17. Re:America Cannot Compete by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you don't have enough income for the penalty, you get subsidized. If it's a tax that cannot exceed income, then it's close enough to being a tax on income for government work.

      Jurisdiction is very important, but original vs. appellate isn't. No matter what, the Supreme Court will have the final say on this. It's in their jurisdiction. If this suit was improperly brought, it still shows how the Supremes would rule on a suit properly brought. Tell you what, if any Federal court rules in a way contradicting the allegedly invalid Supreme Court decision, and that ruling stands, then tell me about it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:America Cannot Compete by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      My point was about the poster (not the argument).

      My point was that he was looking like one of those crazy anti-government types and he should consider if that is really where he wants to spend his energy since (in my view) that ship has sailed and his energy would be better spent elsewhere.

      There are lots of anti-government crazies- and some of them get in big trouble with the government (and pay huge fines- or even go to prison) because they start to drink the Koolaid / believe the bullshit they are peddling.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  12. The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is it that we landed men on the moon in ten years, but we can't write some web applications in six years? Or consider that the US involvement in the second world war was just four years, enough time for us to develop two different kinds of nuclear weapons, as well as build vast numbers of ships and airplanes that actually worked.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Both World War II and the Apollo program had larger budgets and
      2) the delivery deadline was not flexible and was not adjusted even when it was clear the project could not be delivered as expected. E.g. D-day airdrops over Normandy were delayed because of fog. Might have been more expensive (in soldiers and $$) if the airdrops were performed regardless of the weather because the political cost of delaying it was considered too high.

      I guess it's Slashdot so there are a lot of poorly thought-out quips by smart people, but really, why is everyone taking this as proof of US Gov't ineptitude? Anyone with experience in large projects should know it's, at best, a 50-50 chance that any given project will succeed. Throw into the mix the opposition party amping up the political stakes for missing the deadline, a customer (the White House) desperate to prove them wrong, and you have a recipe for disappointment. I've seen the exact same thing in a large Corporation where one branch had a pet project and another branch was actively campaigning to kill it. In that case, the outcome was actually much worse than what's been happening with Healthcare.gov, but it was confidential so never made it to the papers (there was some suing involved so via court documents maybe it did have some visibility in some obscure fashion).

    2. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Megane · · Score: 2

      Because landing men on the moon was done by engineers, to solve a problem based on scientific principles like orbital mechanics. This is being done by non-engineers, to solve a problem based on legalese crap crammed in by lobbyists. (But they're the best non-engineers that money can buy!) It's all about the A-ark types vs the B-ark types.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Landing somebody on the moon is easier. Simple as that. There is a reason 50% of software projects still fail.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is it that we landed men on the moon in ten years, but we can't write some web applications in six years?

      NASA engineers didn't have non-technical stakeholders telling them what features the rockets should have. And the NASA engineers were employees at the top of their field not a collection of consultants put together by an outside firm.

      Have you ever seen the episode of the Simpsons where Homer designs a car? Imagine that, except with a committee of politicians. Reckon you could fly to the moon in something they had a hand in?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by khallow · · Score: 1

      but really, why is everyone taking this as proof of US Gov't ineptitude?

      Because it is a demonstration of US government ineptitude.

      Anyone with experience in large projects should know it's, at best, a 50-50 chance that any given project will succeed.

      Why do you think such failure is not a sign of ineptitude just because it is common?

    6. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      In other words, its all Republican's fault?

    7. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by khallow · · Score: 1

      That roughly 50% of large projects fail imply that, realistically, it's not an easy thing to pull off given inflexible deadlines and multiple vendors.

      Or that the project managers are far too often inept which is the conclusion you finally reached as well.

      I have lower (to me, realistic) expectations of large, multi-vendor projects so I don't see this an example of gov't ineptitude, but rather the typical limitations inherent in complex projects.

      Don't worry, I had low expectations as well. I expected the administration to screw up and they delivered. I just didn't attribute this incompetence to the complexity of the project.

  13. A little correction to the headline by hsa · · Score: 1

    s/Or/And/

  14. Why are you looking at the Obama Administration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They got the plan straight from the Mendacity King, Mitt Romney. With help from the insurance industry, who wrote large swaths of it for their own benefit, before having the Heritage Foundation put it out.

    But hey, maybe they want this whole idea to fail, and Obama is really playing 11-dimensional chess as he sets everything up for a takeover with FEMA camps and Kenyan Anti-Colonialist Muslim Communist Homosexual Death squads!

    Me, if I'd been in charge of business, I'd have gone straight to single-payer and put all of the disemployed Insurance paper-pushers into something more productive like counting grains of sand.

  15. Hipocracy? by Squeezer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Remember when Bush 43 awarded no-bid contracts to Haliburton and other companies in the LOGCAP program to provide services, supplies, and logistics to troops in iraq and afghanistan in the mid-2000's? There was a lot of outrage by the media and the left about it. Now, Obama awards no-bid contracts to companies to fix healthcare.gov and there isn't a single peep of outrage.

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    1. Re:Hipocracy? by epine · · Score: 1

      Now, Obama awards no-bid contracts to companies to fix healthcare.gov and there isn't a single peep of outrage.

      There's trolling and there's chickenshit. This is both.

      President Obama wakes up every morning knee deep in outrage astroturf manufactured on an industrial scale by one of the most powerful snowblowers that civilization has ever known. Your unpeeping post of insincere outrage is but the smallest intestinal worm inside this giant elephant.

      Gridlock plays to conservative interests. Some of us are capable of parsing the tea leaves around the ugly fallout. It's not an act of patriotism to actively sabotage every elected administration where you voted for the defeated candidates. Until that lamentably pervasive attitude changes nothing that gets accomplished in Washington is going to look pretty by any external metric.

      By all accounts the Obama administration has been disappointing. Unfortunately, disappointing is the new normal. Too many self-serving interests in America are determined to keep it that way.

      Let's look at what happened when the Republicans decided to act quickly in a crisis: $700 billion injected into TARP under practically no oversight at all.

      As of Dec. 7, 2013, SIGTARP had "pursued criminal charges against 107 senior bank officers, most of whom have been sentenced to prison."

      As I recall it, a huge chunk of the TARP money was already moving before SIGTARP, the oversight office, had a working light bulb.

      A December 31, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Government officials overseeing a $700 billion bailout have acknowledged difficulties tracking the money and assessing the program's effectiveness."

      Have clue, will parse. Try it some day. Start by noticing the difference between millions and billions.

    2. Re:Hipocracy? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      That's because CNN does not criticize their Messiah In Chief.

  16. Who are Accenture? by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Accenture, from the multinational corporation formerly known as Arthur Andersen, changed their name after the Enron scandal, formerly residents of tax haven Bermuda, now residents of tax haven Ireland http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2013/11/06/if-ireland-is-not-a-tax-haven-what-is-it/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal

    1. Re:Who are Accenture? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Accenture worked on the Australian Taxation Offices "Change Program", which cost billions and was a debacle. From the moment that they got the contract it was all about trying to progressively descope so that they had to deliver less and less. They delivered a fraction of what they said they would and many years late.

      But then they have a habit of employing smart young non-techies and then putting them in technical positions, and work practices that border on a cult.

      Why anyone would throw money at these clowns is anyone's guess.

    2. Re:Who are Accenture? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why anyone would throw money at these clowns is anyone's guess.

      Because they are highly respected in management circles. You get the tech view on them and I have to agree that I would never, ever, ever hire them unless you put a gun to my head or something equivalent. But management thinks differently. From what I've grasped, they deliver excellent work, as far as management is concerned - that means regular status updates in easy-to-digest powerpoint slides, solid contract work, and instantly available expertise (if you tell them you need an expert on your big-ass storage system, tomorrow, they'll fly someone in and send you a bill).

      All of these and many similar things are like miracles to a beleaguered manager who needs to save his neck from the management layer above him who's asking for his head in order to save their own.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Who are Accenture? by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen a few years before the Enron scandal.

    4. Re:Who are Accenture? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, although the expert will often as not turn out not to be, and they will make decisions that will haunt you for years.

      Not that the competition is any better.

    5. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good at management? Ok here is a story from Norway, I won't name names but I personally know the lead developers of the project. Accenture was hired by DNB to work on a pension system, worth "billions". The application was utter crap, atleast the lead developer said so. So one day DNB (which had employees in Accentures offices due to the project) came and had some change requests – Accenture's management estimated it would require 2000 man hours to complete the task (pulled a random number out of their frickin' management ass). At the same time DNB's person in Accenture's offices had contacted the lead developer and asked him about this change also. He fixed the issue even before Accenture's management had the opportunity to talk with him, 8 hours spent.

      Accenture is nothing but a fuckin' scam, good at snake oil talk – officials working with this company is probably very very incompetent or even worse corrupt.

    6. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice paranoid conspiracy theory. The same Wikipedia article to which you link contains the facts: Accenture is not Arthur Anderson; it's the renamed Anderson Consulting, which split off from AA in 1989, 12 years before the Enron scandal. AC had nothing to do with the Enron contract; that was all AA. The renaming of AC to Accenture was due not to a PR decision by AC, but to a 2000 court order in AA's favor, awarding AA all rights to the "Andersen" name. AA subsequently renamed themselves "Andersen." all this took place the year before the scandal came out.

      The Enron scandal took down AA; their involvement as the actual shredders destroyed their reputation. Accenture, having nothing to do with it, was largely unaffected and unharmed.

    7. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      My wife used to work for Accenture.
      The culture is typically bounding "consultants" which jump into a project, and then within 1 month jump to another project, in order to pump up their list of successful projects & plump up their personal resume .. without ever contributing any real work to a project.

      This project is doomed.

    8. Re:Who are Accenture? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked with a customer that used them for building a new data mgmt system. Instead of guiding the team to starting with the basic structure and build on it, they wanted to map every conceivable use. A huge amount of time/money wasted on hypothetical data structures and unneeded complication. But, as you said, they had executive mgmt sold that they were the right company. They have good salesmen.

      Unless they are replicating an existing system, I wouldn't use them.

    9. Re:Who are Accenture? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      But then they have a habit of employing smart young non-techies and then putting them in technical positions

      They were one of the few companies that hired people with no experience and trained them on the job. Not sure what you talking about cult work practices. From what I saw people would eventually leave the company after a few years to get a better salary.

    10. Re:Who are Accenture? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Accenture changed its name from Andersen Consulting and broke from Arthur Anderson in Jan 2001. The Enron scandal happened in October 2001.

    11. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Management is a very different skillset to technical work, but I'm in the camp that says you can't manage something without enough of a clue about how it works to at least hire good specialists at the top of the tree.

      A lot of the time, what we see in these kinds of situations is government people who are experts on general management and/or politics trying to hire commercial people who are experts on building technical tools, but actually hiring commercial people who are experts on sales tactics, contract law, and most of all, schmoozing with government people who are experts on general management and/or politics.

      It's hardly surprising that this does not tend to yield good results. It's frustrating for those of us who have technical skills and want useful government projects to succeed in ways we know they could. But the technical leaders who can actually pull off successful IT projects on a massive scale tend to work for places like Apple or Google or Amazon instead of working for Accenture or going into politics.

      At least these days when you hire a big contractor, they send out the smart-sounding specialist for the first on-site meeting, but the guys who come afterwards have probably been working for a year or two since they graduated before being charged out at 200+/hour for standing around cluelessly with a laptop, so there has been some progress in recent years. ;-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Who are Accenture? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a random pick, basically. I've worked with Accenture guys as well as other large consulting companies. Some of them are brilliant, some of them are dumb - basically the same you get everywhere.

      But that doesn't matter to management. What matters is that if they need someone who is a certified whatever, and they need him tomorrow, Accenture can provide.

      Middle management is all about ass-saving and fighting off the other guys who want to be in your chair. It's not until upper management that competence begins to matter again.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Who are Accenture? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They were one of the few companies that hired people with no experience and trained them on the job.

      Actually, it's their customers who train them on the job, while paying a kilodollar a day for the privilege.

      Not sure what you talking about cult work practices.

      Maybe the expectation of you doing an 80 hour week (they'll bill the customer for every minute) while paying you a flat salary. Or the up-or-out mentality, where it's all about becoming a partner - at which you get a cut from all the little people's billings.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re: Who are Accenture? by douglas.w.goodall300 · · Score: 1

      These are the people who in accurately estimated the value of my old company and cost me a million. It's hard to fight a hostile takeover when the hostile partner has the company checkbook.

    15. Re:Who are Accenture? by Hulfs · · Score: 1

      That's because it's 8 hours to do the development work and 1992 management hours to plan when those 8 hours will transpire and who will transpire them.

      My God man, there's Gantt charts to adjust, Statements of Work to write up, change requests to employ, personnel allocations to make, budget charts to adjust, approvals to attain, approvals of approvals to attain, test plans to write (and then later ignore), opportunity costs to calculate, and that's just the tip of the iceburg.

      I'm shocked they could fit all of that into only (!) 1992 hours - after all that's about 50 weeks worth of time.

    16. Re:Who are Accenture? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My second-hand observations are that they are very good at eventually delivering something that more or less works, and extremely good at getting sign-offs. My wife once almost signed on with a hospital as a consultant to watch the progress on the big name consulting company (don't remember if it was Accenture), and decided they weren't tying her to the tracks to let Accenture or whoever run over her. Presumably they're also good at keeping management happy by giving them slick progress reports, but I'm not tied into that as much. Moreover, if you're an executive, and you hire a leading corporation to do something, you're fairly safe from backblast if it doesn't work.

      Remember that, by and large, no techie contracts with Accenture. They sell at levels above any technical expertise. IBM did that back during their heyday, selling to executives who didn't have to use IBM's Job Control Language or other tools. IBM was also good at presenting itself as the safe option, hence the saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", one anecdotal case I read to the contrary.

      To understand how things go in big business, one must understand big business, which is not the strong point of the average geek, since the ways of thought needed to understand it frequently seem just wrong.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:Who are Accenture? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      "cost billions and was a debacle"

      So it was like every other Accenture project?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  17. Alas another lesson about paper power :-) by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    The government has a real chance of learning the lesson that pieces of paper containing the words 'A will do B or else C' for various combinations of A, B and C, are nowhere near as effective as an imaginary fairy with a wand when it comes to actually getting stuff done. If real fairies with real, working magic wands were an option, it would most likely work much better than the current approach, but alas all the fairies were driven out long ago by the forces of insistent scientists demanding that fairy magic has no place in a modern scientific world. 'Suit yourself,' said the Fairy Queen, 'we thought we were doing you a favour, seriously, it's better where we come from, magic works properly there, and we're only too happy to oblige!' So the Fairy Queen and all the magic fairies and their magic wands disappeared into the sunset, and the US government was left with only paper, letters and no magic spell power besides 'contractual terms' to allow the pieces of paper to have any useful effect.

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Alas another lesson about paper power :-) by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The government has a real chance of learning the lesson that pieces of paper containing the words 'A will do B or else C' for various combinations of A, B and C, are nowhere near as effective as an imaginary fairy with a wand when it comes to actually getting stuff done.

      Yeah, the government might learn it, but then those people will leave office. The question is, will the American public learn it?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They got the plan straight from the Mendacity King, Mitt Romney.

    People love to bring this up, but protip:

    There is a massive difference in legality*, complexity, necessity, and implementation in running a program in a state, vs. running it at the Federal level.

    "Obamacare" is most certainly not "Romneycare".

    (* The Federal government has absolutely no authority to be enacting health care nonsense. In effect, this legislation is illegal. In reality, the Constitution is long dead in all but in the form of something to trot out and thump one's chest about, so it's game on, of course. I'm not calling out either party here, because you'd pretty much have to go back to John Motherfucking Adams if you want the first real boot to the Constitution's head, or George Kills-For-Fun Washington if you want to see where the destruction of the supreme law of the land actually began.)

  19. The numbers don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, it's a $91 million dollar contract on a two month timeline.

    Let's say there is a profit margin in there, of 50%, so cost is 45.5 million

    Let's say it's really important, and everybody works 60 days.

    That is over 750,000 per day.

    If we average $4,000 (total guess) per day per project team member, we have 190 people on the team.

    Who the hell can organise 190 people on a two month project.

    How has this been estimated?

    Can anyone else make the numbers work??

    1. Re:The numbers don't work by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The numbers do not work. A project this size needs something like 6-12 months to become organized and start to be productive. And that is with all experienced and capable staff.

      This will take at the very least 2 years. Even if given that time, the odds are strongly against success.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  20. For some, thinking is *impossible* by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two reasons:

    1. People are (god help me, I feel a fedora sprouting from my head and hairs growing from my neck as I type this) sheep. Your average person would lose their goddamned shit if they didn't have someone telling them what to do and when to do it. This is the end result of an education system that teaches blind love of authority, followed by corporate structures that do the same with regard to their employees. Thinking is hard. Decisions are tough. Et cetera.

    It's only partly because of education, but for the *most* part, it's the innate human instinct to "go with the flock", and yes, just like the sheep.

    Idol worshiping is everywhere, from movie stars to athletes to religious figures to even people of the most untrustworthy occupation - politicians - flocks of sheep pay their homage to their idols.

    Whatever their idol did, no matter how wrong it is, the sheep will find excuses to defend - even when it is utterly *un*defendable, they still try their best to defend.

    Like the original contract for this website which went to a college buddy of the POTUS' wife, without open bidding.

    If we are to criticize the award of that original contract to someone who has no clue in setting up a website, the sheep will be rubbed the wrong way and they will revolt. They will attack whoever dare to criticize their idols.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:For some, thinking is *impossible* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Baa!

    2. Re:For some, thinking is *impossible* by MisterSquid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like the original contract for this website which went to a college buddy of the POTUS' wife, without open bidding.

      The executive whose company won the no-bid contract is Toni-Townes Whitley and the only association she and Michelle Obama have had is that they were classmates at Princeton.

      The right-wing media attempted to twist this fact of attending the same school at the same time as proof of cronyism. Fortunately for those of us who would be informed rather than manipulated, the biggest evidence of this failed smear campaign is the blasted Google landscape around the search terms "michelle obama yale classmate".

      The only people repeating this as proof of corruption are biased right-wing media organs and poorly informed /. readers.

      --
      blog
    3. Re:For some, thinking is *impossible* by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      To be clear, when searching on the terms michelle obama princeton classmate the results are a bit more reputable and include links to articles debunking the false association between Michelle Obama's and Toni-Townes Whitley's concurrent matriculation and political corruption.

      Princeton is where both matriculated (Michelle Obama also attended Harvard law school). "Yale" as a search term surfaces disreputable links in this context. "Princeton" and "Harvard" as search terms return links to more reliable articles.

      --
      blog
  21. The odds are... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ... tiny. Minute. About the same as for any monster project, e.g. here in Vienna the project that was retrofit the entire IT landscape, software and hardware, in one giant project. Awarded to IBM. Who majestically botched it.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:The odds are... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Typo. I omitted half of the project description. It should read "... the entire IT landscape, software and hardware, of the city's main hospital, which is publicly funded.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  22. Besides the jokes by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Accenture (and the like) image in IT departments (technical side) is often illustrated thanks to some jokes, like the famous Why did the chicken cross the road?. While the IT department usually delivers practical and tangible services, these "consulting companies" made their way up to the management. The management, IT illiterate, is always keen on overpaying some comforting but useless lengthy overpriced reports from such a consulting company, stacked later on at the bottom of a cabinet, having a sticky note inserted on page 3/1000, page where the reader gave-up reading. Useless reports aimed at influencing high level decisions at the management level, that may not have a direct or lethal impact on IT productivity. Besides the heavy cost embedded in the management budget, usually no one really cares. The problem arises when a big entity, IT illiterate, does not have a solid IT structure yet, and assigns full responsibility to such a "consulting company" to manage a new IT service, from A to Z.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  23. What are their odds of success? by eulernet · · Score: 1

    It's very easy:

    From Accenture's managerial point of view, it will be a huge success.

    From the government's point of view, it will be a massive failure.

    And the real losers are the american citizens.

  24. lets remember they are humans too by Njovich · · Score: 1

    Let the one who has never missed a deadline throw the first stone...

    Large healthcare IT ventures are notoriously hard. Yes, screwups were made, but lets not stamp everyone that worked on this project into the ground. It's good to level criticism at those involved to show them we are not pleased at what was delivered, but they are humans, and despite what you believe there are plenty of hard working, smart people working at these boring and incredibly hard government projects.

  25. good luck by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    It's very hard to automate a broken idea.

  26. Basically zero.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Even reasonable tests for bugs would take longer than they have, modeling, prediction, fixing architecture, design and implementation - no chance at all. I would estimate this will take at the very least 2 years and possibly as long as 5. Even if it takes 5 years, there is a real possibility it will have completely failed at the end.

    I predict that Accenture will fail to deliver, but will make off with the money anyways, possibly after having gotten significantly more.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  27. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by Imrik · · Score: 1

    If you require insurance companies to sell across state lines you can turn it into an interstate commerce issue.

  28. Deadline? by pouar · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it the short deadline that caused the disaster?

    --
    while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done
  29. AssCcenture by Anonymousekiteer · · Score: 1

    I know these primadonas and I can bet my fortune that these fuckheads will fail miserably.

  30. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    If you require insurance companies to sell across state lines you can turn it into an interstate commerce issue.

    You can't REQUIRE them to do that. You can ALLOW them to do that.

    Insurance companies are regulated at the State level....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  31. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by nbauman · · Score: 1

    Me, if I'd been in charge of business, I'd have gone straight to single-payer and put all of the disemployed Insurance paper-pushers into something more productive like counting grains of sand.

    Yes, I agree. And smarter people than me agree. Insurance companies take 15 cents out of your health care premium dollar. A lot of that goes to paper-pushers. Your doctor takes another 15 cents to manage the insurance paperwork. In Canada, they don't have that 30 cents cost. That 30 cents could cover all our out-of-pocket costs.

    Obama ran a $1 billion campaign. A lot of that came from the health care industry. That's the drug manufacturers, hospitals, doctors' associations.

    Bill Moyers asked, did Obama get outsmarted, or is he one of them? Matt Tabi (sp?) would say he's one of them.

    So one theory is that politicians are bought off by the health care industry.

  32. Accenture Expertise by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good old Accenture. I remember having to work with those clowns on the London Stock Exchange website. Our small company had been running it since day 1 but due to a deal between Accenture, Microsoft and HP we were slowly being pushed out of our position. They decided to let the Accenture guys handle running the website which led to a few funny events, the best of which were:

    1. Our team noticing the website had stopped serving pages for price information. We rang their team who were supposedly monitoring it 24/7 and told them. They asked what they should do...uh, so I said "Just IISReset the server, it should come back up". Their highly paid tech then asked me..."how do I IISReset it?"...oh god, no!

    2. Accenture wanted to push a change out to part of the site. They let their best and brightest do the work. Instead of copying over the files he somehow managed to delete the 15 minute delayed price site. They then tried to blame that on us, but when I mentioned in the emergency meeting that we no longer logged on to perform maintenance and we could simple check the security log to see who did it they clammed up.

    3. The same idiot who deleted prices went and deleted the entire website by mistake. We laughed, a lot.

    What's that old line..."Accenture, taking the freshest recruits straight from college and putting them in charge of your billion dollar enterprises." :D

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  33. Re:I just hope the GOP does not quit now by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    GOP Quit? Are you kidding? I think they wrote the contract. Who else would use phrases such as 'the entire healthcare reform program is jeopardized.' and 'the entire health insurance industry at risk.' I wonder if somewhere in the document it states 'and people, young and old, will die' as that seems to be the refrain from anyone in the GOP when it comes to the ACA.

    Completing the work is likely to be a tall order and I'm sure there will be more rough spots but I hardly think it means the end of the health care industry, health insurance industry or civilization as we know it.

    Shoot, the insurance industry owns too much of our government for anything truly bad to happen to them. More likely any rough spots will be used to justify some response that is profitable for the health insurance industry.

  34. That's an easy question to answer! by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    "What are their odds of success?" We're talking about Accenture, so it's an easy question to answer: Zero. Worst company I ever worked for by far. In six months, people are going to miss CGI.

  35. "Accenture", my ass. by jcr · · Score: 1

    I still call them Anderson Consulting, because they don't deserve to get away from the stench of the Enron disaster.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  36. Revisit a year from now by us7892 · · Score: 2


    * Accenture will realize the problem is much worse than they first realized, or that they chose to admit (by choice.)
    * The first two months they will have actually done very little. Perhaps created a plethora of new documentation.
    * Accenture will have extended the contract several more times, the new total amount will be near 250 million dollars.
    * Additional exceptions to the law will help to extend the contract so that changes can be implemented, and deadlines will simply keep moving.
    * The whole system will operate in pretty much the same way it does today.

    Accenture will not be at fault, however. They were just trying to fix the problem. And there just was not enough time and money. Then begins another year. Start the whole process again...

    Eventually,this will all go down as a miserable failure. But don't underestimate the amount of dollars that can be wasted along the way.

    Then begins phase 2, under Hillary Clinton most likely. Give it another try, why not?

  37. Accidenture by BoFo · · Score: 2

    I know of at least one project bunged up by Accenture. That why they're called Accidenture: http://accidenture.com/

  38. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People love to bring this up, but protip:

    There is a massive difference in legality*, complexity, necessity, and implementation in running a program in a state, vs. running it at the Federal level.

    No, there isn't. Legality is a non-issue in this situation and in general, due to the Supreme Court's ruling, complexity, several states are as big as nations running their own healthcare systems, necessity...maybe, because a national program is more necessary than a state program, but not really, see complexity again, and implementation goes back to complexity issues. You've really just used a bunch of words together that don't actually serve much differentiation among them.

    But none of that matters a difference as to the nature of the plan though, which is where you haven't made an effective distinction between what Romney insisted was a model for the nation (before he was against it) and what was implemented in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    "Obamacare" is most certainly not "Romneycare".

    And yet you absolutely failed to articulate how. Asserting it doesn't articulate it.

    (* The Federal government has absolutely no authority to be enacting health care nonsense.

    I'd like to think that the Federal government has no authority to enact any nonsense, health care or otherwise.

    But that doesn't mean that the Federal government has no authority to enact actual and meaningful laws relating to healthcare. Otherwise we'd have to get rid of institutions like the Centers for Disease Control.

    In effect, this legislation is illegal. In reality, the Constitution is long dead in all but in the form of something to trot out and thump one's chest about, so it's game on, of course. I'm not calling out either party here, because you'd pretty much have to go back to John Motherfucking Adams if you want the first real boot to the Constitution's head, or George Kills-For-Fun Washington if you want to see where the destruction of the supreme law of the land actually began.)

    And this is boring and tedious argumentation. I don't give a shit about your originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I prefer arguments based on sound policy, not worthless appeals to long-dead authority who can't be consulted let alone debated with about how wrong they were.

    Were I to consider it necessary, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment requiring the Federal implementation of an improved system, but I don't, what I do consider necessary is a Constitutional Amendment requiring a regular reconsideration of the parameters and scope of the Constitution which includes de novo discussion of matters. It'd be much more effective.

    Some states demonstrate this even more effectively, like Alabama and Texas. Their state constitutions are not worth the paper they're printed on, but are instead effective garbage.

  39. Don't Worry! It's Accenture! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they'll bring the same level of skill and professionalism to this task as they do all their other contracts!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  40. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by BoFo · · Score: 2

    And allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines is what the industry has been salivating for and the Republicans have been working hard to pass. Tha same thing happened with the banking industry with credit cards. That is why all credit card companies are based in South Dakota. When the government allowed all banks to operate across state lines, the race to the bottom began and South Dakota won. Whichever state has the loosest regulatory structure is the one that will be chosen and every consumer pays the price.

  41. I was going to bitch that this project by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    follows the "Hollywood Blockbuster" management style. You know where the guys in the trenches try to tell the higher ups what's going wrong and are ignored.(And if they were listened too there would be no problems and the movie would be over in the first 15 minutes.) Only through heroic efforts by the grunts do things work out and only in the last 15 minutes of the film, err I mean the last 10% of development time. I would bitch about that but then I'm reminded I work for a company that isn't part of the government and they do the same shit, they think it's a peachy idea.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by khallow · · Score: 1

    I don't give a shit about your originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I prefer arguments based on sound policy, not worthless appeals to long-dead authority who can't be consulted let alone debated with about how wrong they were.

    What's the point of law, if it can be safely ignored whenever "sound policy" arguments are trotted out? A genuine "sound policy" argument would have strong respect for existing law, including the "long-dead" Constitution.

  44. Two Months? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Accenture has two months to fix HealthCare.gov

    Two months? For large, non-trivial projects, two months is nothing. A month will go by just trying to learn what the fuck is going on under the hood, and a few more weeks just to get everybody to get ready for the first milestone out of many that need completion.

    If this shit can be fixed in two months, theneither the previous contractor was close to finishing (and thus it made no sense to add more uncertainty and risk by changing contractors), or this shit is/was trivial to begin with.

    The other possibilities are that the two-month deadline is completely arbitrary, or indeed, the zombieapocalypse is upon us (better start packing your cans of beans, ammo boys and horned helmet biker paraphernalia boys!!).

  45. Main goal by snemiro · · Score: 1

    The MAIN GOAL of these big companies is to suck money. The "collateral goal" is to provide the "official offered solution". Having presence in several countries, they simply give foreign "gifts" when contracts are approved.

  46. Put "the entire health insurance industry at risk" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    The article says this, like it's a bad thing.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  47. Accenture? Plan on fail by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    It would only be worse if it was Infosys. Accenture people are merely incompetent, while Infosys people are both incompetent and lazy.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  48. Patriot Alert by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    If you know competent Accenture employees, persuade them to quit.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Patriot Alert by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Most of them do. It's a place to go right out of college and get some experience. Once you have 2-3 years experience and that Accenture name on the resume, its time to go somewhere else for better work, fewer hours and lots more pay. This is the very typical pattern of Accenture employees.

  49. Deathmarch project by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Yup. Two months is insane for such a project.

    Smacks of decrees from non-technical executives who know nothing about the technology they are "leading".

    Isn't this the reason the original project was such a mess? Bizarrebitrary deadlines imposed from the top with no recognition of engineering reality?

    At least it will be a quick march to the death (only two months) not a protracted one.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  50. No chances of success, at all by dafelcardozo · · Score: 1

    Given that Accenture is a consultancy (no confidence means no developers), and that no one would develop a software solution that could encompass all the afore mentioned requirements, I would say there's absolutlely no chance at all for success, because the system is designed to fail. This has a name: corruption, as simple as that. This might mean a sad, very sad ending for Obamacare. Incompetence at the highest level, is no incompetence. Welcome to the United banana States of America ! So sad.

  51. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by pete6677 · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between the way things SHOULD be and the way they are in the real world. Nobody in a position of power cares what the constitution says, therefore it is ignored. And its pretty much been this way since the country was founded.

  52. Re:Single Payer by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    I don't see that as flamebait. The single embarrassing dichotomy in the USA is in the first question - what services do you want to buy; institutionalised global death-at-whim, or healing people who are sick without punishing them brutally by ruining them financially for the rest of their lives?

    That's a legitimate question.

    When did America become "The Brutal Country"?

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  53. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by khallow · · Score: 1

    Nobody in a position of power cares what the constitution says, therefore it is ignored. And its pretty much been this way since the country was founded.

    That's not true in practice. Sure, they don't care what the Constitution says, but they do end up caring about the constraints that it puts on their actions and power. They can't ignore that.

  54. Re:The AEI and Fox are using Obama's own projectio by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    Okay, so no, you don't have any recent links from even a nominally unbiased source to show what we can actually expect.

  55. Re:correction by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Good points.

    How likely do you think that the ACA will be overturned any time in the next two decades now that it's gone into practice?

    I put the odds under 1% personally.

    If you wanted to bet money, I'd want 100:1 odds to be on the ACA being overturned now.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  56. Why write that? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So Anderson Consulting was not connected with Anderson Consulting? Or the parent company that put up the money?
    What motivates people to try to slip such lies through? Once you've convinced the naive people of such lies Hognoxious what's the next manipulative step? What is it you want to turn these kids into and what do you want to do with them?