no it's not.
So, then why is it that years after the site began to be built, and months after it launched, 30-40% of the backend is still not built?
I agree -- this is very, very hard work. However, it isn't something that has not been done before.
But over 50% of huge IT projects fail, many of them much more narrow in scope than Healthcare.gov. So based on that and the major levels of incompetence shown so far, I think the odds are better than even that it ultimately fails.
This isn't rocket science. Grab example schema from a private insurance firm, adapt them to this task, and go from there.
But look at this diagram. Healthcare.gov was supposed to exchange data with the IRS, Social Security, Homeland Security, the Treasury, and HHS. Plus all the carriers. Plus 50 state Medicaid systems. In realtime. Securely. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that hooking up pre-existing databases in this way is very, very hard. When we are told that 30-40% of the backend of Healthcare.gov is not yet built, I think this is what they are referring to.
(And yes, I know this diagram is hosted on a Republican website, but it seems to be a pretty straightforward depiction of the structure. I don't see any evidence that the graphic artist was trying to make it look more complex than it really is.)
The chart's hosted on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website. I would take it with a heaping tablespoon of salt, if I were you. It's say to say that chart was designed to look as scary and confusing as possible.
No, this chart is designed to look as scary and confusing as possible. The one I posted is a pretty straight-forward description of the basic site architecture. I have a pretty good understand of information design, and I don't see how the chart I first posted is artificially enhanced to make it look worse than it is.
It definitely explains the problems they've been having.
But this is only part of it. Check out this diagram. I'm no expert, but look at all the government systems in the upper left that Healthcare.gov is supposed to communicate with, in real time. And on the right, 50 state Medicaid systems. And at the bottom, all the insurance companies. Far, far simpler IT projects have failed. This site will not be ready by the end of the month as promised, and there is a good chance that it will never work as planned.
The free market assumes perfect information.
Actually, it doesn't, and socialism assumes it will have far more information than it ever can.
Personally, I think that pro sports players and coaches, and top hip-hop musicians, all make "too much" money. But so what? It's not my business, and envy and resentment are poor foundations for economic policy. They all entered into voluntary contracts, as did CEOs. What CEOs make is up to the boards of directors and the shareholders of the firms. If you think it's too much, don't buy their products or services. Or buy one share of stock and vote to change the board. And remember, we already have the graduated income tax, and the taxes on the top earners fund a disproportionately large share of government.
The "maximum wage" idea is, ironically, pushed by the same folks whose policies were major factors in increasing income disparity. We opened the taps to massive amounts of immigration from the Third World decades ago, and guess what? If you import a tens of millions of poor people, it will increase income disparity. Divorce and single motherhood became much more common since the '60s, which also contributed. And, of course, welfare in effect pays poor women to have children. If you're really worried about income disparity, stop doing things that increase the number of poor people.
How about a law that says movie stars can only make 100 times what the lowest wage guy on the movie set makes? Perhaps recording artists should only make some multiple of what some guy in the studio does? Maybe authors can only make some multiple of what the editors at their publishing houses make?
Does anyone really believe laws like that that would lead to net improvements in those areas, or for society in general? Paging Harrison Bergeron. This way lies madness, folks. As P.J. O'Rourke put it:
''The free market is not a creed or an ideology that political conservatives, libertarians, and Ayn Rand acolytes want Americans to take on faith. The free market is simply a measurement. The free market tells us what people are willing to pay for a given thing at a given moment. That's all the free market does. The free market is a bathroom scale. We may not like what we see when we step on the bathroom scale, but we can't pass a law making ourselves weigh 165. Liberals and leftists think we can."
But, flying across the galaxy to fight bugs with assault rifles at 10 feet?
Oh, this, so much. And the unit tactics were so absurdly bad that even a non-military type like me kept cringing. I kept wanting a sergeant to scream: "SPREAD OUT, you idiots, SPREAD OUT!" When satirizing something, you need to keep as close to what you are satirizing as possible. That makes the satire more biting. If you don't, it just seems sloppy and "off," as this movie did.
And the bug's weapons, that somehow reached escape velocity despite traveling at what looked like 40 mph, were another annoyance. But the movie almost redeemed itself with the scene of the ships colliding and breaking up. That was AWESOME, exactly the sort of thing the movie needed more of.
A movie is something like 50 pages of a book -- a lot must be consolidated and eliminated or glossed over, while still maintaining the feel and "WOW" moments that made the book stand out.
The rule of thumb for screenplays is that one page (dialog, description, or a combination) equals one minute of screen time. And of course screenplay pages have less text than novel pages, so I think you are bit low, but you aren't far off.