Speaking about why his campaign website worked so well compared to the ACA site, Obama said:
You know, one of the lessons - learned from this whole process on the website - is that probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to I.T. …
Well, the reason is is that when it comes to my campaign, I’m not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules, right?
He later added that:
When we buy I.T. services generally, it is so bureaucratic and so cumbersome that a whole bunch of it doesn’t work or it ends up being way over cost.
Obama seems to be acknowledging that his ideological opponents are right. Yet, he claims that these fundamental inefficiencies are easily fixed?
Ann Althouse comments:
we've been told we must buy a product, and things have been set up so we can only go through the government's market (the "exchange"), and the government has already demonstrated that its market doesn't work. But you can't walk away, you're forced to buy, and there's nowhere else to go. And yet, he wants us to feel bad about the cumbersome bureaucracy the government encountered trying to procure the wherewithal to set up the market it had already decided we would all need to use.
For the broader background, here is an interesting article about (a most timely book on) Obamacare's path to power:
The story of the Affordable Care Act is as twisted and bizarre as anything ever written by Stephenson, Kafka, or Orwell. It is an Act that saw the President oppose his signature legislation, before he supported it, and that saw the President’s challenger sire the Act, before he disowned it. The Act sparked conservative outrage around the country, though it was conceived in the heart of the conservative movement. It passed only through handouts to some States, but was partially stricken as violating the financial free will of all the States. And, of course, it is an Act that raised no taxes, but that survives as a valid exercise of the taxing power.