
Oregon sues Oracle, claiming fraud over failed Obamacare website - evmar
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-sues-oracle-claiming-fraud-over-failed-obamacare-213323763--finance.html
======
cognivore
"...is a desperate attempt to deflect blame from Cover Oregon and the governor
for their failures to manage a complex IT project." Wait, for $240 million,
isn't Oracle supposed to be managing the "complex IT project."

So sad that Oregon couldn't find something other than a soul sucking corporate
behemoth.

~~~
rdtsc
Oracle -- the typical golf-ware. Some salesperson from Oracle played golf with
the person in charge of the check book. Nobody really looked at requirements.
A decision was made from above and code monkeys below in the chain got a
heaping pile of shit on their lap -- "Here, use this crap, build a website
that kinda does this. You have to use these tools."

They are both to blame. Well Oracle made a pretty penny, so financially they
know how to do this.

I once knew an Oracle salesperson. Asked them what they thought of PostgreSQL,
including the companies providing paid support for it. And the response was
nobody can tough us, because we know how to sell and market our stuff to the
top brass. Those at the top listen more to the salesmen like that than to
their own employees. Then obviously there is kickbacks and all kinds of
incentives.

~~~
Zigurd
While I'm sure people will have many excuses, I think you are right. $200M+
for a health insurance portal that includes zero novel technologies,
algorithms, or other sources of fundamental technology uncertainty, never mind
actual risk, has room for multiple crimes of fraud, bribery, and other
malfeasance. There are multiple comparable projects against which to measure
this one and find the outlier events.

All that said, a successful lawsuit and even criminal prosecutions won't make
a significant sent in similar future cases. Governments have got to start
acting like a large, collaborative, transparent monopsony, and to demand that
vendors draw on and contribute to a pool of open source software, and to form
consortia to audit and maintain that pool. That would be a huge benefit to the
technology industry, and to taxpayers.

------
bbulkow
If someone paid your company $240M, even with shoddy oversight, knowing that
the health of millions of people depends on reasonable engineering (one
website), you'd deliver a decent website.

This is appalling. The fact that so many here are jaded - I'm jaded too -
doesn't change the fact that if you take $240M of a customer's money, you'd
deliver a website.

~~~
poof131
I agree. To companies it's just business, but I will forever view HP as a
degenerate company that deserves to go bankrupt for the rapacious deal it
carved out from the U.S. Navy for NMCI.[1] It's not just business for the
people in government, especially those putting their lives on the line.

If Oracle can't build a website for $240M it should go bankrupt too. Who cares
about people getting healthcare when we can rack up costs. Go Sales!

[1] [http://www.wired.com/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-
hostage/](http://www.wired.com/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-hostage/)

------
statictype
This is exactly why big companies are hired right? So you have someone to sue
when the shit hits the fan.

~~~
rbanffy
Blame Driven Development. It's trending.

People spend so much energy covering their asses none is left to actually
build anything.

------
mgkimsal
Mostly unrelated, but I just met a guy last night who's working in state govt
(NC). Is working in a dept and is being told he only has access to Windows
servers, and is required to use IIS and SQL Server. They're already
bought/paid/licensed, and he has no option. But... there's no budget to get
him a licensed copy of Visual Studio. So he's been writing PHP with some free
editor and cobbling it together on Windows/MSSQL.

He seemed to be unaware of Visual Studio Express options, so that's a little
bit his fault (or more likely, the fault of whoever is overseeing his group).

Again, yes, unrelated to the Oracle thing, except yet one more anecdotal
illustration of just how poorly run govt programs can be. I know private
enterprise can be as well, but we're not having to fund those directly, and in
many cases the market eventually sorts them out.

~~~
johnny22
and that is exactly why we don't pay attention to anecdotes for this kinda
thing.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is what things like the US Digital Service and UK GRS are trying to
prevent. And I hope (with respect to State residents) that Oregon loses it's
shirt over this and several key administrators.

At some point we have to accept that software is an intimate part of what we
do and will be - that there is no "external supplier" for our own core
identity.

Either a system and process is totally outsourced and barely even a government
function (power generation) or it's intimately connected to what we want from
government (and yes Americans, that means healthcare)

So buck up - delivering software at scale is what life is going to be about
for the next fifty years - learn that lesson now - don't blame the wolf for
eating your chickens.

That's probably an Oregonian saying.

~~~
ams6110
_what we want from government (and yes Americans, that means healthcare)_

Who appointed you to speak for Americans? I don't want the government involved
in or paying for or deciding who provides my healthcare. One of the reasons is
I don't want it managed by the incompetence illustrated in this story.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The majority of Americans have spoken, and want affordable healthcare. You are
not in the majority.

~~~
wyager
>The majority of Americans have spoken, and want affordable healthcare.

Well obviously. I want affordable everything.

Do most Americans want government-run healthcare?

~~~
toomuchtodo
"Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

People with individual or employer health plans paid more out of pocket, had
worse access to care"

"Meanwhile, those with employer-sponsored health plans and those who bought
their own insurance were nearly twice as likely to report problems with their
medical bills than people with Medicare, the study found."

[http://health.usnews.com/health-
news/news/articles/2012/07/1...](http://health.usnews.com/health-
news/news/articles/2012/07/19/medicare-beats-private-plans-for-patient-
satisfaction-survey)

Apparently so.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Medicare is not Obamacare.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Medicare is funded directly by payroll deductions from the working population.
Obamacare requires all citizens to purchase health insurance, regardless if
they deem it as necessary.

Obamacare requires health insurance companies disburse at least 80 percent of
the premiums they bring in to medical service providers for their members.
This effectively turns health insurance companies into quasi-non-profit
entities, very similar to Medicare (which has no profit motive).

I don't mind living in a world where you can get better healthcare if you can
afford it. I do have a problem living in a world that doesn't have a minimum
level of care for everyone.

Difference?

~~~
Turing_Machine
You mean other than the fact that Obamacare funnels money directly in to the
pockets of insurance companies that, despite your characterization of them as
" quasi-non-profit entities" were, and remain, very-much-for-profit entities?
That's one. There are many others.

What's your theory for why the insurance companies "volunteered" for this?
Altruism?

And you're still trying to change the subject.

~~~
ta0967
looking at this whole thread starting with lifeisstillgood's comment ("[...]
what we want from government (and yes Americans, that means healthcare)") at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8214708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8214708)
it would appear that _you_ are the one trying to change the subject from
affordable health care to "obamacare".

toomuchtodo said "The majority of Americans have spoken, and want affordable
healthcare.", at which point you started talking about "Obamacare".

btw your attempt to incite a quarrel is funny since your statements agree with
lifeisstillgood's and toomuchtodo's statements.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Dude, the entire subject of this post is Obamacare. The majority of Americans
do not favor Obamacare, nor have they ever.

He's the one that's trying to equate it with some magical, mythical
"affordable healthcare" system that does not exist in real life.

Nice try, though.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> He's the one that's trying to equate it with some magical, mythical
> "affordable healthcare" system that does not exist in real life.

Let's not lie now, shall we?

"The U.S. stands almost entirely alone among developed nations that lack
universal health care."

"That brings us to another way that America is a big outlier on health care.
The grey countries on this map tend to spend significantly less per capita on
health care than do the green countries -- except for the U.S., where the
government spends way more on health care per person than do most countries
with free, universal health care. This is also true of health care costs as a
share of national GDP -- in other words, how much of a country's money goes
into health care."

[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/her...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-
a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-
on-it/259153/)

Not only do we spend the most per capita on healthcare, we consistently
deliver _lower quality care_ than other first world countries with universal
healthcare spending less than us.

I really don't care to argue with you. Obamacare/ACA is well on its way to
pushing the US to universal healthcare, as it should.

~~~
Turing_Machine
You are arguing in a fundamentally dishonest way.

Everyone is in favor of "affordable healthcare" for the same reason that
everyone is in favor of good weather and world peace.

You are attempting to make "affordable healthcare" synonymous with Obamacare,
which it isn't, and suggest that anyone who thinks that Obamacare is a
horrible implementation must be opposed to "affordable healthcare".

It is the exact same dishonest argument that's used to shout down someone who
(e.g.) thinks that the Patriot Act was a bad idea by implying that the person
is in favor of terrorism.

I posted a link that showed that majority of Americans are opposed to
Obamacare and always have been (multiple polls).

It got modded down. Which, of course, is even more dishonest.

But, you know, modding people down isn't _actually_ going to make the problem
go away.

>Not only do we spend the most per capita on healthcare, we consistently
deliver lower quality care than other first world countries with universal
healthcare spending less than us.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Obamacare is the best solution
for the problem. It isn't. It combines the worst aspects of private health
insurance with the worst aspects of socialized medicine, combined with massive
payouts to insurance companies at taxpayer expense.

>Obamacare/ACA is well on its way to pushing the US to universal healthcare,
as it should.

Obamacare is going to kill real healthcare reform in the U.S. for at least a
generation. Maybe longer.

------
Roboprog
Failure?

No, it's a _success_ \-- at putting money into campaign contributor pockets,
and proving that "government doesn't work".

Now take something like the California death registration system
([https://ca.edrs.us/edrs/secureLogin](https://ca.edrs.us/edrs/secureLogin)),
which, since it was developed by a mere handful of state employees (on-shore,
of course) on a modest budget and runs on a single Linux server, completely
_failed_ to accomplish those financial and propaganda goals for the corporate
1%-ers. :-)

If stupid, greedy, people run with the project, it's doomed whether you slap
"public" or "private" on the work.

------
tcopeland
chromatic wrote up a great post on this kerfluffle - "why do govt IT projects
fail":

[http://outspeaking.com/words-of-technology/why-do-
government...](http://outspeaking.com/words-of-technology/why-do-government-
it-and-software-projects-fail.html)

------
edgyswingset
I'm curious about more information regarding this, since I'm an Oregonian.
Dealing with the state for software, I can understand lack of clarity on
requirements and "flip-flopping" on a weekly basis. However, based on what
I've read in the past, Oracle doesn't strike me as the most benevolent of
companies, nor as one which has good people in charge of software (just look
at how far behind Java is to C# or other languages).

------
nahname
Optimistically, this would lead to reform of software partner selection within
the government.

However, I expect it will introduce more red tape and ensure the same result.
More work for companies like Oracle and more failed projects and waste.

~~~
gregd
I hold out no hope. The RFP process is inherently broken and seems to revolve
ONLY around preventing nepotism and with a pervasive attitude of one-size-
fits-all in State government, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

------
girvo
Couldn't have happened to a nicer company.

------
selimthegrim
I personally met some of the PMs on this towards the end -- Oracle was hiring
anyone with a BS and a pulse on the East Coast to be a PM, flying them over
for five nights a week and often flying them back to wherever they lived on
the weekends. Technical knowledge was apparently not a criterion.

------
dminor
As an Oregonian I really, really want to see the code.

~~~
ghgh
I actually saw some of it because someone forgot to disable stack traces on
the production server (and their sign up form was broken when I submitted it).
It was written using some PHP framework. You'd think it would be written in
Java...?

------
BrandonMarc
It's (re)election season, following a scandalous boondoggle ... politics and
posturing, end of story.

------
wfjackson
From the lawsuit:

"one formal Oracle employee said the solution "literally garbage" that was
seemingly configured by "a kindergartner.""

