Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"War Room" Notes Describe IT Chaos At Healthcare.gov

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the checking-the-list dept.

United States 346

dcblogs writes "U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has released 175 pages of "War Room" notes — a collection of notes by federal officials dealing with the problems at Healthcare.gov. They start Oct. 1, the launch day. The War Room notes catalog IT problems — dashboards weren't showing data, servers didn't have the right production data, third party systems weren't connecting to verify data, a key contractor had trouble logging on, and there wasn't enough server capacity to handle the traffic, or enough people on the help desks to answer calls. To top it off, some personnel needed for the effort were furloughed because of the shutdown. Volunteers were needed to work weekends, but there were bureaucratic complications."

cancel ×

346 comments

Furloughed workers (1, Funny)

unixcrab (1080985) | about 9 months ago | (#45367041)

Funny that a Republican would be pointing that out :P

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367075)

Add something meaningful. This wasn't because of Republicans. This entire fiasco is Government Bureaucracy screwing things up. It's that same kind of bureaucracy that just needs to go away. You can have regulations without bureaucracy.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 9 months ago | (#45367175)

The problem with bureaucracy is that in many cases they are required to award contracts to the lowest bidder - If they don't, and word gets out, the media slams them. Sometimes the lowest bidder isn't always the best option....

Re:Furloughed workers (5, Insightful)

MrMarket (983874) | about 9 months ago | (#45367189)

Add something meaningful.

Go-live fiascos like this are quite common in the private sector. Large corporate bureaucracies can be just as bad, if not worse, than government. The difference is that this particular SNAFU is getting dissected in the press. It's a great opportunity to learn about the complexities involved when deploying large, complex, federated systems. I guarantee you there are people in the private sector pushing these articles to their corp. IT as a way to shame CIOs and CEOs into cutting the red tape, procurement hurdles, fiefdoms, and archaic development methodologies in their own organizations. If you want something meaningful from this event, learn from it rather than pointing fingers at "The Government." These are problems in most large organizations.

Re:Furloughed workers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367305)

Posting AC because I'm modding in this thread.

> Go-live fiascos like this are quite common in the private sector ...

Of course they are. But they're worse in the government, because a business, at least, has to eventually show a profit. A government can simply print more money or borrow to cover the shortfall.

This isn't an either-or situation. It's depressing that so many people here have already started bulverizing and going political. The truth is, as a general rule, LARGE == DISORGANIZED. Whether it's a government agency or a big business, doesn't matter. Once any organism becomes large enough that you can have employees who simply want to cover their butts rather than work, it becomes a snafu.

My wife works for the federal government (Social Security Admin). Not surprisingly, many of the folks there are big Obamacare supporters. All she has to do to "convert" them on the fly is ask, "put it to you this way: you've seen how things work here. Do you really want the same people deciding whether or not your mother can have surgery?" That gets them every time.

Why? Because benefits are routinely calculated incorrectly. One common scenario is that a bored government employee will increase your benefits. A year or two later, another (equally bored) employee will note that you've been receiving too much money and dun you for a $10,000 or $20,000 overpayment. In half the cases, the reduce benefits to recover the money, which is a hardship on the beneficiary. In the other half, they simply write it off, or accept a letter from the beneficiary stating that it would be an "undue hardship," set it up on $5 a month payments, and basically, some beneficiary gets a $10-20,000 windfall.

Happens ALL the time. ALL THE TIME. These employees know that it's very difficult to fire them, so they half-heartedly do cases while chatting on their mobile phones or playing computer games.

So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45367417)

So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

Isn't it an opt-in system? So don't opt-in. I thought the point was that there are a lot of people who can't afford any healthcare. Those are the people that Obamacare is aimed at. Slightly chaotic healthcare is better than no healthcare.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367723)

Not if you have to pay a penalty.

Re:Furloughed workers (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45367857)

Do you mean taxes, or potential lack of health care?

Having to pay more taxes is a fair enough point I suppose, though I consider it quite a selfish one. If your government cut back to less than a trillion dollars of military spending per year (that might sound like an exaggerated joke number, but it's not..) then you could potentially have lower taxes as well as nice things like national healthcare. Maybe you consider that military spending an investment in the future of the oil market, I don't know..

If the penalty is potentially having no healthcare.. then like I said, it's no worse than definitely having no health care.

Re:Furloughed workers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367481)

Posting AC because I'm modding in this thread.

That's cheating. I'll metamoderate tonight, and I plan on downmodding everything in this thread that's higher than +1 or upmoding anything lower tan 1 that had been moderated, just because the above asshole refuses to play fair.

You don't fucking comment in a thread that you're moderating, asshole!

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 9 months ago | (#45367705)

I don't have a problem with someone posting a small comment as an AC to preserve modding in general articles.

But I will agree that the AC had a long post with "insider knowledge" that is beyond appropriate.

If you have detailed knowledge of a story, choose to either mod or comment.

Re:Furloughed workers (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 9 months ago | (#45367809)

Simple solution: Just say, "My username is _____, I'm just posting as AC to preserve mod points."

Re:Furloughed workers (2, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 9 months ago | (#45367997)

Who the fuck cares?

Mod points aren't actual things.

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

MrMarket (983874) | about 9 months ago | (#45367547)

do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

Congrats you baited me. The Government is not in charge of your healthcare any more than the SEC is in charge of your stock portfolio. ACA created a regulated market for private insurance. The person deciding whether or not you get surgery is a medical director at a *private* insurance company. Not a government official. If anything, ACA made it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage for certain types of care. This Republican talking point is way over-played and not based on facts.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Insightful)

Metrol (147060) | about 9 months ago | (#45368305)

The Government is not in charge of your healthcare any more than the SEC is in charge of your stock portfolio.

Oh really? So, the SEC will fine me for not being invested in a minimum government approved set of funds, that I may or may not need? Will the SEC shut down funds that are not diversified in the manner in which the government has determined must be put in place in order to further finance other investors that don't have as much to invest?

ACA created a regulated market for private insurance

All private insurance was already heavily regulated! All the ACA did was create thousands of new government jobs and rake in half a billion dollars in new lobbying by the insurance companies... that you had best be buying a product from or have the IRS forcibly take those funds from you. Hooray freedom!

If anything, ACA made it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage for certain types of care.

That could have been handled in a 10 page bill. If this had anything at all to do with actually taking care of people, a bill focused on chronic illness would have seen bipartisan support, and cost a wee bit less than the additional trillion a year this beast is putting on to our debt.

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about 9 months ago | (#45367557)

So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

Does your wife really think that insurance companies don't make errors with billing, coding or paying the bills?

Next time you're in your doctor's office, ask them how much effort it is to work with the various insurance companies. Should you be in a hospital, ask the doctor how much time is lost in disputing the necessity of treatment with insurance companies, or how many patients opt for less than optimal treatment because an insurance company bureaucrat interprets a rule differently from other staff at the very same firm.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 9 months ago | (#45367721)

So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

Does your wife really think that insurance companies don't make errors with billing, coding or paying the bills?

Next time you're in your doctor's office, ask them how much effort it is to work with the various insurance companies.

Ask them which is worse - the insurance companies or Medicare?

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368027)

Good thing Obamacare isn't Medicare then. Right?

Re:Furloughed workers (2)

Kelbear (870538) | about 9 months ago | (#45367927)

My son turned 1 year old 2 weeks ago. We're STILL dealing with incorrect billing issues from his birth.

Re:Furloughed workers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367683)

Happened to me.

In 1981 I received SSI benefits because my father was disabled.
In 2012 I received a letter from the Social Security Administration saying they had overpaid me in 1981 and I owed them money.
After over 30 years!
I sent letter after letter, with the appropriate appeal form. They ignored all of them.
Just kept sending increasingly threatening letters. By the way, they were sending the letters to an address I ahve not lived at for over 30 years. Even though they have my current address.
I called, they could not help. Eventually someone was able to change the address.
They then sent a wage garnishment to my employer.
I called, reached a person who said 'fine, we'll reverse this'. But they didn't actually tell anyone.
So my employer deducted it from my wages. How embarrassing is that? They said I had to work it out with SSA.
And after that, the IRS deducted it from my tax refund. They too said I had to work it out with SSA.
Then I get a letter from the SSA saying 'we have recalculated your benefits and we owe you money'.
They sent me a check for over double what the had garnished from me.

No doubt i will get another letter in the future telling me I owe them money

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368187)

Put the difference in a money market account or something and don't touch it. Periodically spend the interest on beer.

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about 9 months ago | (#45367817)

So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't.

They're not in charge of your healthcare. They're in charge of making sure you get healthcare from a qualified insurance company and have the ability to discuss your medical needs with a qualified doctor.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367903)

Posting AC because I'm modding in this thread.

I thought posting, even as AC, would cancel the mods? Has that been changed?

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368243)

Not if you log out first. At that point it's simple AC sock-puppetry.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368005)

"So ... I repeat my wife's question: do you REALLY want these people in charge of your healthcare? I don't."

This is more like your employer setting up a broken website for you to enroll in healthcare when you get hired. Maybe your employer choose a shitty insurance provider, maybe the website is broken. But your employer (and the government in this case) isn't "in charge of your healthcare", though yes, they can and might cause you to choose a shitty provider, but you can still go out on your own and do it yourself, no one is forcing you to use the healthcare website to buy insurance, they are just forcing you to buy insurance of some kind, from some where.

Re:Furloughed workers (2)

gsslay (807818) | about 9 months ago | (#45368149)

"put it to you this way: you've seen how things work here. Do you really want the same people deciding whether or not your mother can have surgery?"

Oh if only everything was a simple as the private sector!

"Have they paid us lots of money in the past? Can they afford to give us a lot of money now? No? No surgery for mother then. Next case!"

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367323)

Add something meaningful.

Go-live fiascos like this are quite common in the private sector. Large corporate bureaucracies can be just as bad, if not worse, than government. The difference is that this particular SNAFU is getting dissected in the press. It's a great opportunity to learn about the complexities involved when deploying large, complex, federated systems. I guarantee you there are people in the private sector pushing these articles to their corp. IT as a way to shame CIOs and CEOs into cutting the red tape, procurement hurdles, fiefdoms, and archaic development methodologies in their own organizations. If you want something meaningful from this event, learn from it rather than pointing fingers at "The Government." These are problems in most large organizations.

This times a million. How many Oracle rollouts went disastrously wrong in private industry that it was obvious even to the casual observer (despite corporate NDAs) and yet here we have a bigger project than most, that was actually live on the date that it was supposed to be (despite capacity issues and some lingering bugs) but of course the fact that it wasn't perfect is proof that the government can't do anything right. If this same project were corporate, it would have gone live in 2015, still had only half the features it was supposed to, and bonuses would still be rained upon the CEO/CIO's heads. There's your "free market efficiency".

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Insightful)

njnnja (2833511) | about 9 months ago | (#45367479)

Although these problems are bound to occur in any large organization, their impact is disproportionately large when a monopolist power screws up. In areas where there is competition, people at least have alternatives (even if they aren't ideal). When Apple launched a broken maps app, people used Google maps on safari until Google released their own app. Windows 8 sucks? Buy a Mac, an iPad, or Galaxy Tab. But for a federal government fail, the alternative is to, what, move to Canada?

But both conservatives and liberals can take away valid arguments from this; liberals can say that in order to get government to do all the things that we (for certain definitions of "we") want then we have to be willing to spend the money to do it right, and conservatives can say that having the government run (for certain definitions of "run") something creates a single point of failure and should therefore be avoided.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 9 months ago | (#45368095)

In areas where there is competition, people at least have alternatives (even if they aren't ideal).

In a competitive race to the bottom, all alternatives are equally unacceptable. Competition alone can not and will not magically make things better or even make them tolerable. There is little difference between a monopolists poor service and the poor services of an entire industry.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

dosilegecko (1609441) | about 9 months ago | (#45368297)

Except in most private corporations, the roll out of a huge program like this would not be something that was forced upon the citizens of a whole country while also seizing control of 1/6 of its economy. You DO see a difference here between that a the new roll out and something optional right? Right?

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367197)

You're right. It wasnt the Republicans. It was the Tea Party Republicans, and the those non-Tea Party Republicans too chickenshit to stand up to them. So, no, you're wrong. It was the Republicans.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Interesting)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 9 months ago | (#45367265)

You guys are so funny. If a Republican gets into office, and wants to expand government programs because he's a "compassionate conservative", you slam him for spending too much money. Afterall, conservatives can't bash big spending Democrats when "Republicans do it too".

So now a faction of the Republican party gains a few seats, and you bash them for being the example of small-government, budget-conscience conservatives you keep claiming you are looking for in a "loyal opposition party".

So, what is the truth? Do you want Republicans that spend like liberal Democrats, or do you want Republicans that spend like conservative Republicans?

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367343)

None of the above. Both parties suck.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 9 months ago | (#45367467)

Yes, I agree. Look at my sig below for an idea of what I would rather have at this point.

But that isn't the point of criticizing Republicans who want to limit the federal government.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Kelbear (870538) | about 9 months ago | (#45368045)

Wait, what "compassionate conservatism" have you seen bashed on this site? Not calling you out here, I just really can't think of a politician pushing compassionate conservatism since Obama got elected, and certainly not on a platform loud enough to have been discussed on /.

Re:Furloughed workers (1, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 9 months ago | (#45367089)

The government employs too many people. We borrow money from China to employ them. Sad as it is, it is too expensive. Federal employees in particular are pretty expensive.

Here's the crazy part. The US Government can simply take more money from taxpayers, then borrow 40 cents from China for every dollar, and they will make ACA succeed by brute-force. They will simply out-spend the problem, using other people's money.

They don't have to show a profit. They don't have to prove efficiency. They don't have to prove competency. They will simply take what they want from other people until it works.

Imagine Stalin's purges if he had made everyone use a website... his communism would have barely purged 10% of Ingushetia before being overwhelmed.

Re:Furloughed workers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367275)

No idea how stupid stuff like this gets marked insightful. Employs too many people? compared to what?

borrow money from China to employ them? are you serious?

we are borrowing money to pay for tax cuts to the rich.

we are borrowing money to pay for social security/medicare.

we are borrowing money to pay for farm subsidies.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367739)

The class warfare is strong in this one. Moving to the dark side he is.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367871)

Links to OWS do I see.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368091)

Pretty sure the military is our biggest spending item. Especially over the last 30 years that has seen our debt go from $1T to $16T.

Ironically, every Republican president since 1980 has at least doubled the national debt.

Reagan - from $1T to $3T
Bush Sr - from $3T to $6T
Bush Jr - from $5T to $11T

But somehow Democrats are the tax & spend party. Which is actually fiscally responsible from a government point of view.

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367289)

"The government employs too many people. We borrow money from China to employ them."

In the 1990s you didn't. You simply had a high enough tax rate to cover the bills and run a bit of a surplus that could be used to pay down the accumulated debt. Then the tax rate was cut on the theory that this would stimulate the entire economy. Instead it seems to have spectacularly enhanced incomes at the upper end. Although an unpopular solution, letting those tax cuts expire is one way to solve the budget problem.

The deficit problem you describe exists largely because the political decision was made to take in less revenue and spend more on programs, because "deficits don't matter", in the hopes that starving government of funds will eventually lead to lower costs, somehow. Unfortunately the people making these decisions have the will to cut revenue, but apparently not the corresponding expenses. The results are predictable. It is an artificial crisis that has been created by doing one thing and not doing the complement to it. The solution is to follow through with cuts that should have been made a decade ago or to reverse the revenue decline.

I agree that the government employs too many people for current revenue, but if you actually want to make cuts that matter, you should be looking at big-ticket government employment, such as spending more than any other country in the world on the military. Sad as it is, these federal employees and the gear they use are pretty expensive too. Perhaps fewer aircraft carriers would be worthwhile to consider, for example.

Re:Furloughed workers (5, Interesting)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | about 9 months ago | (#45367565)

The problem with your analysis is that you have the facts wrong [comeletusr...gether.com] .

If you look at a chart of revenue and spending [comeletusr...gether.com] in constant dollars, you'll see that after the 1998 tax cuts, revenue increased until the dot.com bust in 2000. Revenue was down until the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax cuts, after which it increased until the housing bubble burst in 2007/08. Tha major tax cuts in the era you're talking about weren't followed by revenue decreases in the years right after they took effect. Revenue right now is about average for the last 15 years, down a bit because it follows the state of the economy and the economy overall is still down. Minor changes in tax rates don't affect revenue that much. Annual revenue is UP about a trillion dollars since 1980, so it's not like we've suddenly had less revenue than ever before.

Spending is the the obvious issue. Since 1980, spending is up $1.8 Trillion (still constant, i.e. inflation adjusted dollars). Since 2000, it's up over a Trillion dollars.

Bottom line, revenue is way up. Spending is just way, way more up. Revenue has gone in the desired direction. The issue is that Spending has gone in the wrong direction if we want to solve anything related to debt and deficits.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

sycodon (149926) | about 9 months ago | (#45367879)

Notice that none of the Big Government/High Tax sycophants has bothered trying to respond.

Re:Furloughed workers (5, Insightful)

Above (100351) | about 9 months ago | (#45367937)

Please try again. This time plot revenue and spending as a percentage of GDP. I'll save you some time, go here [businessinsider.com] to see it.

You are correct that spending is up, even as a percentage of GDP. The budget should be reviewed, as some of the causes are cyclical (the recession) and will "self solve" as the economy improves, while others are structural issues, like devoting an ever larger chunk of the budget to military and war expenditures over the past decade.

But it's just as important to realize that as a percentage of GDP revenue is down. Those tax cuts mean the government is taking in a smaller percentage of economic output. So when inflation drives up the cost of guns/tanks/healthcare/office space/contractors for the government there isn't a corresponding increase in revenue to off set it, because we've chosen to end taxes on a number of things that get inflated (like the wealthiest 1%'s salaries).

Your bottom line is wrong. Revenue is up in dollar amount, but down as a percentage of the economy. Spending is up by both measures. Revenue has not kept pace with economic growth. To solve the debt and deficits we must both lower spending and raise tax revenue, ideally by closing loopholes and credits, rather than raising the marginal rates.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 9 months ago | (#45368121)

If you look at a chart of revenue and spending in constant dollars, you'll see that after the 1998 tax cuts, revenue increased until the dot.com bust in 2000. Revenue was down until the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax cuts, after which it increased until the housing bubble burst in 2007/08. Tha major tax cuts in the era you're talking about weren't followed by revenue decreases in the years right after they took effect.

Translation: The government cut taxes and relied on the capital gains windfalls from speculative bubbles to fund itself. This went about as well as you would expect.

Re:Furloughed workers (5, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 9 months ago | (#45367295)

As a former DoD software developer, let's review your comments.

The government employs too many people. We borrow money from China to employ them.

According to the best source of info I could easily find [answers.com] , federal salaries made up just 13.8% of the federal budget as of 2005.

You also neglect some important questions:

  • Do we have too many federal employees for the scope of government? I.e., is the problem their efficiency, or the mission?
  • If federal employees are getting less done than you'd like, is it because they're lazy/stupid/etc., could part of that be due to the insane set of regulations with which they're required to comply?

Sad as it is, it is too expensive. Federal employees in particular are pretty expensive.

Expensive compared to what? If they don't have to show a profit, etc., then can you objectively demonstrate that they're getting less done than a (potentially) lower-priced contractor?

Also, you fail to mention that there's a very open debate about if / when contractors are a better deal for the government than are civil servants. Partisan thinktanks have no problem making sweeping statements, but organizations specifically charged with reporting truthfully find that there's not enough data.

I hope you're also not going to compare the average salary of all public sector works vs. all private sector workers. Because for the most part, the government doesn't hire people to do low-skilled work. For example, at the military sites that I've been at, things like building cleaning, etc. was mostly done by private contractors.

They don't have to show a profit. They don't have to prove efficiency. They don't have to prove competency. They will simply take what they want from other people until it works.

As opposed to what contractors do? Good grief man, have you ever seen what private sector contractors do? I've seen plenty of silliness and inefficiency in civil servants, but I've seen countless times contractors milking / drawing out contracts, while often getting less done than the civil servants with whom they collaborate.

I suspect you have two basic problems. (1) You're so frustrated with the negative examples you've seen of civil servants, that you simply assume the private sector is more efficient. And (2), you're confusing your complaints regarding the breadth and intrusiveness of the government's self-granted scope, with the quality of work being done by civil servants.

Re:Furloughed workers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367755)

As a rational private citizen, not on the government payroll, lets review your comments.

According to the best source of info I could easily find [answers.com], federal salaries made up just 13.8% of the federal budget as of 2005.

According to the best source of info I could easily find [https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921], federal workers are paid too much.

"Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.

You also neglect some important questions:

        Is the scope of the federal government too large ? I.e., have they destroyed freedom to create a nanny state ?
        If federal employees are getting less done than you'd like, is it because they have 0 accountability to the public ? Could part of that be due to the fact that they take money from citizens with a gun to their head, and have no incentive to work faster or smarter or at lower cost ?

Expensive compared to what? If they don't have to show a profit, etc., then can you objectively demonstrate that they're getting less done than a (potentially) lower-priced contractor?

Expensive compared to the private sector, by 16% each, after accounting for all factors, according to the CBO. As for how much they get done, the answer is, nothing. They get nothing done, because, government employees do not contribute to productivity. They are all administrative overhead to an otherwise productive private sector.

Also, you fail to mention that there's a very open debate about if / when contractors are a better deal for the government than are civil servants. Partisan thinktanks have no problem making sweeping statements, but organizations specifically charged with reporting truthfully find that there's not enough data.

Well, it'd be nice if contractors were used, but the fact of the matter is, the bulk of the work for healthcare.gov was handed to the administrations cronies.

I hope you're also not going to compare the average salary of all public sector works vs. all private sector workers. Because for the most part, the government doesn't hire people to do low-skilled work. For example, at the military sites that I've been at, things like building cleaning, etc. was mostly done by private contractors.

The CBOs data suggests you are just flat out wrong concerning this statement.

As opposed to what contractors do? Good grief man, have you ever seen what private sector contractors do? I've seen plenty of silliness and inefficiency in civil servants, but I've seen countless times contractors milking / drawing out contracts, while often getting less done than the civil servants with whom they collaborate.

So the federal government does not behave responsbily with tax payers money and fails to properly manage its contractors. Agreed.

I suspect you have two basic problems. (1) You're so frustrated with the negative examples you've seen of civil servants, that you simply assume the private sector is more efficient. And (2), you're confusing your complaints regarding the breadth and intrusiveness of the government's self-granted scope, with the quality of work being done by civil servants.

I suspect you have two basic problems. (1) You derive your income as a contractor, who is all too happy to keep milking the taxpayers and the federal government while not delivering anything of any real value, in any sane amount of time, in any satisfactory level of quality. And (2), you're confusing the justification of your own actions with actions that are truly just.

Re:Furloughed workers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368069)

Did you actually read the CBO document? I have read it and it says the exact opposite of what you believe it to say. As an example, you said:

...Because for the most part, the government doesn't hire people to do low-skilled work. For example, at the military sites that I've been at, things like building cleaning, etc. was mostly done by private contractors.

The CBOs data suggests you are just flat out wrong concerning this statement.

The CBO report says, and I quote: "Both high and low wages tend to be less prevalent in the federal government than in the private sector, so the range between those wages—the dispersion of wages— tends to be narrower for federal employees." The report that you reference also states that employees with less than a high school diploma are overpaid compared to their private counterparts by 21%, while doctoral-level employees are underpaid by 23%.

Re:Furloughed workers (3, Interesting)

Rich0 (548339) | about 9 months ago | (#45367461)

The US Government can simply take more money from taxpayers, then borrow 40 cents from China for every dollar, and they will make ACA succeed by brute-force.

Uh, isn't that basically just socialism, plus the fact that people want more than what they can afford? They could just spend less on healthcare and get the same result without the borrowing. However, the whole point of socialism is to take money from people who have money and to spend it on people who don't. If you don't like that then the solution is to just let people who can't afford insurance die, which most would not consider an acceptable solution.

The problem with healthcare is that everybody wants to paint it like some black-and-white simple problem with a simple solution, when in reality it is about 500 problems lumped into one big mess. There are lots of issues that drive up costs. There are lots of issues that discourage preventative care. There are lots of issues with who gets cared for. There are lots of administrative issues with paying a fair price for the work that gets done. There are lots of issues with trying to figure out what the best way to take care of a sick person actually is.

Everybody like to just pick one thing and point out a simple solution to it. Just let ERs turn away the indigent and now hospitals are solvent (just be sure to budget more money for the morgue, both for those who can't afford care and also for those who left their wallets at home when they keeled over). Just set the reimbursement rate for a particular treatment at $10 and now it doesn't cost much to pay for it (ignore the fact that nobody will provide the treatment any longer). Let the market freely set prices (and ignore the fact that consumers have little ability to shop around while unconscious). Every complicated problem has a simple solution that won't work...

Re:Furloughed workers (2, Interesting)

Saethan (2725367) | about 9 months ago | (#45367125)

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago democrats were hitching on to the idea that republicans were misguided because even under a government shutdown, healthcare is considered essential and would not lose funding? Pick a stance, guys.

Re:Furloughed workers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367153)

You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate while the Dems said only "NO, NO, NO! We'd rather have a mandated shutdown!"?

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367281)

at least the senate voted on the bills....the house wouldnt even bring the senate bills to a vote.

Re:Furloughed workers (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45367283)

It takes two to tango, and the Democrats were saying no to Republican proposals with equal vigor.

The childlike games played just to prevent spending cuts is embarrassing and shameful.

you are full of it, stop (5, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 9 months ago | (#45367327)

You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate while the Dems said only "NO, NO, NO! We'd rather have a mandated shutdown!"?

You mean

  1. bills meant to defund or stop the implementation of something that is already a law?
  2. The Party that right now is blocking the LGBT protection bill in the House?
  3. The party who still cannot comprehend why *WE* fucking loss elections in Virginia????
  4. Who still does not get why the Tealiban lost just a couple of days ago in Alabama????
  5. The party who still caters to the likes who think in terms of "legitimate rape"???
  6. The party who still has prominent members who cannot bring themselves to say Obama is a US-born citizen?
  7. The party who still caters to the likes who think everyone that voted Democrat is a moocher looking for a hand-out?

That party you mean???

This is not to say the Dems are blameless, but for fuck's sake, stop saying the GOP is the party that keeps sending bills to the senate. That's fucking bullshit, and you know it.

Truly yours, a life-long Republican tired of seeing a sea of stupid beasts more interested in destruction, confederate-flag waving, secession, creationism, birtherism, social-medieval conservatism-barbarism and just blatant mental anachronisms than on making things work with the other half of the population who does not agree with everything they say...

... (or maybe I'm just a RINO according to the ideological purists that more and more resemble the Khmer Rouge in their fight for doctrine's purity. I can live with that label.)

Re:you are full of it, stop (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367919)

Yup, you're a RINO.

They house did keep sending bills to fund the government. Harry 'why would we want to do that' Reid would rather kick veterans out of the World War II memorial than talk rationally about the issues raised. What were the onerous negotiating points? Delaying the individual mandate a year. Eliminate the tax on medical devices. Eliminate the subsidy for congress. A statesman could have met them half way, but that's not Harry's way. He'd rather just call people names, just like the president.

As for the rest of your nonsense, I don't get the vitriol towards the Taxed Enough Already party. There is nothing radical in their platform, Are there occasional kooks in the party? sure. Just like the kook's in the Democrat party, like Allan Grayson. And how about Carlos Danger? Does he represent all Democrats? Maxine Waters? Charles Baron? They are all nuts.

Re:you are full of it, stop (1)

Kelbear (870538) | about 9 months ago | (#45368257)

This was a very interesting debate on this very issue:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/801-the-gop-must-seize-the-center-or-die [intelligen...aredus.org]

The classical concept of the Republican platform has broad appeal. It's why I had registered as a Republican all those years ago, but my registration doesn't guarantee my vote, the GOP doesn't offer many opportunities to vote for those kinds of ideals anymore. The GOP needs to find those ideals again to recover the popular vote, but it looks like things are going to have to get worse for the party before it learns how to get better.

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#45367333)

All I know is that this furloughed worker debate is meaningless in the context of this article unless someone actually believes that the website would have worked properly if they had those 3 more weeks.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367431)

You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate while the Dems said only "NO, NO, NO! We'd rather have a mandated shutdown!"?

Right, so one party holds up the "pay this month's rent bill" because they changed their mind and want a puppy with it.
Then they send over "pay the rent for the kid's bedroom and dog food", "turn the heat back on and dog crate", "pay water bill and puppy".

When the second party says, "no", can the first really claim "You WANT us to get evicted!!!1" ?

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Informative)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 9 months ago | (#45367701)

You mean the party that kept sending bills to the senate ...

...without making any attempt whatsoever to make those bills something that could pass in said senate?

Yeah, them.

Note that the Senate during this time also sent a bill to the house. By all accounts, it was a bill that would have passed in the house with flying colors, and the POTUS would have signed. It would also have represented a tremendous victory for Republicans, cutting food stamps by 4 billion dollars, and all sorts of other assorted (IHMO evil) cuts to the poor that Republicans were wanting. In the Bush era a Republican house would have jumped right on this.

The house's Republican leadership wouldn't bring it up for a vote. In fact, they changed their own rules specifically to prevent anyone from being able to bring this passable bill up on the House floor. Why not take a big legislative victory? Because the Republicans in the House don't care about legislative victories. They wanted to shut the government down. Simple as that.

Re:Furloughed workers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367249)

Yeah because if just those furloghed workers had been allowed to come in for 8 days then none of this would've happened.

Or maybe if Obama and Reid had actually negotiated with the House on a bill instead of saying "Hell No, give us the mon-ay because we run 2/3rds of government" none of this would've happened.

The Republicans stood up for their constituency. GOOD FOR THEM.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367457)

Yeah because if just those furloghed workers had been allowed to come in for 8 days then none of this would've happened.

Or maybe if Obama and Reid had actually negotiated with the House on a bill instead of saying "Hell No, give us the mon-ay because we run 2/3rds of government" none of this would've happened.

The Republicans stood up for their constituency. GOOD FOR THEM.

As opposed to "We run 1/3 of the government so if we don't get EVERYTHING we want, we'll shut everything down."

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368007)

The Democrats said that.
The Republicans said 'We'll fund everything except Obamacare. We need to work out some issues on that first'

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368087)

And then the Republicans decided to no-show time, and time, and time again after being invited to work out those very issues.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368273)

And then the DEMOCRATS decided to no-show time and time and time again after being invited to work out those very issues.

FIFY

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367347)

Why not, in their world it was Obamas fault, peeeeeeeepoooolaaaaarhuuuuuuurting-cruz said so...

Re:Furloughed workers (2)

laffer1 (701823) | about 9 months ago | (#45367355)

To be fair, healthcare.gov was clearly behind schedule and they released what they had. I don't think the government shutdown caused the problem. It may have made it worse because they had a few less people working on it.

Server capacity issues mean they didn't perform load testing or underestimated demand. Of course, the code wasn't done so it's hard to test.

A small team could have written that website in the time allotted without issues provided the specs didn't change. The cost of the site and the number of people involved is insane and demonstrates the consultants took them for a ride.

I bet it was cheap, inexperienced developers who had no clue how to build a scalable site.

3 guys in a garage fallacy!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367651)

"A small team could have written that website in the time allotted without issues provided the specs didn't change. The cost of the site and the number of people involved is insane and demonstrates the consultants took them for a ride.

I bet it was cheap, inexperienced developers who had no clue how to build a scalable site."

Nope..
a) specs change, all the time, particularly a big system. In this case, they're basically implementing state exchanges for those states that decided (some at the last minute) not to build their own.
b) Have you looked at the number of systems that needed to be interconnected here? This isn't some order fulfillment and shipping application all under control of one corporate entity. You need to fetch income data from IRS, validation data from SSA, etc. It's not like the government has some unified enterprise architecture with a central repository to get all this data from. Heck, I'll bet most of those interfaces don't even have current documentation.
c) Most companies building these kinds of systems don't have 30+ partners (i.e. states) actively trying to subvert the goals of the system (We don't like the ACA, and we're not going to do anything to help you build the exchange we decided not to build, leaving it for you).

And of course, because of the byzantine way in which the government procures services and stuff (driven by Congress, and largely to make sure the taxpayer doesn't get screwed), the work is divided up into multiple contracts, administered by multiple agencies, so there is ample opportunity for "throw it over the wall".

Yeah, if the US were run by King Jeff or Czar Michael or Czarina Meg, and they could issue a ukase to "make it so", of course your small team could do it. But that's not how the US works.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367587)

"U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has released 175 pages of "War Room"

I'm not sure of this Prepubican's stance but I would assume he was one of the many that wasted tax payers money and time trying to destroy the "Affordable Health Care Act" instead of pushing for experienced IT crews at a cheaper cost to help build the healthcare.gov web site.

No. Toni Townes-Whitley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367617)

Funny how Republicans haven't pointed that out.

Google that name. And her connection to the Obamas.

Re:Furloughed workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367631)

Funny that you think that continued spending is ok. Please pay my share of the national debt.
Funny that you think is is a difference that matters between Republicans and Democrats. They both want to spend more of the taxpayers' money, they just want to spend it on different things.
Where is the opt out button?

Re:Furloughed workers (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | about 9 months ago | (#45367633)

healthcare.gov was opened to the public Oct 1st, the gov't shutdown started Oct 1st... anyone blaming furloughs for its problems is being disingenuous at best... and the gov't had 3 YEARS to get the site up and running

Re:Furloughed workers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368289)

Where Democrats would lie to the people and make promises they have no idea how to keep.

Republicans - Often wrong often stupid - But still the lesser of 2 evils. At least when they screw us over the tell you they us are going to.

Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (0, Flamebait)

Stephen Thomas Kraus Jr (3382177) | about 9 months ago | (#45367077)

Seriously, why cite Issa? They guy still screws about Benghazi, spreads conspiracy theories and is a fraudster. He could discover aliens aliens and I'd still rather hear it from someone else.

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 9 months ago | (#45367093)

"aliens' aliens" ... is us, right?

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367129)

"aliens' aliens" ... is us, right?

Not necessarily. There are more than two countries in the world.

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (2, Interesting)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 9 months ago | (#45367147)

Not necessarily. There are more than two countries in the world.

That'll come as a shock to many Americans who think the globe is divided into 'America' and 'Them'.

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (-1, Flamebait)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 9 months ago | (#45367301)

And the Chinese who see it as "China" and "them".
And the Japanese who see it as "Japan" and "them".
And the Germans who see it as "Germany", "should be Germany", and "them"
And the Russians who see it as "Russia", "the other former SSR's we still want to control", "Europe which we control with our natural gas supplies", and "them".
And the Africans who see it as "My family" and "everyone else".
And the Latinos who see it as "My drug-funded overlords" or "a grave".

I'm sorry, I seemed to have gotten sidetracked there. What was your point again?

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (1, Insightful)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | about 9 months ago | (#45367115)

Seriously? You really think 4 deaths because of the WH not doing it's job is a 'conspiracy theory'? You think if it was YOUR family murdered by Islamic terrorists that you'd call it a conspiracy theory? You, my friend, are the reason why this country is so screwed. You think the important things are trivial while you rant and rave about how 'outrageous' it is that the Redskins name is still being used.

Get your priorities straight before you start frothing at the mouth about conspiracy theories. Moron.

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 9 months ago | (#45367669)

Strawman and misdirection: OP said nothing about the Redskins; your point must be a poor one if you've got to lie about what the grandparent said.

Re:Darrell 'Fraud' Issa (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368077)

If it was so important, then someone other than the new Ken Starr should be working on this - otherwise it comes across as a petty attempt at politics instead of an issue that people resonate with. Remember that 13 other Benghazi's happened under Bush's watch. But then again, Obama didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction, ending the lives of hundreds of thousands.

A better title for this post should have been... (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | about 9 months ago | (#45367149)

"War Room" Notes Describe IT Chaos At Healthcare.gov

"Third World characteristics describe War Room deliberations at Healthcare.gov."

After all, had this happened in some far away land, we'd be congratulating ourselves for "not being them", right? And how we, being the "first world", are better at implementation, with "checks" and "balances" at every step.

A strange game (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 months ago | (#45367151)

The only winning move is not to play.

Lowest bidder wins... (4, Insightful)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about 9 months ago | (#45367171)

But ends up costing multiple times more in the end.

Re:Lowest bidder wins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367571)

But ends up costing multiple times more in the end.

Oh, not just any lowest bidder.

Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate Toni Townes-Whitley, who was a member of Princeton groups "Third World Center" and "Organization of Black Unity" along with Michelle...

Chicago crony/thug politics at its best.

It ain't hard to find.

But you won't see that in the NY Times, now will you?

Re:Lowest bidder wins... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367599)

But ends up costing multiple times more in the end.

Yes, as opposed to buying something like Oracle, where the highest bidder wins, and also ends up costing multiple times in the end.

The lowest bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367655)

. . .is the clown who doesn't show up on election day to vote.

But the irony of ObamaCare is that all of the focus is on Healthcare.gov, not the overarching stupidity of trying to centralize all this control in the first place.

Despite the failures of (4, Insightful)

cookYourDog (3030961) | about 9 months ago | (#45367247)

Vietnam, Iraq, the postal service, the NSA Utah data center, the response to hurricane Katrina, prohibition, no child left behind, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, shuttle Columbia, the great society, Japanese internment camps, Guantanamo, the F35 program, the war on terror, Fannie Mae, Amtrak, Railhead, Teton dam, Fair Housing act, TIDE, Social Security, the Bay of Pigs, Olmsted dam, Mariner 1, Iran-Iraq war, Solyndra, and IRS modernization...

...they were bound to get healthcare.gov right.

Re:Despite the failures of (2)

tekrat (242117) | about 9 months ago | (#45367597)

You forgot how troops were sent into the Iraq war without body armor, and the families of soldiers had to take up collections of donations to buy body armor for their sons and daughters because the military wouldn't supply it to the troops. That's our federal government right there.

Security? (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 9 months ago | (#45367255)

Who feels confident that cyber-security protocols can be effectively managed under these conditions?

all wrong (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#45367505)

That's all fluff and deflecting the real problem. They hired idiot contractors who suck at their job and were just there to make everything overpriced and make a fortune for the company owner. THAT is the real problem.

Proper criticism (2)

onyxruby (118189) | about 9 months ago | (#45367543)

The thing is that things are now working the way they should be. That is were now criticizing the web site, the process, the contracts and learning lessons. This is how government is supposed to work. The republicans are going to town with criticizing the many faults of the website - which is perfectly fair and what they should have done to begin with. The Republicans never should have held the American public hostage to try and kill the ACA and they did tremendous damage to the economy by shutting down the government.

The Democrats meanwhile should be held accountable for an absolutely atrocious website and project that never would have passed even the most basic of reviews in the private world. The Republican criticisms of the website are pretty much well founded from what I have seen. If the Democrats had reached out to the private sector instead of designing the thing by political committee it could have been built to a much higher standard.

I'm not taking sides on this argument, what I am doing is saying that all government across the political spectrum should be held to this level of scrutiny and accountability. The long standing methods of bidding out government work have led to nothing but rampant fraud and inefficiencies that could never work anywhere except the federal government. Reform is needed, and if this website finally causes reform of government bidding and projects than it will have done more good than it ever meant too.

So in otherwords... (4, Insightful)

cjjjer (530715) | about 9 months ago | (#45367561)

Just like most large scale web deployments where there is instant user base of millions...

Re:So in otherwords... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367935)

Just like most large scale web deployments where there is instant user base of millions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_load_testing

You'd think someone could type "web load testing" into wikipedia.

If they had, they would have found their missing 'instant user base of millions.'

Instead, they are all making excuses to cover their incompetency and claiming they had no way to test the website.

And lets not forget, this law only affects a small percentage of the public, those without insurance, even tho when it was being sold to the public, it was proclaimed as the second comming of christ, here to save everyone from a life of sin.

Hark the herald, angels sing, Obama is, our newly elected king !

Lesson to all business side folks (5, Insightful)

Andover Chick (1859494) | about 9 months ago | (#45367639)

I work at a major bank. This sort of non-sense has peaked in recent years at big organizations. One would have thought the business side would have become more IT savvy in the past couple of decades. Instead, they still think a magic wand can be waved in the USA or India which will cause a computer system to emerge. Perhaps the business side users are peddled such fantasy by Infosys, Tata, EDS, CGI, CSC, etc. But more likely it's business users who refuse to work collaboratively with IT. They think because they got a bunch of low cost Indian or American programmers, usually with one dimensional skills sets, whacking away at the keyboard that a quality system will emerge. Instead, they get crap. It's like a parade ground crowed with marchers who have no coordinated direction. There's no orchestration, no appreciation for logistics, and not sense of engineering. If an engineer tells the business side something cannot get done, then they replace the engineer with someone who'll tell what they want to hear. The best analogy is Hitler working with his generals in WWII. He thought flags on the battle maps could be moved around like a paste-it board, not concept of logistics. And when a general told Hitler his plans were imbecilic, then the general was shot. Thankfully for humanity Hitler's idiocy destroyed the Third Reich. What else will the business users destroy?

Re:Lesson to all business side folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367917)

Mod parent up.

-Velex

Re: Lesson to all business side folks (1)

Lee Riemenschneider (2859815) | about 9 months ago | (#45367971)

Technical side gets plenty of blame. Where are the software metrics that can give a rough estimate on how much effort a project should take? Not easily available, because most of the software world resists FPA.) Where are the reusable domains? Non-existent, because most of the software developers want to stay at the 3GL level.

Sounds like the typical IT rollout to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367649)

Complete with mismatching production servers and key staff going out on vacation

minus 2, Troll) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45367779)

Standard War Room activities (4, Informative)

z_gringo (452163) | about 9 months ago | (#45367955)

All that reads like pretty standard War Room activities for a launch of this size. There is a reason they chose the name "War Room" for these things. It is just a central location where issues are triaged, and it can be chaotic after a launch. This is an example of the press trying to make a big story out of something that isn't news by reporting on something that most people don't understand.

I would be more concerned by the lack of a war room than from war room chaos.

47 contractors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45368071)

I don't know much about this type of developement but on wikipedia it says "The Sunlight Foundation has stated that at least forty-seven private company contractors have been involved with the PPACA in some capacity as of fall 2013". Is that normal for a project like this?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...