Obama Calls on Russia to Renew Weapons Pact

WASHINGTON — President Obama called on Russia on Monday to renew a two-decade-old nuclear disarmament program that Moscow has threatened to cancel as the two sides try to figure out the future of a rocky relationship now that elections in both countries are behind them.

Russia declared this fall that it would not renew the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which has helped rid the former Soviet Union of thousands of nuclear weapons since the end of the cold war. But in a speech, Mr. Obama chose to interpret the Russian statements as a negotiating position to change the program rather than halt it altogether.

“Russia has said that our current agreement hasn’t kept pace with the changing relationship between our countries,” Mr. Obama said at the National Defense University, where he praised the program’s accomplishments. “To which we say, let’s update it. Let’s work with Russia as an equal partner. Let’s continue the work that’s so important to the security of both our countries. And I’m optimistic that we can.”

Whether Russia is willing to do that remains unclear. Even if it is, Moscow has suggested that it would link the renewal of the program to concessions by the United States on its plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe intended to defend against Iranian aggression. Mr. Obama was overheard telling his Russian counterpart this year that “after my election I have more flexibility” on missile defense, prompting Republicans to accuse him of plotting to sell out the system.

Mr. Obama made no mention of missile defense on Monday, but in reaching out to Moscow he seemed to be taking the opening step in a postelection dance in which the two countries will re-evaluate their ties. His effort to reset the relationship after a rupture over the Georgia war of 2008 succeeded for a time in stabilizing ties, but the atmosphere has cooled noticeably since Vladimir V. Putin returned to the presidency this year.

In recent months, Russia ordered the United States Agency for International Development to leave and enacted laws focused on nongovernmental organizations receiving foreign financing. As a result, the National Democratic Institute, an American-financed organization that promotes democracy, moved to Lithuania last month, and its counterpart, the International Republican Institute, is likely to follow.

The announcement in October that Russia would not renew the Nunn-Lugar program when it expires in the spring underscored how sour relations had become. Through all the ups and downs over the past 20 years, Nunn-Lugar had always been largely immune to the political tides, in part because Russia saw that having American money and help in slimming down its nuclear arsenal was in its own interest.

Since it began, Nunn-Lugar has helped to deactivate 7,600 nuclear warheads and destroy or eliminate 900 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 500 missile silos, 680 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 900 nuclear air-to-surface missiles. But the program still envisioned getting rid of hundreds more weapons to meet goals for 2017.

Russia said it would take over the costs and responsibilities of continuing the program, in effect asserting that after its economic and geopolitical resurgence of recent years, it no longer needs foreign help. But Mr. Obama has not given up on preserving the program, although aides said no specific negotiations were under way to renew it.

American officials hope that last month’s election will make it possible for the two sides to get back on a better footing. After Mr. Obama’s victory, the two presidents spoke by telephone and Mr. Obama accepted Mr. Putin’s invitation to visit Russia in 2013. Presumably he would go to St. Petersburg for the Group of 20 summit meeting that Mr. Putin will host in September.

Mr. Obama’s outreach to Russia on Nunn-Lugar came during a speech paying tribute to its patrons, former Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, and Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, who lost a primary this year. Mr. Obama hailed them on Monday as “real visionaries” who “challenged us to think anew, to imagine, after decades of confrontation, how our nations might engage in cooperation.”

But, he added: “We’re nowhere near done, not by a long shot, and you all know this. There’s still much too much material — nuclear, chemical, biological — being stored without enough protection. There are still terrorists and criminal gangs doing everything they can to get their hands on it. And make no mistake, if they get it, they will use it.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 3, 2012

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misidentified the Indiana Republican Richard G. Lugar. As the article correctly noted, Mr. Lugar lost a primary this year. He will remain in the United States Senate until his successor is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2013; he is not a former senator. 

Read More..

Advertising: Ford Plan to Revive Lincoln Hinges on a New Brand

An unusual ad campaign features Abraham Lincoln, the president for whom the car brand is named.

DEARBORN, Mich. — In the fiercely competitive world of luxury cars, the Ford Motor Company’s Lincoln brand has long been stuck in the slow lane, with stodgy models, older buyers and a distinct lack of pizazz.

But Ford is determined to change that. On Monday, the company will announce upgraded customer service initiatives, a new brand name for Lincoln that plays down the Ford connection and an unusual advertising campaign that features Abraham Lincoln, the president for whom the brand is named.

Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, will begin the rebranding effort at an event outside Lincoln Center in Manhattan — the first in a series of moves meant to reverse Lincoln’s seemingly perpetual state of decline.

Ford will formally rechristen the brand as the Lincoln Motor Company and introduce a television spot that begins with an image of Lincoln, stovepipe hat and all. The brand’s first Super Bowl commercial is in the works, as is a revamped Web site that links consumers to a Lincoln “concierge” who can arrange test drives or set up appointments at dealerships.

Mr. Mulally will also announce the on-sale date in early 2013 for the radically redesigned Lincoln MKZ sedan, as well as plans for three new vehicles down the road.

If it seems like an all-out grab for attention, well, that’s exactly the point, said James D. Farley Jr., Ford’s head of global sales and marketing and the newly named chief of the Lincoln revival effort.

“The most important thing is for people to be aware that there is a transition going on,” Mr. Farley said. “We have to shake them up.”

The shake-up is long overdue and critically important to Ford, the nation’s second-largest car company behind General Motors.

As recently as the 1990s, Lincoln was the top-selling luxury automotive brand in the United States. Its large Town Car sedan and hulking Navigator S.U.V. defined the brand, and sales topped more than 230,000 vehicles a year.

But since then, Lincoln has been left in the dust by the German category leaders BMW and Mercedes-Benz, and Toyota’s Lexus division. This year, Lincoln ranks eighth in the American luxury segment, with sales down 2 percent, to 69,000, vehicles in the first 10 months of the year.

Its crosstown rival G.M. has had much better success reviving its Cadillac brand.

“Cadillac has been stabilized, but Lincoln is still muddling about,” said Jack Trout, president of the marketing firm Trout and Partners. “The big question is, how can Lincoln convince people it is more than just a gussied-up Ford?”

That task has now fallen to Mr. Farley, who left Toyota five years ago to join Ford just as Mr. Mulally’s transformation of the company was under way. Since then, Ford has introduced a succession of sleeker, more fuel-efficient and technology-laden models that have lifted sales and made it among the most profitable car companies in the world.

Lincoln, however, has not benefited from the turnaround. It accounts for only 3 percent of Ford’s total sales, down from 8 percent during the brand’s heyday. And since Ford has sold off foreign luxury divisions like Volvo and Jaguar, Lincoln is the sole upscale brand in the company.

“There is nothing more frustrating for us than to have someone who loves their Ford car and S.U.V., but goes out to buy a luxury model from another brand because we don’t have one,” Mr. Farley said.

The Lincoln comeback effort starts with the midsize MKZ, which has been redesigned with a sweeping grille, tapered body style and an all-glass retractable roof. It will be followed by three other new models, including a larger sedan and S.U.V.

But the brand’s image needs much more than better cars. Under Mr. Farley’s direction, a newly formed team of 200 people is intent on establishing the Lincoln Motor Company as a boutique luxury line known for personalized service.

Every customer who reserves an MKZ, for example, will be presented with an elegant gift upon receiving the car. Choices include a selection of wines and Champagne, custom-made jewelry or sunglasses, or a one-night stay at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

Lincoln’s Web site will also have a consultant available 24 hours a day for live discussions about the products and to streamline the buying process. Prospective buyers will be given an opportunity for a “date night” with Lincoln, which includes a two-day test drive and a free meal at a restaurant.

Read More..

Call That Kept Nursing Home Patients in Sandy’s Path

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Workers were shocked that nursing and adult homes in areas like Rockaway Park, Queens, weren’t evacuated.

Hurricane Sandy was swirling northward, four days before landfall, and at the Sea Crest Health Care Center, a nursing home overlooking the Coney Island Boardwalk in Brooklyn, workers were gathering medicines and other supplies as they prepared to evacuate.

Then the call came from health officials: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, acting on the advice of his aides and those of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, recommended that nursing homes and adult homes stay put. The 305 residents would ride out the storm.

The same advisory also took administrators by surprise at the Ocean Promenade nursing home, which faces the Atlantic Ocean in Queens. They canceled plans to move 105 residents to safety.

“No one gets why we weren’t evacuated,” said a worker there, Yisroel Tabi. “We wouldn’t have exposed ourselves to dealing with that situation.”

The recommendation that thousands of elderly, disabled and mentally ill residents remain in more than 40 nursing homes and adult homes in flood-prone areas of New York City had calamitous consequences.

At least 29 facilities in Queens and Brooklyn were severely flooded. Generators failed or were absent. Buildings were plunged into a cold, wet darkness, with no access to power, water, heat and food.

While no immediate deaths were reported, it took at least three days for the Fire Department, the National Guard and ambulance crews from around the country to rescue over 4,000 nursing home and 1,500 adult home residents. Without working elevators, many had to be carried down slippery stairwells.

“I was shocked,” said Greg Levow, who works for an ambulance service and helped rescue residents at Queens. “I couldn’t understand why they were there in the first place.”

Many sat for hours in ambulances and buses before being transported to safety through sand drifts and debris-filled floodwaters. They went to crowded shelters and nursing homes as far away as Albany, where for days, they often lacked medical charts and medications. Families struggled to locate relatives.

The decision not to empty the nursing homes and adult homes in the mandatory evacuation area was one of the most questionable by the authorities during Hurricane Sandy. And an investigation by The New York Times found that the impact was worsened by missteps that officials made in not ensuring that these facilities could protect residents.

They did not require that nursing homes maintain backup generators that could withstand flooding. They did not ensure that health care administrators could adequately communicate with government agencies during and after a storm. And they discounted the more severe of the early predictions about Hurricane Sandy’s surge.

The Times’s investigation was based on interviews with officials, health care administrators, doctors, nurses, ambulance medics, residents, family members and disaster experts. It included a review of internal State Health Department status reports. The findings revealed the striking vulnerability of the city’s nursing and adult homes.

On Sunday, Oct. 28, the day before Hurricane Sandy arrived, Mr. Bloomberg ordered a mandatory evacuation in Zone A, the low-lying neighborhoods of the city. But by that point, Mr. Bloomberg, relying on the advice of the city and state health commissioners, had already determined that people in nursing homes and adult homes should not leave, officials said.

The mayor’s recommendations that health care facilities not evacuate startled residents of Surf Manor adult home in Coney Island, said one of them, Norman Bloomfield. He recalled that another resident exclaimed, “What about us! Why’s he telling us to stay?”

The commissioners made the recommendation to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo because they said they believed that the inherent risks of transporting the residents outweighed the potential dangers from the storm.

In interviews, senior Bloomberg and Cuomo aides did not express regret for keeping the residents in place.

“I would defend all the decisions and the actions” by the health authorities involving the storm, said Linda I. Gibbs, a deputy mayor. “I feel like I’m describing something that was a remarkable, lifesaving event.”

Dr. Nirav R. Shah, the state health commissioner, who regulates nursing homes, said: “I’m not even thinking of second-guessing the decisions.”

Still, officials in New Jersey and in Nassau County adopted a different policy, evacuating nursing homes in coastal areas well before the storm.

Contradictory Forecasts

The city’s experience with Tropical Storm Irene last year weighed heavily on state and city health officials and contributed to their underestimating the impact of Hurricane Sandy, according to records and interviews.

Before Tropical Storm Irene, the officials ordered nursing homes and adult homes to evacuate. The storm caused relatively minor damage, but the evacuation led to millions of dollars in health care, transportation, housing and other costs, and took a toll on residents.

As a result, when Hurricane Sandy loomed, the officials were acutely aware that they could come under criticism if they ordered another evacuation that proved unnecessary.

Read More..

Call That Kept Nursing Home Patients in Sandy’s Path

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Workers were shocked that nursing and adult homes in areas like Rockaway Park, Queens, weren’t evacuated.

Hurricane Sandy was swirling northward, four days before landfall, and at the Sea Crest Health Care Center, a nursing home overlooking the Coney Island Boardwalk in Brooklyn, workers were gathering medicines and other supplies as they prepared to evacuate.

Then the call came from health officials: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, acting on the advice of his aides and those of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, recommended that nursing homes and adult homes stay put. The 305 residents would ride out the storm.

The same advisory also took administrators by surprise at the Ocean Promenade nursing home, which faces the Atlantic Ocean in Queens. They canceled plans to move 105 residents to safety.

“No one gets why we weren’t evacuated,” said a worker there, Yisroel Tabi. “We wouldn’t have exposed ourselves to dealing with that situation.”

The recommendation that thousands of elderly, disabled and mentally ill residents remain in more than 40 nursing homes and adult homes in flood-prone areas of New York City had calamitous consequences.

At least 29 facilities in Queens and Brooklyn were severely flooded. Generators failed or were absent. Buildings were plunged into a cold, wet darkness, with no access to power, water, heat and food.

While no immediate deaths were reported, it took at least three days for the Fire Department, the National Guard and ambulance crews from around the country to rescue over 4,000 nursing home and 1,500 adult home residents. Without working elevators, many had to be carried down slippery stairwells.

“I was shocked,” said Greg Levow, who works for an ambulance service and helped rescue residents at Queens. “I couldn’t understand why they were there in the first place.”

Many sat for hours in ambulances and buses before being transported to safety through sand drifts and debris-filled floodwaters. They went to crowded shelters and nursing homes as far away as Albany, where for days, they often lacked medical charts and medications. Families struggled to locate relatives.

The decision not to empty the nursing homes and adult homes in the mandatory evacuation area was one of the most questionable by the authorities during Hurricane Sandy. And an investigation by The New York Times found that the impact was worsened by missteps that officials made in not ensuring that these facilities could protect residents.

They did not require that nursing homes maintain backup generators that could withstand flooding. They did not ensure that health care administrators could adequately communicate with government agencies during and after a storm. And they discounted the more severe of the early predictions about Hurricane Sandy’s surge.

The Times’s investigation was based on interviews with officials, health care administrators, doctors, nurses, ambulance medics, residents, family members and disaster experts. It included a review of internal State Health Department status reports. The findings revealed the striking vulnerability of the city’s nursing and adult homes.

On Sunday, Oct. 28, the day before Hurricane Sandy arrived, Mr. Bloomberg ordered a mandatory evacuation in Zone A, the low-lying neighborhoods of the city. But by that point, Mr. Bloomberg, relying on the advice of the city and state health commissioners, had already determined that people in nursing homes and adult homes should not leave, officials said.

The mayor’s recommendations that health care facilities not evacuate startled residents of Surf Manor adult home in Coney Island, said one of them, Norman Bloomfield. He recalled that another resident exclaimed, “What about us! Why’s he telling us to stay?”

The commissioners made the recommendation to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo because they said they believed that the inherent risks of transporting the residents outweighed the potential dangers from the storm.

In interviews, senior Bloomberg and Cuomo aides did not express regret for keeping the residents in place.

“I would defend all the decisions and the actions” by the health authorities involving the storm, said Linda I. Gibbs, a deputy mayor. “I feel like I’m describing something that was a remarkable, lifesaving event.”

Dr. Nirav R. Shah, the state health commissioner, who regulates nursing homes, said: “I’m not even thinking of second-guessing the decisions.”

Still, officials in New Jersey and in Nassau County adopted a different policy, evacuating nursing homes in coastal areas well before the storm.

Contradictory Forecasts

The city’s experience with Tropical Storm Irene last year weighed heavily on state and city health officials and contributed to their underestimating the impact of Hurricane Sandy, according to records and interviews.

Before Tropical Storm Irene, the officials ordered nursing homes and adult homes to evacuate. The storm caused relatively minor damage, but the evacuation led to millions of dollars in health care, transportation, housing and other costs, and took a toll on residents.

As a result, when Hurricane Sandy loomed, the officials were acutely aware that they could come under criticism if they ordered another evacuation that proved unnecessary.

Read More..

App Maker Uber Hits Regulatory Snarl

Jack Atley for The New York Times

The Uber car-hiring app was introduced in Sydney last month.

WASHINGTON — Summoning a taxi or car service with your smartphone feels like the future. City governments around the world can agree on that. But many of them are proposing new rules that would run Uber, one of the most prominent ride-requesting apps, off the road.

James Best Jr./The New York Times

The battle between Uber and city governments underscores the tension between lawmakers and technology companies at a time when Web sites and mobile apps can outmaneuver old rules.

At a recent conference here, transportation regulators and car service operators from cities in the United States and Europe met to talk about how smartphone apps were changing the hire-a-car business. Some of these apps are integrated with dispatching systems run by the car companies, while others allow drivers to directly connect with passengers, phone to phone.

While the regulators discussed ways to clarify the legality of these apps, they also proposed guidelines that would effectively force Uber, a San Francisco start-up, to cease operations in the United States. Uber also faces new lawsuits filed by San Francisco cabdrivers and Chicago car service companies, and a $20,000 fine from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The battle between Uber and city governments underscores the tension between lawmakers and technology companies at a time when Web sites and mobile apps can outmaneuver old rules. Services like Uber, Airbnb and Craigslist can cut out the middleman and lead to more efficient markets. But regulators say they could also put consumers at risk.

Uber has rattled regulators in many cities with its unusual approach to expansion. It says that it first consults a transportation lawyer in a city on whether it is legal to operate there. When it comes to town, its employees contact local car service companies to discuss working with them; in cities where Uber works with cabs, employees put up fliers or approach drivers at airports and gas stations. Participating drivers get free iPhones that run Uber’s navigation software, which helps them find people nearby who are requesting rides with their smartphones.

The start-up, which has raised $50 million since 2010, generally does not consult transportation regulators before it starts rolling in each city. Because it is not an actual provider of rides, it says that it is not subject to such regulation. To date, this approach has generally worked for it in 18 cities, including San Francisco, Washington, New York, Chicago, Paris and Amsterdam.

Uber suffered its first serious setback in New York, where it was forced to cease its fledgling yellow cab operation in October because of what the city said were exclusive contracts with payment processors. But the company continues to work with luxury sedan companies and drivers there.

Matthew W. Daus, former chairman of New York’s taxi and limousine commission and current president of the International Association of Transportation Regulators, is one of Uber’s most vocal critics, saying the company isn’t above regulation. With the support of 15 city governments that formed a task force called the Smartphone Apps Committee, he wrote up the guidelines on laws that, if passed by the cities, would outlaw Uber’s operations.

In an interview, Mr. Daus, who practices law part-time with the firm Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, said that Uber was a “rogue” app, and that the company was behaving in an unauthorized, unusual and destructive way.

As an example, he pointed to Uber’s doubling of fares in New York after Hurricane Sandy in what the company calls surge pricing, a move that the start-up said was necessary to get more drivers on the storm-ravaged roads.

He said, “New Yorkers deserve an apology from Uber for price-gouging them during the hurricane.”

There are dozens of other car-summoning apps, some even more unconventional than Uber. Lyft, released in May by a start-up called Zimride, allows ordinary citizens to give rides to others in their own cars in return for “donations.” SideCar, another start-up, offers a similar service. Like Uber, these companies are also facing a $20,000 fine from the California Public Utilities Commission for operating without a license.

Regulators say new laws are required to protect consumers from being harmed by such apps. But Uber, aside from the hurricane troubles, is generally adored by customers who say they are willing to pay extra to summon a ride without much wait, especially in cities where cabs are scarce.

In Apple’s App Store, the Uber app has hundreds of five-star ratings. And when Washington tried to pass rules that would make Uber illegal, customers bombarded City Council members with thousands of e-mails in protest.

Uber’s 36-year-old co-founder and chief, Travis Kalanick, has a history of controversy. Scour, the file-sharing start-up he helped found, shut down after it was sued for $250 billion by media companies on complaints of copyright infringement.

He draws attention to Uber by framing it as a story of David vs. Goliath — a lean technology start-up revolutionizing a creaky business. He once referred to Cambridge, Mass., as “home to Harvard, M.I.T. and some of the most anticompetitive, corrupt transportation laws in the country.”

To Mr. Kalanick, the rules being proposed by Mr. Daus’s committee are a classic example of regulators trying to stifle innovation. He says those making the rules are more interested in protecting the taxi and limousine businesses than in helping consumers. And he says Uber’s strategy of marching into new cities without asking permission is necessary.

Read More..

Vietnam Veterans, Claiming PTSD, Sue for Better Discharges

NEW HAVEN — In the summer of 1968, John Shepherd Jr. enlisted in the Army, figuring that the draft would get him anyway. By January 1969, he was in the Mekong Delta, fighting with the Ninth Infantry Division.

Within a month, his patrol was ambushed, and Mr. Shepherd responded by tossing a hand grenade into a bunker that killed several enemy soldiers. The Army awarded him a Bronze Star with a valor device, one of its highest decorations.

Yet the medal did little to assuage Mr. Shepherd’s sense of anxiousness and futility about the war. A few weeks after his act of heroism, he said, his platoon leader was killed by a sniper as he tried to help Mr. Shepherd out of a canal. It was a breaking point: his behavior became erratic, and at some point he simply refused to go on patrol.

“I never felt fear like I felt when he got shot,” Mr. Shepherd said last week.

After a court-martial, the Army discharged Mr. Shepherd under other-than-honorable conditions, then known as an undesirable discharge. At the time, he was happy just to be a civilian again. But he came to rue that discharge, particularly after his claim for veterans benefits was denied because of it.

Today, Mr. Shepherd, 65, is part of a class-action lawsuit against the armed forces arguing that he and other Vietnam veterans had post-traumatic stress disorder when they were issued other-than-honorable discharges. The suit, filed in Federal District Court, demands that their discharges be upgraded.

The suit raises two thorny issues that could affect thousands of Vietnam veterans: Can they be given a diagnosis of PTSD retroactively, to their time in service, though the disorder was not identified until 1980? And if they can, should recently instituted policies intended to protect troops with PTSD be applied retroactively to their cases?

Mr. Shepherd’s legal team, students with the Yale Law School veterans legal clinic, argues yes on both counts. In court papers, they assert that it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Shepherd and other veterans who were later given PTSD diagnoses began exhibiting troublesome symptoms while in service.

Moreover, under rules put in place during the Iraq war, troops who say they have PTSD must be given medical examinations before they are forced out of the military, to ensure that problematic behavior is not linked to the disorder. If they are given a PTSD diagnosis, service members may still receive an honorable discharge.

“Vietnam War-era veterans, in contrast, have been denied this opportunity for appropriate consideration of the PTSD,” the students said in the complaint.

But the Army says no. In a rejection of an earlier request by Mr. Shepherd to upgrade his discharge, the Army tersely rejected evidence that his misconduct 43 years ago was linked to PTSD and raised questions about whether his platoon leader was actually killed.

A spokesman for the Army said the military has a policy of not discussing pending litigation.

The details of Mr. Shepherd’s case aside, the suit could have a wide impact. The Yale team says that its review of records from 2003 to 2012 shows that 154 Vietnam-era veterans petitioned the Army to upgrade discharges because of PTSD, but that only two were successful. Yet the Army Board of Corrections for Military Records granted upgrades nearly half of the time for other cases.

The students estimate that more than a quarter million Vietnam-era veterans were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions, and that thousands of those probably had PTSD. Their suit names as defendants the secretaries for the Army, Air Force and Navy. Vietnam Veterans of America, the veterans service organization, is joining the case as a plaintiff on Monday.

Discharges that are other than honorable can make it harder for veterans to find work and also disqualify them for veterans benefits.

In Mr. Shepherd’s case, a Department of Veterans Affairs doctor in 2004 gave him a diagnosis of service-connected PTSD. As a result, the department will provide health care for his PTSD. But it will not provide him general medical care, unless he is found to have other health problems related to his service.

Veterans disability compensation is also a problem. Mr. Shepherd’s undesirable discharge was actually upgraded to a general discharge in the 1970s under a special Carter administration program. That upgrade should have made it easier for him to apply for disability compensation. But subsequent legislation enacted by Congress said that clemency upgrades like Mr. Shepherd’s did not automatically qualify veterans for benefits. Mr. Shepherd’s compensation claim was ultimately rejected.

Mr. Shepherd, who has been divorced twice and battled through alcoholism and drug abuse, lives in New Haven, getting by on Social Security and a Teamsters pension. (He drove trucks for years.) He could use the extra money from disability compensation, but what matters as much, he says, is removing the stain of his discharge.

“I want that honorable,” he said. “I did do my part, until I really felt it wasn’t worth getting killed for.”

Read More..

Opinion: A Health Insurance Detective Story

I’VE had a long career as a business journalist, beginning at Forbes and including eight years as the editor of Money, a personal finance magazine. But I’ve never faced a more confounding reporting challenge than the one I’m engaged in now: What will I pay next year for the pill that controls my blood cancer?

After making more than 70 phone calls to 16 organizations over the past few weeks, I’m still not totally sure what I will owe for my Revlimid, a derivative of thalidomide that is keeping my multiple myeloma in check. The drug is extremely expensive — about $11,000 retail for a four-week supply, $132,000 a year, $524 a pill. Time Warner, my former employer, has covered me for years under its Supplementary Medicare Program, a plan for retirees that included a special Writers Guild benefit capping my out-of-pocket prescription costs at $1,000 a year. That out-of-pocket limit is scheduled to expire on Jan. 1. So what will my Revlimid cost me next year?

The answers I got ranged from $20 a month to $17,000 a year. One of the first people I phoned said that no matter what I heard, I wouldn’t know the cost until I filed a claim in January. Seventy phone calls later, that may still be the most reliable thing anyone has told me.

Like around 47 million other Medicare beneficiaries, I have until this Friday, Dec. 7, when open enrollment ends, to choose my 2013 Medicare coverage, either through traditional Medicare or a private insurer, as well as my drug coverage — or I will risk all sorts of complications and potential late penalties.

But if a seasoned personal-finance journalist can’t get a straight answer to a simple question, what chance do most people have of picking the right health insurance option?

A study published in the journal Health Affairs in October estimated that a mere 5.2 percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries chose the cheapest coverage that met their needs. All in all, consumers appear to be wasting roughly $11 billion a year on their Part D coverage, partly, I think, because they don’t get reliable answers to straightforward questions.

Here’s a snapshot of my surreal experience:

NOV. 7 A packet from Time Warner informs me that the company’s new 2013 Retiree Health Care Plan has “no out-of-pocket limit on your expenses.” But Erin, the person who answers at the company’s Benefits Service Center, tells me that the new plan will have “no practical effect” on me. What about the $1,000-a-year cap on drug costs? Is that really being eliminated? “Yes,” she says, “there’s no limit on out-of-pocket expenses in 2013.” I tell her I think that could have a major effect on me.

Next I talk to David at CVS/Caremark, Time Warner’s new drug insurance provider. He thinks my out-of-pocket cost for Revlimid next year will be $6,900. He says, “I know I’m scaring you.”

I call back Erin at Time Warner. She mentions something about $10,000 and says she’ll get an estimate for me in two business days.

NOV. 8 I phone Medicare. Jay says that if I switch to Medicare’s Part D prescription coverage, with a new provider, Revlimid’s cost will drive me into Medicare’s “catastrophic coverage.” I’d pay $2,819 the first month, and 5 percent of the cost of the drug thereafter — $563 a month or maybe $561. Anyway, roughly $9,000 for the year. Jay says AARP’s Part D plan may be a good option.

NOV. 9 Erin at Time Warner tells me that the company’s policy bundles United Healthcare medical coverage with CVS/Caremark’s drug coverage. I can’t accept the medical plan and cherry-pick prescription coverage elsewhere. It’s take it or leave it. Then she puts CVS’s Michele on the line to get me a Revlimid quote. Michele says Time Warner hasn’t transferred my insurance information. She can’t give me a quote without it. Erin says she will not call me with an update. I’ll have to call her.

My oncologist’s assistant steers me to Celgene, Revlimid’s manufacturer. Jennifer in “patient support” says premium assistance grants can cut the cost of Revlimid to $20 or $30 a month. She says, “You’re going to be O.K.” If my income is low enough to qualify for assistance.

NOV. 12 I try CVS again. Christine says my insurance records still have not been transferred, but she thinks my Revlimid might cost $17,000 a year.

Adriana at Medicare warns me that AARP and other Part D providers will require “prior authorization” to cover my Revlimid, so it’s probably best to stick with Time Warner no matter what the cost.

But Brooke at AARP insists that I don’t need prior authorization for my Revlimid, and so does her supervisor Brian — until he spots a footnote. Then he assures me that it will be easy to get prior authorization. All I need is a doctor’s note. My out-of-pocket cost for 2013: roughly $7,000.

NOV. 13 Linda at CVS says her company still doesn’t have my file, but from what she can see about Time Warner’s insurance plans my cost will be $60 a month — $720 for the year.

CVS assigns my case to Rebecca. She says she’s “sure all will be fine.” Well, “pretty sure.” She’s excited. She’s been with the company only a few months. This will be her first quote.

NOV. 14 Giddens at Time Warner puts in an “emergency update request” to get my files transferred to CVS.

Frank Lalli is an editorial consultant on retirement issues and a former senior executive editor at Time Warner’s Time Inc.

Read More..

Opinion: A Health Insurance Detective Story

I’VE had a long career as a business journalist, beginning at Forbes and including eight years as the editor of Money, a personal finance magazine. But I’ve never faced a more confounding reporting challenge than the one I’m engaged in now: What will I pay next year for the pill that controls my blood cancer?

After making more than 70 phone calls to 16 organizations over the past few weeks, I’m still not totally sure what I will owe for my Revlimid, a derivative of thalidomide that is keeping my multiple myeloma in check. The drug is extremely expensive — about $11,000 retail for a four-week supply, $132,000 a year, $524 a pill. Time Warner, my former employer, has covered me for years under its Supplementary Medicare Program, a plan for retirees that included a special Writers Guild benefit capping my out-of-pocket prescription costs at $1,000 a year. That out-of-pocket limit is scheduled to expire on Jan. 1. So what will my Revlimid cost me next year?

The answers I got ranged from $20 a month to $17,000 a year. One of the first people I phoned said that no matter what I heard, I wouldn’t know the cost until I filed a claim in January. Seventy phone calls later, that may still be the most reliable thing anyone has told me.

Like around 47 million other Medicare beneficiaries, I have until this Friday, Dec. 7, when open enrollment ends, to choose my 2013 Medicare coverage, either through traditional Medicare or a private insurer, as well as my drug coverage — or I will risk all sorts of complications and potential late penalties.

But if a seasoned personal-finance journalist can’t get a straight answer to a simple question, what chance do most people have of picking the right health insurance option?

A study published in the journal Health Affairs in October estimated that a mere 5.2 percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries chose the cheapest coverage that met their needs. All in all, consumers appear to be wasting roughly $11 billion a year on their Part D coverage, partly, I think, because they don’t get reliable answers to straightforward questions.

Here’s a snapshot of my surreal experience:

NOV. 7 A packet from Time Warner informs me that the company’s new 2013 Retiree Health Care Plan has “no out-of-pocket limit on your expenses.” But Erin, the person who answers at the company’s Benefits Service Center, tells me that the new plan will have “no practical effect” on me. What about the $1,000-a-year cap on drug costs? Is that really being eliminated? “Yes,” she says, “there’s no limit on out-of-pocket expenses in 2013.” I tell her I think that could have a major effect on me.

Next I talk to David at CVS/Caremark, Time Warner’s new drug insurance provider. He thinks my out-of-pocket cost for Revlimid next year will be $6,900. He says, “I know I’m scaring you.”

I call back Erin at Time Warner. She mentions something about $10,000 and says she’ll get an estimate for me in two business days.

NOV. 8 I phone Medicare. Jay says that if I switch to Medicare’s Part D prescription coverage, with a new provider, Revlimid’s cost will drive me into Medicare’s “catastrophic coverage.” I’d pay $2,819 the first month, and 5 percent of the cost of the drug thereafter — $563 a month or maybe $561. Anyway, roughly $9,000 for the year. Jay says AARP’s Part D plan may be a good option.

NOV. 9 Erin at Time Warner tells me that the company’s policy bundles United Healthcare medical coverage with CVS/Caremark’s drug coverage. I can’t accept the medical plan and cherry-pick prescription coverage elsewhere. It’s take it or leave it. Then she puts CVS’s Michele on the line to get me a Revlimid quote. Michele says Time Warner hasn’t transferred my insurance information. She can’t give me a quote without it. Erin says she will not call me with an update. I’ll have to call her.

My oncologist’s assistant steers me to Celgene, Revlimid’s manufacturer. Jennifer in “patient support” says premium assistance grants can cut the cost of Revlimid to $20 or $30 a month. She says, “You’re going to be O.K.” If my income is low enough to qualify for assistance.

NOV. 12 I try CVS again. Christine says my insurance records still have not been transferred, but she thinks my Revlimid might cost $17,000 a year.

Adriana at Medicare warns me that AARP and other Part D providers will require “prior authorization” to cover my Revlimid, so it’s probably best to stick with Time Warner no matter what the cost.

But Brooke at AARP insists that I don’t need prior authorization for my Revlimid, and so does her supervisor Brian — until he spots a footnote. Then he assures me that it will be easy to get prior authorization. All I need is a doctor’s note. My out-of-pocket cost for 2013: roughly $7,000.

NOV. 13 Linda at CVS says her company still doesn’t have my file, but from what she can see about Time Warner’s insurance plans my cost will be $60 a month — $720 for the year.

CVS assigns my case to Rebecca. She says she’s “sure all will be fine.” Well, “pretty sure.” She’s excited. She’s been with the company only a few months. This will be her first quote.

NOV. 14 Giddens at Time Warner puts in an “emergency update request” to get my files transferred to CVS.

Frank Lalli is an editorial consultant on retirement issues and a former senior executive editor at Time Warner’s Time Inc.

Read More..

Bits Blog: Study May Offer Insight Into Coca-Cola Breach

Spend enough time with cybersecurity experts and chances are you will hear some variation of this line: There are two types of companies in the United States, those that have been hacked and those that don’t yet know they’ve been hacked.

Government intelligence officials and cybersecurity specialists say hackers — predominantly from China — are siphoning gigabytes, if not terabytes, of data from companies in the United States every day. We count on much of this information to deliver the innovative products and services that will lead to new jobs and economic growth. The security software company McAfee estimates that in 2008 alone, companies around the world lost more than $1 trillion because of this sort of intellectual property theft.

“I’ve seen behind the curtain,” Shawn Henry, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.’s former top cyber agent, who recently joined the cybersecurity start-up CrowdStrike, told me in an interview in April. “I can’t go into the particulars because it’s classified, but the vast majority of companies have been breached.”

The problem is that such breaches rarely make headlines because companies fear what disclosure will mean for their stock price. Google was the first to try to change that mentality when, in 2010, it disclosed that it and 34 other companies, many based in Silicon Valley, had been attacked by Chinese hackers. Of those 34, only Intel and Adobe Systems came forward, and they provided few details.

Still, news of some breaches leak out. That was the case, most recently, with Coca-Cola. This month, Bloomberg News reported that Coca-Cola was breached by Chinese hackers in 2009 during a failed $2.4 billion takeover attempt of the China Huiyuan Juice Group. That attempted deal would have been the largest foreign acquisition of a Chinese company.

Now, a 2010 case study published by the Mandiant Corporation, a cybersecurity firm, may offer further details. The study, which does not mention Coca-Cola specifically, details a 2009 breach of a “Fortune 500 Manufacturer” that aligns almost perfectly with Bloomberg’s account of Coca-Cola’s breach.

According to the study:

In 2009, a U.S. based Fortune 500 manufacturing company initiated discussions to acquire a Chinese corporation. During the negotiations, APT [advanced persistent threat] attackers compromised computers belonging to the executives of the U.S.-based company, most likely in an effort to learn more details of the negotiations. Sensitive data left the company on a weekly basis during negotiations, potentially providing the Chinese company with visibility to pricing and negotiation strategies.

As Bloomberg reported, Mandiant’s study said the company gained knowledge of the breach only when law enforcement officials notified it of the intrusion. The study also details how hackers penetrated the company via a so-called spearphishing attack, in which the attackers sent e-mails to certain executives from a fake account ostensibly belonging to the chief executive.

According to Bloomberg, an e-mail containing the subject line: “Save power is save money! (from CEO)” was sent to the e-mail account of Bernhard Goepelt, Coca-Cola’s current general counsel. The e-mail contained a malicious link that, once clicked, downloaded malware that gave the attackers full access to Coca-Cola’s network.

Mandiant’s 2010 report said the e-mail “was crafted to look like it originated from a fellow employee and discussed a message from the CEO on conserving resources.”

Tal Be’ery, a senior Web researcher at Imperva, a data security firm, compared details of the Coca-Cola breach with Mandiant’s study and said the two accounts clearly referred to the same company. Executives at Mandiant and media officers at Coca-Cola did not return requests for comment.

If Mandiant’s study is, in fact, based on Coca-Cola, then it offers new insights into the breach. According to the study, once in, hackers used password-stealing software to gain access to other systems on the company’s network. They also used the compromised executive’s account to launch what is known as an SQL server attack, in which hackers exploit a software vulnerability and enter commands that cause databases to produce their contents.

But one of the most interesting aspects of the breach, according to Mandiant, was how well the attackers had concealed their tracks. According to Mandiant, hackers used so-called stub malware. This is an agile agent whose code can be tweaked by hackers to use it for various functions while leaving a small forensic footprint.

The one discrepancy between the Bloomberg and Mandiant accounts was why, ultimately, the company’s acquisition fell apart. According to Bloomberg, Coca-Cola’s takeover attempt of China Huiyuan Juice Group was thwarted because China’s Ministry of Commerce rejected it for antitrust reasons. Mandiant’s report offered a different take:

The intrusion had a significant impact on the victim organization. As a result of the compromise, the U.S. company terminated their acquisition plans. While it was not possible to determine all the data that had been lost, the victim company was not able to compete the acquisition and accomplish their business objectives.

Updated: In an e-mail, Kent J. Landers, a spokesman for Coca-Cola, said that the company does not comment on security matters, but said Coca-Cola did not complete its acquisition of China Huiyuan Juice Group ”as a result of the China Ministry of Commerce declining approval for the proposed transaction.”

Read More..

Tunnel Collapse Outside Tokyo Traps Motorists

Kyodo News, via Associated Press

A surveillance camera within the Sasago tunnel showed rescue workers at the scene of a collapse on Sunday.

TOKYO — At least seven people were feared dead after part of a highway tunnel collapsed Sunday in eastern Japan, trapping them in their vehicles and starting a fire that filled the tunnel with thick, black smoke.

Franck Robichon/European Pressphoto Agency

Fire fighters and rescue personnel gathered at the entrance to the Sasago tunnel, west of Tokyo.

Three vehicles appear to have been crushed under concrete that fell from the ceiling of the three-mile Sasago Tunnel near the city of Otsuki in Yamanashi Prefecture, about 50 miles west of Tokyo, the national government’s disaster management agency said. Agency and police officials said it remained unclear why the 150- to 200-foot section of eight-inch-thick concrete, weighing about 180 tons, suddenly fell.

A vehicle carrying six people caught fire, emitting heavy smoke that initially prevented firefighters from entering the tunnel. But even after putting out the blaze, rescuers had to temporarily suspend efforts to reach the trapped vehicles because of the danger of a further collapse, officials said.

They said rescue efforts resumed later in the day, though progress was slow because firefighters were still moving carefully.

Officials said a 28-year-old woman managed to flee from the vehicle that caught fire. She told firefighters that five other people remained trapped in her vehicle. It was unknown how many people were in the other vehicles besides the drivers, who were apparently also still trapped inside.

One of the other vehicles appeared to be a truck belonging to a food wholesaler, officials said. They said the driver called his company right after the accident to ask for help, but subsequent attempts to reach him by his cellphone failed.

The operator of the highway, Central Nippon Expressway, held a news conference to apologize for the accident. The police said they had opened an investigation into the cause of the collapse and whether professional negligence by the operator was a factor.

The accident closed a section of the Chuo Expressway, a vital transportation artery connecting Tokyo to western Japan. Such long tunnels — usually lined with smooth, white concrete — are a common sight on highways in this mountainous island nation.

Read More..