The Obamacare question: Can the website handle the volume?

Link to article: CNN

 

The Saturday's self-imposed deadline approaches for President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms, yet he still needs to get the website to work properly for most users. The website continues to have many problems and can't handle the traffic of people trying to enroll. There are transmission of data problems with people trying to sign up for coverage, and small businesses are now excluded from availability.

Luke Chung, president of Virginia-based software developer FMS Inc., called the administration's prediction that HealthCare.gov would work at 80% capacity on or around November 30 an impractical threshold in the software world.

"I don't know how to build something that's only 80% complete," Chung told CNN. "I don't even understand how that works."

The enrollment period runs until March 31, and officials have said the target for the first year was 7 million people. To ensure they have coverage starting on January 1, consumers must sign up by December 23, the administration recently announced. 

I'm not very confident in the accomplishment of their goals. The whole website has given a bad face to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether the ACA is good or bad. October 1st was a huge mess, leaving many people unable to access the website, and doubting the viability of the ACA. We talked about in class how important public perception is, and I think it will play an important roll with what happens with the ACA.

Some say these problems were unavoidable, I don't entirely agree. Of course, President Obama, doesn't know much about how to fix the website problem himself, though could he have hired better more experienced company to be in charge? Maybe he could have avoided much of the website woes. Some say these problems are exaggerated. Maybe, and probably by some conservative republicans who want to do away with the ACA entirely, but in reality there are a lot of problems with it, and public perception of the ACA is eroding. (TIMES article)

Link to article: TIME

$1 coins: Unwanted, unloved and out of currency

Link to article: CNN

The article talks of the how the $1 coin is so reviled when the lowly, tarnished penny is so revered. Pennies are everywhere, but where are the those $1 coins? The answer is in the federal banks. The Federal reserve banks hold about $1.4 billion in $1 dollar coins. That is enough to meet the demand for the next 40 years. 

Much over half of $1 coins ever minted lie in government banks

The government's stockpile in $1 coins actually grew. Last year more coins were returned to the Federal Reserve than were paid out, and many businesses were returning these coins than asked for them.

The article then goes on to say how useful the $1 coin could be to the US. They much more durable than paper money, and can far outlast them. With respect to public preference however, "paper beats rock", though the public preference of paper money over coin money comes at a cost. The federal government would save $4.4 billion within the next 30 years, or about $150 million a year if Congress decided to go with metal according to the GAO, which would like to see $1 paper notes phased out.

Despite this, the Treasury Department limits the number of minted $1 coins and declares that "it is not a prudent use of tax payer resources". The Federal Reserve continues to mint pennies and nickels which cost more to make then they are valued, yet it denounces $1 coins.

Many countries use $1 or more coins, like Japan, France, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Canada, in order to combat the public's preference of paper money, did away with $1 paper notes entirely. In Canada, the federal government experienced cost savings ten times their initial estimate.

Link to Dollar Coin website

Currently a Senate bill seeks to improve the circulation of $1 coins. GovTrack.us gives the bill a 1% chance of making it out of the committee.

This has to do with what we talked about in class when we talked about what a bill has to go through in order to become a law. This bill looks like it it will come to a short stop in its first few steps of existence at the Senate Committee.

As for my opinion, I very much agree with a shift to $1 coins instead of paper money because of its lasting money benefits it has for our country. I would be fine with giving up the convenience of $1 paper notes for the efficient production our currency. It worked out great for Canada, and so many countries find it an thrifty, economical choice.