Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, arrived in Pyongyang on Monday.
SEOUL, South Korea — Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, led a private delegation including Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, to North Korea on Monday, a controversial trip to a country that is among the most hostile to the Internet.
Kim Kwang Hyon/Associated Press
Bill Richardson with journalists on Monday after arriving in Pyongyang, North Korea. Mr. Richardson, who has visited the North several times, called his trip a private humanitarian mission.
Mr. Richardson, who has visited North Korea several times, called his four-day trip a private humanitarian mission and said he would try to meet with Kenneth Bae, a 44-year-old South Korean-born American citizen who was arrested on charges of “hostile acts” against North Korea after entering the country as a tourist in early November.
“I heard from his son who lives in Washington State, who asked me to bring him back,” Mr. Richardson said in Beijing before boarding a plane bound for Pyongyang. “I doubt we can do it on this trip.”
In a one-sentence dispatch, the North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency confirmed the American group’s arrival in Pyongyang, calling it “a Google delegation.”
Mr. Richardson said his delegation planned to meet with North Korean political, economic and military leaders, and to visit universities.
Mr. Schmidt and Google have kept quiet about why Mr. Schmidt joined the trip, which the State Department advised against, calling the visit unhelpful. Mr. Richardson said Monday that Mr. Schmidt was “interested in some of the economic issues there, the social media aspect,” but did not elaborate. Mr. Schmidt is a staunch proponent of Internet connectivity and openness.
Except for a tiny portion of its elite, North Korea’s population is blocked from the Internet. Under its new leader, Kim Jong-un, the country has emphasized science and technology but has also vowed to intensify its war against the infiltration of outside information in the isolated country, which it sees as a potential threat to its totalitarian grip on power.
Although it is engaged in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear weapons and missile programs and habitually criticizes American foreign policy as “imperial,” North Korea welcomes high-profile American visits to Pyongyang, billing them as signs of respect for its leadership. It runs a special museum for gifts that foreign dignitaries have brought for its leaders.
Washington has never established diplomatic ties with North Korea, and the two countries remain technically at war after the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce.
But Mr. Richardson’s trip comes at a particularly delicate time for Washington. In the past weeks, it has been trying to muster international support to penalize North Korea for its launching last month of a long-range rocket, which the United States condemned as a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions banning the country from testing intercontinental ballistic missile technology.
North Korea has often required visits by high-profile Americans, including former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, before releasing American citizens held there on criminal charges. Mr. Richardson, who is also a former ambassador to the United Nations, traveled to Pyongyang in 1996 to negotiate the release of Evan Hunziker, who was held for three months on charges of spying after swimming across the river border between China and North Korea.
— With former Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination as Defense secretary imminent, conservatives denounced his views on Israel and Iran as out of step with mainstream foreign policy, underscoring the difficulty he is likely to face winning Senate confirmation.
An administration official said Sunday that Hagel — a decorated Vietnam veteran, a Republican and a former two-term senator from Nebraska — would be nominated Monday to succeed Leon E. Panetta. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House planning.
The nomination is likely to set up a bruising confirmation fight. Critics on all sides already have been complaining about Hagel, with Republicans leading the charge.
Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) predicted that Hagel would be "the most antagonistic secretary of Defense toward the state of Israel in our nation's history" and called it an "in-your-face nomination."
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume described the choice as "very peculiar," saying on "Fox News Sunday" that Hagel did not have "a particularly distinguished record."
And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), while promising Hagel would get a "fair hearing," said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would get "tough questions" in a confirmation process.
Hagel is viewed with suspicion by many in his party for past comments he has made calling on Israel to negotiate with Palestinians and for his opposition to some sanctions aimed at Iran. Since his possible nomination was floated late last year, he has come under attack by conservatives.
He also has been criticized on the left for a remark he made in 1998 that a Clinton administration nominee for ambassador was "openly, aggressively gay." Hagel recently apologized for that comment and pledged support for lesbian and gay military families.
Hagel, an Army veteran with two Purple Hearts, said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam: "I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force, but only after a very careful decision-making process. ... I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war."
In the Senate, Hagel voted to give the George W. Bush administration authority to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but later he harshly criticized the conduct of both wars, irritating fellow Republicans and making him popular with Democrats critical of those wars.
Critics have focused on his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal with directly, and his votes against some Iran sanctions.
And Hagel rankled many with comments he made in a 2006 interview with author and former State Department Mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller. "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," Hagel said, but "I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."
Graham told CNN on Sunday, "Quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking, I believe, on most issues regarding foreign policy."
He added, "This is an in-your-face nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel."
Miller, who had interviewed Hagel for a book he was writing on Mideast peace negotiations, wrote recently that attempts to use his comment about the "Jewish lobby" to paint Hagel as anti-Semitic were "shameful and scurrilous." He noted that in the same interview, Hagel emphasized "shared values and the importance of Israeli security."
Backers say Hagel showed his support for Israel by voting repeatedly to provide it with military aid and by calling for a comprehensive peace deal with Palestinians that should not include any compromise regarding Israel's Jewish identity and that would leave Israel "free to live in peace and security."
They note that he also supported three major Iran sanctions bills: the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.
When Hagel left the Senate four years ago, McConnell praised his "clear voice and stature on national security and foreign policy," ABC's George Stephanopoulos reminded the Senate minority leader on "This Week."
But McConnell declined to reiterate that view Sunday.
"He's certainly been outspoken in foreign policy and defense over the years," he said. "The question we will be answering, if he's the nominee, is: Do his views make sense for that particular job? I think he ought to be given a fair hearing, like any other nominee, and he will be."
matea.gold@latimes.com
Christi Parsons in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
The Bug Nebula, NGC 6302, is one of the brightest and most extreme planetary nebulae known. It is located about 4,000 light-years away, towards the Scorpius constellation (the Scorpion). The nebula is the swansong of a dying solar-like star lying at its centre. At about 250,000 degrees Celsius and smothered in a blanket of hailstones, the star itself has never been observed as it is surrounded by a dense disc of gas and dust, opaque to light. This dense disc may be the origin of the hourglass structure of the nebula.
This colour image, which nicely highlights the complex structure of the nebula, is a composite of three exposures through blue, green and red filters. It was made using the 1.5-metre Danish telescope at the ESO La Silla Observatory, Chile.
Image: ESO/IDA/Danish 1.5 m/R. Gendler, A. Hornstrup and J.-E. Ovaldsen [high-resolution]
Officials at New Mexico’s largest jail want to end its methadone program. Addicts like Penny Strayer hope otherwise.
ALBUQUERQUE — It has been almost four decades since Betty Jo Lopez started using heroin.
Her face gray and wizened well beyond her 59 years, Ms. Lopez would almost certainly still be addicted, if not for the fact that she is locked away in jail, not to mention the cup of pinkish liquid she downs every morning.
“It’s the only thing that allows me to live a normal life,” Ms. Lopez said of the concoction, which contains methadone, a drug used to treat opiate dependence. “These nurses that give it to me, they’re like my guardian angels.”
For the last six years, the Metropolitan Detention Center, New Mexico’s largest jail, has been administering methadone to inmates with drug addictions, one of a small number of jails and prisons around the country that do so.
At this vast complex, sprawled out among the mesas west of downtown Albuquerque, any inmate who was enrolled at a methadone clinic just before being arrested can get the drug behind bars. Pregnant inmates addicted to heroin are also eligible.
Here in New Mexico, which has long been plagued by one of the nation’s worst heroin scourges, there is no shortage of participants — hundreds each year — who have gone through the program.
In November, however, the jail’s warden, Ramon Rustin, said he wanted to stop treating inmates with methadone. Mr. Rustin said the program, which had been costing Bernalillo County about $10,000 a month, was too expensive.
Moreover, Mr. Rustin, a former warden of the Allegheny County Jail in Pennsylvania and a 32-year veteran of corrections work, said he did not believe that the program truly worked.
Of the hundred or so inmates receiving daily methadone doses, he said, there was little evidence of a reduction in recidivism, one of the program’s main selling points.
“My concern is that the courts and other authorities think that jail has become a treatment program, that it has become the community provider,” he said. “But jail is not the answer. Methadone programs belong in the community, not here.”
Mr. Rustin’s public stance has angered many in Albuquerque, where drug addiction has been passed down through generations in impoverished pockets of the city, as it has elsewhere across New Mexico.
Recovery advocates and community members argue that cutting people off from methadone is too dangerous, akin to taking insulin from a diabetic.
The New Mexico office of the Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes an overhaul to drug policy, has implored Mr. Rustin to reconsider his stance, saying in a letter that he did not have the medical expertise to make such a decision.
Last month, the Bernalillo County Commission ordered Mr. Rustin to extend the program, which also relies on about $200,000 in state financing annually, for two months until its results could be studied further.
“Addiction needs to be treated like any other health issue,” said Maggie Hart Stebbins, a county commissioner who supports the program.
“If we can treat addiction at the jail to the point where they stay clean and don’t reoffend, that saves us the cost of reincarcerating that person,” she said.
Hard data, though, is difficult to come by — hence the county’s coming review.
Darren Webb, the director of Recovery Services of New Mexico, a private contractor that runs the methadone program, said inmates were tracked after their release to ensure that they remained enrolled at outside methadone clinics.
While the outcome was never certain, Mr. Webb said, he maintained that providing methadone to inmates would give them a better chance of staying out of jail once they were released. “When they get out, they won’t be committing the same crimes they would if they were using,” he said. “They are functioning adults.”
In a study published in 2009 in The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, researchers found that male inmates in Baltimore who were treated with methadone were far more likely to continue their treatment in the community than inmates who received only counseling.
Those who received methadone behind bars were also more likely to be free of opioids and cocaine than those who received only counseling or started methadone treatment after their release.
ECONOMIC REPORTS Data to be released this week includes consumer credit for November (Tuesday); weekly jobless claims and wholesale trade inventories for November (Thursday); and the trade deficit for November and import prices for December (Friday).
CORPORATE EARNINGS Companies scheduled to release quarterly earnings reports include Monsanto and Alcoa (Tuesday); Constellation Brands (Wednesday); and Wells Fargo (Friday).
IN THE UNITED STATES On Tuesday, the Consumer Electronics Show begins in Las Vegas and will run through Friday, and the JPMorgan Health Care Conference starts in San Francisco and will take place through Thursday.
On Thursday, Herbalife executives will respond to accusations by the investor William A. Ackman that their company operates a pyramid scheme.
On Friday, the Agriculture Department will issue its monthly crop report.
OVERSEAS On Tuesday, the European Union statistics office will report on euro area unemployment.
On Thursday, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England will issue decisions about interest rates, and the United Nations will release its global food price index for December.
Two would-be candidates for the Los Angeles school board have accused a campaign consulting firm — run by two contenders for city office — of botching their efforts to get on the ballot for the March primary election.
One of the school board aspirants, Scott Folsom, filed a complaint with the district's attorney's office last month alleging fraud and possible forgery. Franny Parrish, the other would-be candidate, said she would comply with any probe into the firm, Henry, Law & Associates. The two say they hired the company to gather the signatures of registered voters for petitions that would qualify them for the ballot.
James T. Law, a principal in the firm, acknowledged that he accepted work from Folsom and Parrish. He denied wrongdoing and blamed his clients for failing to make the ballot. Law is the only challenger against incumbent Joe Buscaino to represent City Council District 15. Analilia Joya, who works closely with Law, is one of six candidates for the open job of city controller. She did not respond to requests for comment.
Candidates typically hire firms to gather the 500 registered voters' signatures required for the ballot. Those voters must live in the area a candidate hopes to represent. It is time-consuming, often difficult work — it involves knocking on doors and approaching people outside shopping centers or grocery stores. People sometimes give false information or refuse to sign.
In a letter to authorities and in interviews, Folsom said he hired the signature gatherers in response to a solicitation from a man who identified himself as David Johnson.
Folsom agreed to pay Johnson $2,000 up front and $1,500 plus expenses on the back end, according to the contract, which Folsom provided to The Times and included in his letter to the district attorney. Parrish said she agreed to pay a flat fee of $2,100 for at least 500 valid signatures, although she also was gathering some signatures herself. She provided scans of checks made out to Law.
In a series of text messages that Folsom saved, Johnson kept pushing back delivery and postponing appointments. Folsom saved a telephone message from Johnson and another from a woman who identified herself as Joya, about signing a form for the work. Folsom said the woman met him at a Denny's near the city's election office on the deadline day, Dec. 5, to assure him that her associate was on the way with the petitions.
Johnson was late but did turn over petitions, Folsom said. The city later determined, however, that of 704 signatures, 289 were not from the right district, 93 were not of registered voters, 85 had invalid addresses and 31 had other problems.
According to the contract, Law's company guaranteed between 500 and 1,000 valid signatures; only 206 passed muster.
Several attempts by The Times to reach Law failed, but responses then came via text message, from the cell number that Johnson had given as his own to Folsom and Parrish.
In these text messages, someone identifying himself as Law blamed the disappointed candidates.
"The allegations are not true," he wrote. "It's slander and harassment. My company worked very hard for those two candidates. Out of six candidates my company helped out, those two are the only one[s] that did not make the ballot. Mr. Folsom gave us the wrong ZIP Codes and Franny did not hand me her work until the last four days left."
He wouldn't name the other four candidates, citing "disclosure agreements."
Folsom said he was never asked to provide ZIP Codes.
Law also said that he collected 767 signatures for Parrish and that she failed to meet his worker at an agreed upon location.
Parrish said she waited in vain for Johnson on the deadline day at the election office, where, she said, he'd promised to show up after postponing other meetings. Her account was confirmed by Folsom and another witness, who were with Parrish in the election office when Johnson allegedly called and texted to say he was on his way. She also forwarded those text messages to The Times.
Parrish added that she hired Johnson two weeks before the deadline.
Law and Joya gathered enough signatures to qualify themselves for the ballot — a task that Law allegedly delegated to another signature contractor, Vernon Van. Van claims Law didn't pay him. Law, in turn, claims that Van "ripped me off."
The address of Henry, Law & Associates is a private mailbox in Torrance, rented Oct. 27, according to a manager. The firm made one monthly payment of $15 and recently lost the box for failing to pay rent.
Even though both are on the city ballot, neither Law nor Joya is currently a registered voter in L.A. County, records show. And Law's listed residence is in Torrance. Either issue would disqualify a successful candidate from taking office. The Torrance address is associated with several businesses: Open Door Christian Lifestyle; the United States of America Kingdom of Tzedakah Charitys; and Titus Landscaping.
In election filings, Joya describes herself as an employee of Open Door Christian Lifestyle.
The person behind the Torrance business entities appears to be named Titus Henry. The relationship between Henry, Law and Johnson is unclear. The former school board candidates and Van said that based on descriptions they exchanged, they are convinced that at least two of the three are the same person.
When asked to sort out these identities, Law declined to respond.
The L.A. County district attorney's office would confirm only that "an allegation of fraud regarding petition signatures" is under review.
Without Folsom and Parrish, the dynamics of two pivotal school board races were altered.
Folsom was among the candidates endorsed by the teachers union in District 2, where the union hopes to push school board President Monica Garcia into a runoff. Four challengers remain in that race. Folsom served for years on an important school bond oversight committee, and both he and Parrish were longtime PTA leaders.
Parrish had hoped to represent District 4, in which two candidates remain: incumbent Steve Zimmer and challenger Kate Anderson. Zimmer is backed by the teachers union. Parrish works as a library aide, advocated for disabled students and served as a negotiator in her union's contract negotiations.
Author’s note: Most people don’t realize that we knew in the 1920s that leaded gasoline was extremely dangerous. And in light of a Mother Jones story this week that looks at the connection between leaded gasoline and crime rates in the United States, I thought it might be worth reviewing that history. The following is an updated version of an earlier post based on information from my book about early 10th century toxicology, The Poisoner’s Handbook.
In the fall of 1924, five bodies from New Jersey were delivered to the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. You might not expect those out-of-state corpses to cause the chief medical examiner to worry about the dirt blowing in Manhattan streets. But they did.
To understand why you need to know the story of those five dead men, or at least the story of their exposure to a then mysterious industrial poison.
The five men worked at the Standard Oil Refinery in Bayway, New Jersey. All of them spent their days in what plant employees nicknamed “the loony gas building”, a tidy brick structure where workers seemed to sicken as they handled a new gasoline additive. The additive’s technical name was tetraethyl lead or, in industrial shorthand, TEL. It was developed by researchers at General Motors as an anti-knock formula, with the assurance that it was entirely safe to handle.
But, as I wrote in a previous post, men working at the plant quickly gave it the “loony gas” tag because anyone who spent much time handling the additive showed stunning signs of mental deterioration, from memory loss to a stumbling loss of coordination to sudden twitchy bursts of rage. And then in October of 1924, workers in the TEL building began collapsing, going into convulsions, babbling deliriously. By the end of September, 32 of the 49 TEL workers were in the hospital; five of them were dead.
The problem, at that point, was that no one knew exactly why. Oh, they knew – or should have known – that tetraethyl lead was dangerous. As Charles Norris, chief medical examiner for New York City pointed out, the compound had been banned in Europe for years due to its toxic nature. But while U.S. corporations hurried TEL into production in the 1920s, they did not hurry to understand its medical or environmental effects.
In 1922, the U.S. Public Health Service had asked Thomas Midgley, Jr. – the developer of the leaded gasoline process – for copies of all his research into the health consequences of tetraethyl lead (TEL).
Midgley, a scientist at General Motors, replied that no such research existed. And two years later, even with bodies starting to pile up, he had still not looked into the question. Although GM and Standard Oil had formed a joint company to manufacture leaded gasoline – the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation - its research had focused solely on improving the TEL formulas. The companies disliked and frankly avoided the lead issue. They’d deliberately left the word out of their new company name to avoid its negative image.
In response to the worker health crisis at the Bayway plant, Standard Oil suggested that the problem might simply be overwork. Unimpressed, the state of New Jersey ordered a halt to TEL production. And because the compound was so poorly understood, state health officials asked the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to find out what had happened.
In 1924, New York had the best forensic toxicology department in the country; in fact,, it had one of the few such programs period. The chief chemist was a dark, cigar-smoking, perfectionist named Alexander Gettler, a famously dogged researcher who would sit up late at night designing both experiments and apparatus as needed.
It took Gettler three obsessively focused weeks to figure out how much tetraethyl lead the Standard Oil workers had absorbed before they became ill, went crazy, or died. “This is one of the most difficult of many difficult investigations of the kind which have been carried on at this laboratory,” Norris said, when releasing the results. “This was the first work of its kind, as far as I know. Dr. Gettler had not only to do the work but to invent a considerable part of the method of doing it.”
Working with the first four bodies, then checking his results against the body of the last worker killed, who had died screaming in a straitjacket, Gettler discovered that TEL and its lead byproducts formed a recognizable distribution, concentrated in the lungs, the brain, and the bones. The highest levels were in the lungs suggesting that most of the poison had been inhaled; later tests showed that the types of masks used by Standard Oil did not filter out the lead in TEL vapors.
Rubber gloves did protect the hands but if TEL splattered onto unprotected skin, it absorbed alarmingly quickly. The result was intense poisoning with lead, a potent neurotoxin. The loony gas symptoms were, in fact, classic indicators of heavy lead toxicity.
After Norris released his office’s report on tetraethyl lead, New York City banned its sale, and the sale of “any preparation containing lead or other deleterious substances” as an additive to gasoline. So did New Jersey. So did the city of Philadelphia. It was a moment in which health officials in large urban areas were realizing that with increased use of automobiles, it was likely that residents would be increasingly exposed to dangerous lead residues and they moved quickly to protect them.
But fearing that such measures would spread, that they would be forced to find another anti-knock compound, as well as losing considerable money, the manufacturing companies demanded that the federal government take over the investigation and develop its own regulations. U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, a Republican and small-government conservative, moved rapidly in favor of the business interests.
The manufacturers agreed to suspend TEL production and distribution until a federal investigation was completed. In May 1925, the U.S. Surgeon General called a national tetraethyl lead conference, to be followed by the formation of an investigative task force to study the problem. That same year, Midgley published his first health analysis of TEL, which acknowledged a minor health risk at most, insisting that the use of lead compounds,”compared with other chemical industries it is neither grave nor inescapable.”
It was obvious in advance that he’d basically written the conclusion of the federal task force. That panel only included selected industry scientists like Midgely. It had no place for Alexander Gettler or Charles Norris or, in fact, anyone from any city where sales of the gas had been banned, or any agency involved in the producing that first critical analysis of tetraethyl lead.
In January 1926, the public health service released its report which concluded that there was “no danger” posed by adding TEL to gasoline…”no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline” as long as workers were well protected during the manufacturing process.
The task force did look briefly at risks associated with every day exposure by drivers, automobile attendants, gas station operators, and found that it was minimal. The researchers had indeed found lead residues in dusty corners of garages. In addition, all the drivers tested showed trace amounts of lead in their blood. But a low level of lead could be tolerated, the scientists announced. After all, none of the test subjects showed the extreme behaviors and breakdowns associated with places like the looney gas building. And the worker problem could be handled with some protective gear.
There was one cautionary note, though. The federal panel warned that exposure levels would probably rise as more people took to the roads. Perhaps, at a later point, the scientists suggested, the research should be taken up again. It was always possible that leaded gasoline might “constitute a menace to the general public after prolonged use or other conditions not foreseen at this time.”
But, of course, that would be another generation’s problem. In 1926, citing evidence from the TEL report, the federal government revoked all bans on production and sale of leaded gasoline. The reaction of industry was jubilant; one Standard Oil spokesman likened the compound to a “gift of God,” so great was its potential to improve automobile performance.
In New York City, at least, Charles Norris decided to prepare for the health and environmental problems to come. He suggested that the department scientists do a base-line measurement of lead levels in the dirt and debris blowing across city streets. People died, he pointed out to his staff; and everyone knew that heavy metals like lead tended to accumulate. The resulting comparison of street dirt in 1924 and 1934 found a 50 percent increase in lead levels – a warning, an indicator of damage to come, if anyone had been paying attention.
It was some fifty years later – in 1986 – that the United States formally banned lead as a gasoline additive. By that time, according to some estimates, so much lead had been deposited into soils, streets, building surfaces, that an estimated 68 million children would register toxic levels of lead absorption and some 5,000 American adults would die annually of lead-induced heart disease. As lead affects cognitive function, some neuroscientists also suggested that chronic lead exposure resulted in a measurable drop in IQ scores during the leaded gas era. And more recently, of course, researchers had suggested that TEL exposure and resulting nervous system damage may have contributed to violent crime rates in the 20th century.
Images: 1) Manhattan, 34th Street, 1931/NYC Municipal Archives 2) 1940s gas station, US Route 66, Illinois/Deborah Blum
Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.
Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times
Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.
Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.
In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.
In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.
The proposed increases compare with about 4 percent for families with employer-based policies.
Under the health care law, regulators are now required to review any request for a rate increase of 10 percent or more; the requests are posted on a federal Web site, healthcare.gov, along with regulators’ evaluations.
The review process not only reveals the sharp disparity in the rates themselves, it also demonstrates the striking difference between places like New York, one of the 37 states where legislatures have given regulators some authority to deny or roll back rates deemed excessive, and California, which is among the states that do not have that ability.
New York, for example, recently used its sweeping powers to hold rate increases for 2013 in the individual and small group markets to under 10 percent. California can review rate requests for technical errors but cannot deny rate increases.
The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually as many people put off treatment because of the weak economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that costs may increase just 7.5 percent next year, well below the rate increases being sought by some insurers. But the companies counter that medical costs for some policy holders are rising much faster than the average, suggesting they are in a sicker population. Federal regulators contend that premiums would be higher still without the law, which also sets limits on profits and administrative costs and provides for rebates if insurers exceed those limits.
Critics, like Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner and one of two health plan regulators in that state, said that without a federal provision giving all regulators the ability to deny excessive rate increases, some insurance companies can raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.
“This is business as usual,” Mr. Jones said. “It’s a huge loophole in the Affordable Care Act,” he said.
While Mr. Jones has not yet weighed in on the insurers’ most recent requests, he is pushing for a state law that will give him that authority. Without legislative action, the state can only question the basis for the high rates, sometimes resulting in the insurer withdrawing or modifying the proposed rate increase.
The California insurers say they have no choice but to raise premiums if their underlying medical costs have increased. “We need these rates to even come reasonably close to covering the expenses of this population,” said Tom Epstein, a spokesman for Blue Shield of California. The insurer is requesting a range of increases, which average about 12 percent for 2013.
Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.
“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.
Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.
“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.
As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.
TOKYO — Tokyo’s main fish market ushered in the new year with an auction on Saturday that resulted in the highest price paid here, and probably anywhere, for a tuna.
A Tokyo-based sushi restaurant chain owner paid 155.4 million yen, or about $1.76 million, for a 488-pound bluefin, or about $3,600 per pound.
The record price was offered at the year’s first auction at the Tsukiji fish market, which provides Tokyo with much of its fresh fish. Restaurant owners from Japan and elsewhere in Asia compete annually for the prestige of buying the year’s first tuna, whose meat is prized by sushi fans. Conservationists warn that bluefin has been severely overfished.
The winning bidder was Kiyoshi Kimura, president of the company that runs the Sushi Zanmai chain. The bluefin was caught by a fisherman from Oma, a town renowned in Japan as the source of the most delicious tuna.
The sale drew national media attention in Japan, where editorials questioned whether the annual bidding war had gotten out of hand. After winning the auction, Mr. Kimura cut up the fish, holding up its huge, silver head to a bank of flashing cameras.
Mr. Kimura also bought last year’s first tuna, for what was then a record 565,000 yen. This year’s price was three times higher because he was caught in a bidding war with the owner of a Hong Kong-based sushi chain before finally prevailing.
WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to nominate Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel's views on Israel and Iran.
White House officials said Friday that the president hadn't formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday.
Hagel, who was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996 and retired in 2008, was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received as a soldier in Vietnam. His experience serving in that war made him wary about using force unless other options had been tried, he said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam.
"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force but only after a very careful decision-making process. … I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war," he said.
By nominating a Republican to run the Defense Department, Obama would give his second-term national security team a bipartisan cast as the White House is rapidly winding down the war in Afghanistan and planning for even deeper cuts in the defense budget. Hagel's criticism of the Iraq war has made him deeply unpopular with many conservative Republicans, however.
The choice also sets up a possibly contentious confirmation fight with Israel's defenders in Washington, some of whom mounted a public campaign to head off Hagel's nomination. They criticized him for past comments calling on Israel to negotiate with Palestinian groups and for opposing some sanctions aimed at Iran.
Hagel, who would succeed Leon Panetta as Defense secretary, has also been criticized by some liberal Democrats and gay rights organizations for a comment he made during the Clinton presidency, calling an ambassadorial nominee "openly, aggressively gay" — a comment Hagel recently apologized for.
Diving into a fight over nominating Hagel would appear to mark a sharp departure for Obama, who has generally avoided battles over selections for major posts. But a decision to pick another candidate would also have been damaging to Obama because it would have been his second surrender on a top Cabinet choice within a month.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her name from consideration as a possible secretary of State nominee last month after drawing heavy criticism from Republicans over her statements after the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
The selection of Hagel would also leave unresolved the problem of how Obama is going to add more women to the senior ranks of his national security apparatus. Senior Democratic women — including some in the administration — have said that aside from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, foreign policy has been decided by a small group of men in the White House.
Though senators from both parties have voiced reservations about Hagel, few have announced they would vote against him, a sign of caution the White House may be counting on to get him confirmed.
Hagel's record on Israel and Iran are likely to be the main focus of the nomination battle. William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, published a "special editorial" Friday accusing him of having "dangerous views on Iran" and an "unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews."
Critics have cited a comment Hagel made in 2008 to author and former State Department Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller about why he sometimes opposed pro-Israel groups in the Senate.
"The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," Hagel said, but "I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."
They also have cited his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal with directly, and his votes against some Iran sanctions.
But defenders and former aides say Hagel showed his support for Israel by voting repeatedly to provide it with military aid and by calling for a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians that should not include any compromise regarding Israel's Jewish identity and that would leave Israel "free to live in peace and security."
They note that he also supported three major Iran sanctions bills: the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.
In the Senate, Hagel initially voted to give the George W. Bush administration authority to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he later harshly criticized the conduct of both wars, irritating fellow Republicans and making him popular with Democrats critical of those wars.
Obama and Hagel formed a close relationship in the Senate, and their foreign policy views seem closely aligned. Like Obama, Hagel has called for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, a position that made some pro-Israel advocates wary about whether Hagel would back using force against Iran if diplomatic efforts to halt the program failed.
Andrew Parasiliti, an aide to Hagel from 2001 to 2005, said Hagel has never ruled out using force against Iran if negotiations fail.
"He is a patriot and war hero, and he has developed a caution, and wisdom, about the use of force that was shaped in part from his experiences on the front lines in that war," Parasiliti said, referring to Vietnam.
Hagel is close to Vice President Joe Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 2009, Obama appointed him to be chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, which advises the White House on intelligence issues.
A Hagel nomination appealed to some White House aides after the bitter election campaign because it would show bipartisanship and might help win congressional support for expected cuts to the defense budget. He would be the second Republican to run the Defense Department for Obama, who kept Robert M. Gates at the Pentagon after taking office in 2009.
But Hagel's maverick qualities while in the Senate and his criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy left him with little support in the conservative Republican Senate caucus. And the pro-Israel and gay rights groups that oppose him have strong influence in the Democratic Party
Obama will need to deal with opposition from a number of pro-Israel senators from both parties who have already raised questions about their support for Hagel. One example is Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has distanced himself from Hagel in comments last month. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has also raised questions about Hagel's past comments.
The presumption is that a president will win approval in the Senate for his nominees for top posts. Only in rare cases, such as Sen. John Tower's nomination for the Defense post in the 1980s, has the Senate blocked such a choice.
david.cloud@latimes.com
brian.bennett@latimes.com
Paul Richter and Christi Parsons in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
