Readers may recall that, after $300+ million, the Beaver State health insurance Exchange managed to enroll....precisely no one.
The question then becomes: "And whose fault is that?"
Well, it depends. The state blames Oracle, the contractor resopnsible for designing and implementing the Exchange. And so it's apparently decided to withhold payment for services (not) rendered.
Which of course isn't sitting too well with Oracle, which is now suing Oregon for $23 million it says the state owes it. Seems rather gutsy, considering their "success" rate of 0, but that's not how they see it. They're blaming "the state's poor management [which] doomed the exchange."
And how did it do that?
Well:
"The state chose to serve as its own systems integrator, or general contractor, overseeing the project, a task Oracle claims it was not qualified to perform"
One is reminded of the old adage about being one's own lawyer.
Actually, this makes a lot of sense: based on the performiance of the folks in DC who oversaw the 404Care.gov site rollout, it doesn't seem a stretch to believe that the same hubris exists at the state level.
Which isn't at all comforting.
Of course, the other side of that coin is that Oracle may simply be living that other old adage: the best defense is a strong offisense.
To wit:
"Internal state documents show state technology analysts and other contractors on the job had for years been issuing warnings and [sic] Oracle's performance"
[ed: one presumes the author means about Oracle's performance]
He said, she said. Ultimately, the court(s) will decide.
The question then becomes: "And whose fault is that?"
Well, it depends. The state blames Oracle, the contractor resopnsible for designing and implementing the Exchange. And so it's apparently decided to withhold payment for services (not) rendered.
Which of course isn't sitting too well with Oracle, which is now suing Oregon for $23 million it says the state owes it. Seems rather gutsy, considering their "success" rate of 0, but that's not how they see it. They're blaming "the state's poor management [which] doomed the exchange."
And how did it do that?
Well:
"The state chose to serve as its own systems integrator, or general contractor, overseeing the project, a task Oracle claims it was not qualified to perform"
One is reminded of the old adage about being one's own lawyer.
Actually, this makes a lot of sense: based on the performiance of the folks in DC who oversaw the 404Care.gov site rollout, it doesn't seem a stretch to believe that the same hubris exists at the state level.
Which isn't at all comforting.
Of course, the other side of that coin is that Oracle may simply be living that other old adage: the best defense is a strong offisense.
To wit:
"Internal state documents show state technology analysts and other contractors on the job had for years been issuing warnings and [sic] Oracle's performance"
[ed: one presumes the author means about Oracle's performance]
He said, she said. Ultimately, the court(s) will decide.
Posts
