Boom! Panicked White House Now Welcomes #ObamaCare Fix!

Hell freezes over.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Open to Health Law Fix: Shift Comes as Figures Show Far Lower Insurance Enrollment Than Expected":

WASHINGTON—The government released numbers Wednesday showing that far fewer Americans had enrolled in private insurance plans under the new health law than expected and, in a marked shift, the Obama administration signaled it was open to legislation to fix the troubled rollout.

The move came as the administration faced mounting dissatisfaction from Democrats over the law's implementation.

New administration figures showed that only 26,794 people nationwide had enrolled in a private health plan through the balky online federal marketplace in its first month—far short of projections. Meantime, some 79,391 people had bought private plans on state-run exchanges.

In the past, White House officials had said they strongly preferred an administrative remedy to the law's shortcomings. But on Wednesday, officials suggested that President Barack Obama was open to a bill by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), that would require insurers to continue offering plans that were in existence this year, even if that meant reinstating ones that had been canceled because they didn't meet the health law's standards.

The magnitude of Democratic support for a legislative solution will become clearer on Friday, when the House is set to vote on a separate Republican plan to let insurance companies continue to offer policies that were canceled recently. That vote may push Mr. Obama to move before Friday to offer his own administrative remedy or more fully embrace Ms. Landrieu's bill.

The White House shift came as more Democrats in Congress, fearful of a voter backlash due to the law, have lost confidence in administration assurances that the problems could be solved without changing the legislation.

"Sen. Landrieu's proposal shares a similar goal to what the president has asked his team to explore," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "There may be ways to help some people with cancellation notices without legislation, but we are happy to work with her and any member of Congress who has ideas on how to make the Affordable Care Act better."

At least five Democratic senators have backed Ms. Landrieu's bill, with the latest, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), joining on Wednesday. Support from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), which came on Tuesday, was considered significant because she is an influential senior lawmaker.

In the House, where every member is up for election in 2014, Democrats on Wednesday confronted two White House aides who were dispatched to Capitol Hill to explain that the administration was working to address flaws in the online marketplace and warn representatives that it would be a mistake to reinstate insurance policies that don't meet minimum standards set by the 2010 law.

While some Democrats emerged from the meeting circling the wagons around the White House, others said they would vote anyway on Friday for the Republican plan—or at least consider doing so

"The frustration level is growing," said Rep. Jose Serrano (D., N.Y.) after leaving the closed-door Democratic strategy session. "The main message is there were three years to make this good, and it's not good. It's a mess right now."

The House bill is expected to come to an up-or-down vote Friday without any opportunity for lawmakers to offer amendments.

PREVIOUSLY: "Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision."

The Numbers Behind Victoria's Secret and Its Iconic Fashion Show

At BuzzFeed:

The annual show tapes tonight and airs Dec. 10.

Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision

At the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Anxious congressional Democrats are threatening to abandon President Obama on a central element of his signature health care law, voicing increasing support for proposals that would allow Americans to retain the health insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act.

The dissent comes as the Obama administration released enrollment figures Wednesday that fell far short of expectations, and as House Republicans continued their sharp criticism of administration officials at congressional hearings examining the performance of the health care website and possible security risks of the online insurance exchanges.

In addition, a vote is scheduled Friday in the Republican-controlled House on a bill that would allow Americans to keep their existing health coverage through 2014 without penalties. The measure, drafted by Representative Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is opposed by the White House, which argues that it would severely undermine the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurance companies to continue to sell health coverage that does not meet the higher standard of Mr. Obama’s health care law.

But a growing number of House Democrats, reflecting a strong political backlash to the rollout of the health care law, are warning the White House that they might support the measure if the administration does not provide a strong alternative argument. The approaching House vote is shaping up as an important test for both the health measure and the unity that Democratic leaders have so far been able to maintain around the health law despite a fierce Republican attack against it.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday of House Democrats and White House officials, tensions flared as several lawmakers upbraided the administration, saying that the president had put Democrats in a tough political position by wrongly promising consumers that they could keep their existing health care plans. In fact, hundreds of thousands of Americans have received cancellation notices from their insurers because their health care coverage does not meet the minimum standards dictated by the new law.

“I’m frustrated in how it rolled out, and I let them know in no uncertain terms,” said Representative Mike Doyle, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “The point I was making in caucus to the administration is don’t give us this techno-babble that you’re going to do some administrative fix down the road. There’s a bill being put on the floor on Friday.”

Continue reading.

That's the House Republicans' press conference today at the clip.

And actually, it's not clear to me why Republicans are bailing out the Democrats on this. Erick Erickson has that, "It's a Trap!" (At Memeorandum.)

#ObamaCare Enrollment Deals Blow to White House

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Administration Gives First Month Health-Site Tallies":

The Obama administration said Wednesday that 26,794 Americans selected a private insurance plan sold through the troubled federally run health exchange in its first month, falling far short of initial expectations.

The administration, releasing the first nationwide figures on enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, said that through Nov. 2, an additional 79,391 people were able to choose a private plan in states running their own exchanges.

The news that only 106,185 people nationwide were able to get through the sites in a month comes as a significant blow to the administration. In one memo, it had projected some 500,000 people would obtain private-insurance coverage through the federal exchange in October. The Congressional Budget Office projected in May 2013 that seven million people nationwide would sign up for private plans by the end of March 2014.

Top officials had been bracing for a low number and had sought to play down expectations for it. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that as of last week, fewer than 50,000 people had been able to enroll through the federal exchange. The Journal's figure included some enrollees past the Nov. 2 cutoff date.

The federal exchange serves consumers in 36 states. The remaining 14 states plus the District of Columbia are running their own health-insurance exchanges, and several posted better numbers.

California alone had more people picking private health plans—35,364—than the 36 states using the federal site combined. Still, California's enrollees represent less than 1% of the state's 6.6 million people who lack health insurance. Vermont was among the best performers, with 1,325 people picking a health plan, or 3.26% of the state's uninsured residents.

"There is no doubt the level of interest is strong. We expect enrollment will grow substantially throughout the next five months," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a statement on the release. "They're also numbers that will grow as the website, HealthCare.gov, continues to make steady improvements."

Still, the formal release of numbers showing that enrollees so far are just a tiny percentage of the goal is likely to fuel further attacks by Republican critics who have sought to repeal the 2010 health law.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said Wednesday that the administration should have delayed the rollout rather than introduce a problem-plagued website that few have been able to navigate. "This was a monumental mistake to go live and effectively explode on the launch pad," Mr. Issa said.

The 106,185 figure doesn't include new enrollment in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor that is being expanded in roughly half of the 50 states. The administration said that some 396,261 Americans have signed up for the newly expanded Medicaid programs.

The House is set to vote Friday on legislation that would allow insurers to continue selling current insurance policies that don't meet the standards of the new law. Some 5% of Americans buy health coverage on the individual market, rather than getting it through an employer or government program. Many of those people have received cancellation.

Also at NBC News, "GOP pounces on Obamacare enrollment figure."

New Guidelines: Heart-Risk Strategy Gets Major Shake-Up

At WSJ, "Panel Unveils Shake-up in Strategy to Cut Heart Risk: Long-standing Strategy Jettisoned Under New Guidelines":

The current strategy of reducing a person's heart-attack risk by lowering cholesterol to specific targets is being jettisoned under new clinical guidelines unveiled Tuesday that mark the biggest shift in cardiovascular-disease prevention in nearly three decades.

The change could more than double the number of Americans who qualify for treatment with the cholesterol-cutting drugs known as statins.

The guidelines recommend abandoning the familiar and easy-to-understand guidance to keep LDL, or bad cholesterol, below 100 or below 70 for people at high risk—a mainstay of current prevention policy. Instead, doctors are being urged to assess a patient's risk more broadly and prescribe statins to those falling into one of four risk categories.

The aim is to more effectively direct statin treatment to patients with the most to gain, and move away from relatively arbitrary treatment targets that are less reliable in predicting risk of attack than is widely believed.

"We're trying to focus the most appropriate therapy to prevent heart attack and stroke...in a wide range of patients," said Neil J. Stone, professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and head of the panel that wrote the guidelines.


Cardiovascular disease is the Western world's leading killer. In the U.S., it accounts for about 600,000 deaths each year, or about one in four. About 130,000 Americans die annually of stroke.

Numerous studies show that statins reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. But solid data demonstrating the benefit of reaching specific targets are lacking, said Dr. Stone.

While lowering the LDL number remains a critical goal, the focus is on the risk reduction achieved with statins rather than the effect on LDL, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, chief of preventive medicine at Northwestern and a member of the guidelines panel.

Cardiologists expect the recommendations, jointly developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, to substantially change the conversation between doctors and millions of patients over the best way to lower their risk of heart attack or stroke.

The risk groups identified in the guidelines include patients who have already had a heart attack, stroke or major symptoms of cardiovascular disease; those with an LDL of 190 or higher, which typically has a genetic cause; people with diabetes; and anyone ages 40 to 79 who faces a 7.5% risk of having a heart attack over the next 10 years, according to a new risk score. That score—with a lower threshold than under current guidelines—takes into account cholesterol level, smoking status, blood pressure and other factors.

All are recommended to take high or moderate statin doses that would result in LDL reductions of about 30% to more than 50%. If fully implemented, the guidelines could more than double the number of people who qualify for statins, to more than 30 million, the authors said.

The new approach is likely to have a modest immediate effect on the pharmaceutical industry. All but one of the statins available, including Lipitor, have lost patent protection and are available as inexpensive generics.

I'm not in any of those risk categories, although pharmacological treatment is the wave of medicine these days. If these medications are that effective, and less expensive generics are available, it makes sense to adjust treatment regimes to help the largest number of individuals.

Interesting, in any case.

More at the link.

Jonathan Cohn: We Had to Destroy the American Healthcare System in Order to Save It

Really, I'm freakin' astounded by the left's callousness. Deaf ears and hard hearts.

I thought these people were supposed to be about compassion, diversity, and tolerance!

This is literally painful, from Jonathan Cohn, at the New Republic, "Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works" (via Memeorandum):

The Affordable Care Act includes a so-called grandfather clause. That allows insurers to keep renewing plans, without changes or benefits and prices, as long as they were available before March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. But the non-group market is volatile: Very few people stay on plans for more than two years anyway. And the grandfather clause is narrow, by design: If insurers made even modest changes, the protection goes away. Those plans are subject to the new regulations that take effect in January. As a result, the majority of people who buy insurance on their own are learning they can’t have what they had before, even though Obama promised everybody they could. Either their premiums are going up, as insurers accommodate the new regulations, or the plans are disappearing altogether. In those cases, people have to find new plans. And the sticker price of what they’ll find is higher than what they pay now.

This is not a glitch or an accident. This is the way health care reform is supposed to work. And it’s important to put these changes into context. For one thing, it’s a small number of people relative to the population as a whole. The vast majority of Americans get coverage through employers or a large government program like Medicare. These changes don’t really affect them. The law also anticipates these changes by, among other things, offering tax credits that discount the premiums—in many cases, by thousands of dollars. (Other provisions of the law, like a limit on insurance company profits and overhead, should restrain prices more.) As a result, many people buying coverage on their own will be paying less money for benefits that are as good, if not better, than what they have now.

But there are real people who must pay more and, in some cases, put up with less. Some of them are people walking around with junk insurance, the kind are practically worthless because they pay out so little. Some of them are young people, particularly young men, whom insurers have coveted and wooed with absurdly low premiums—and make too much money to qualify for substantial subsidies. And some of them are reasonably affluent, healthy people with generous, open-ended policies that are hard to find even through employers. Insurers kept selling them because they could restrict enrollment to healthy people. Absent that ability, insurers are canceling them or raising premiums so high only the truly rich can pay for them.

Those people are the ones everybody is hearing about now, partly because they are a compelling, sometimes well-connected group—and partly because, absent a well-functioning website, stories of people benefitting from the law’s changes aren’t competing for attention. It’s impossible to know how big this group is. The data on existing coverage just isn’t that good. The anecdotes are frequently, although not always, more complicated than they seem at first blush. It’s probably one to two percent of the population, which doesn’t sound like much—except that, in a country of 300 million, that’s 3 to 6 million people. Most experts I trust think they represent a minority of people buying coverage on their own, but nobody can say with certainty.

Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for reform? Obviously that’s a matter of opinion. The fact that some people—even a small, relatively affluent group—are giving up something they had makes their plight (genuinely) more sympathetic. They are right to feel burned, since Obama did not make clear his promise might not apply to them. And there’s a principled argument about whether people should be responsible for services they’re unlikely to use presently, whether it’s fifty-something year olds paying for maternity care or twenty-something year olds paying for cardiac stress tests.

Read the whole thing. Utterly astounding.

Where to begin?

Well, for one thing, Obama lied to get this law passed, without a singe Republican vote in Congress. It's a wholly partisan bill that's now generating majority disapproval in national surveys. And right, it's not a glitch. Democrats literally had to destroy the private insurance market before they could ram down the ObamaCare monstrosity on the people.

How's the working out for you, Dems? Oh, not so great, eh? Well, people liked their healthcare plans. They shopped for what best fit their needs. That's the American way: individualism and diversity all in one. And all of a sudden statists like this idiot Jonathan Cohn are saying, "Hey, this is how it's supposed to work. Suck it up you privileged fat slobs." Well, f-k you buddy. The "real people" now forced to "pay more" are telling you to shove it. Just anecdotes, eh? Right. You tell "3 to 6 million people" they're just anecdotes, alright. You will be buried alive. Damned straight they "are right to feel burned," you smug a-hole. You burned them. You and your statist Democrat clusterf-k party that rejected all expert warnings because you didn't want to give the Republicans ammunition against the law. That is, you knew it wouldn't work, and you planned all along to stiff "3 to 6 million" people" for the absurd theory about how insurance markets are "supposed to work." Hey num-nuts, it's not working! Get that? It's a bleedin' disaster unfolding right before our eyes. Democrat defections are piling up faster the corpses in Stalin's Ukrainian famine. Because anecdotes! Those 60-year old couples needed that maternity coverage anyway! It's all for the common good. Sacrifice people!

Seriously, I'd like to pound this dolt Jonathan Cohn into the ground. In theory, of course. All in theory.

IMAGE CREDIT: Diogenes' Middle Finger, "ObamaCare or (SPMD) - Sick Pig of Mass Deception."

Hope is All #ObamaCare Has Left

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg.

Like I said a few days ago, I never realized how good she is.

Congressional Democrats Give Obama 72-Hours to Fix #ObamaCare!

I watched hot Megyn Kelly earlier tonight and it was blockbuster. Man, she was fired up!

I tweeted:

.@MegynKelly is on fire!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 13, 2013

So now here's the opening blockbuster segment, via Gateway Pundit, "BREAKING: Congressional Democrats Give WH 72 Hours to Fix Obamacare Disaster (Video)."



Like I said earlier. Today was a very bad day for the White House.

See also Freedom's Lighthouse for the full opening segment at the Kelly File, "Panicked Congressional Democrats Give Obama a “72-Hour Ultimatum” to “Fix” ObamaCare – Video 11/12/13."

The Making of an #ObamaCare Management Failure

Man, the hits keep coming, and how.

From Carrie Budoff Brown, at Politico:

In the days after HealthCare.gov went live, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough quietly dispatched Jeff Zients, a favorite West Wing fixer, to assess the operation and report back.

When Zients did, President Barack Obama learned the project was in worse shape than suspected — riddled with coding problems, management issues and communication gaps, according to a senior administration official.

It was only then that Obama and his top aides realized the extent of what they didn’t know.

The story of how a technology-obsessed White House failed to head off a technological disaster may be as simple as it is mind-boggling to the law’s supporters. Senior White House officials claim they just never anticipated the magnitude of the problems that would unfold — there was concern, yes, but not an impending sense of doom.

The notion that Obama wasn’t clued in seems to defy logic, given the warning signs from both within the administration and outside of it, the importance of the law’s success to his presidency and his own understanding of the power of technology. But ever since the troubled launch, administration officials have tried to keep Obama as far as possible from the debacle, describing him as engaged in the implementation but unaware of the depth of the website issues.

The question of how much the White House knew will get a fuller, public airing Wednesday when technology officials in charge of the website testify before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Sheesh. That's clinical, almost like an autopsy.

Continue reading.

Bill Clinton Sticks a Knife in #ObamaCare

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The five-year-long dance between the Clintons and President Obama has always been an interesting show, but never more so than now as the runner-up in the 2008 Democratic presidential contest starts to maneuver in preparation for 2016. Hillary Clinton spent her four years as secretary of state playing the good soldier for the president, doing little of value but also (and unlike her spectacularly inept successor John Kerry) causing him little trouble. She exited the cabinet with a presidential love fest that had to annoy Vice President Joe Biden, her only likely rival for 2016. But now that she is safely out of the Washington maelstrom and embarked on a path that she hopes will see her return to the White House as president rather than first lady, her relationship with Obama has undergone a not-so-subtle change. That has allowed some of the old antagonism between her and, in particular, her husband and the man who beat her in 2008 to resurface.

That antagonism was on display today as Bill Clinton joined the growing chorus of critics of the ObamaCare rollout in an interview published in a web magazine. Speaking much as if he was one of the angry red-state Democrats who think the president’s lies about ObamaCare can sink their hopes of reelection next year, the 42nd president stuck a knife into the 44thpresident by saying the law should be changed to accommodate the demands of those who are losing their coverage despite the president’s promises to the contrary:

“I personally believe even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”

In doing so, the former unofficial “explainer in chief” for Obama has helped undermine the notion that the president’s signature health-care legislation can be kept intact. But he has also begun the process by which Hillary will begin to disassociate herself from an administration that is beginning to take on the odor of lame-duck failure.

Continue reading.

This has been a very bad day for the White House.

There's so much disastrous news I'm simply gonna have to do a couple of roundups. In addition to Clinton, today saw further Democrat defections on Capitol Hill, particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein, who's apparently ready to join Senator Mary Landrieu for a legislative fix for the millions health plan cancellations nationwide. Also in the news in the new James O'Keefe undercover video that exposes ObamaCare navigators encouraging enrollees to lie on applications. And in a twist that's real-life imitating frat-house parody, progressives out of Colorado are pitching hookup sex and alcohol to promote ObamaCare --- a turn that is nothing less than Democrats embracing rape culture to get "young invincibles" to sign up for the world-class clusterf-k.

See Twitchy, "Sens. Feinstein, Landrieu co-sponsor bill to let people keep their health plans."

More, "‘There’s a new sheriff in town’: James O’Keefe exposes Obamacare navigator fraud [video]," and "Obamacare navigator caught on tape fired; Three others suspended."

And, "Do you got ‘Ho-surance’? ‘Brosurance’ creators branch out, set their sights on lady parts [pics]."

Plus, I sure hope Twitchy does a curation, but Dana Loesch is just destroying idiot leftist Alan Franklin, who I guess is the dolt who created these Colorado ObamaCare ads. Just scroll Dana's timeline to witness a thing of beauty.

Germany Debates Edward Snowden Asylum

At Der Spiegel, "Germany's Quandary: The Debate over Asylum for Snowden":

There are growing calls in Germany not only to question Edward Snowden in connection with the ongoing NSA scandal, but also to offer him safe passage and asylum. Yet the heads of the two major political camps fear the wrath of the United States.

Hans-Christian Ströbele, a lawyer and parliamentarian for Germany's Green Party, turned 74 this year. He has devoted more than 50 of those years to the political struggle for justice and for what is good in the world - or at least that's how he sees it. "Have you ever been on the wrong side of things?" Ströbele was asked in a recent television interview.

"Politically speaking?" he asked the interviewer, glancing at the ceiling. For two seconds, it seemed as if he had to consider the question, but he quickly regained his composure and emphatically replied: "No."
Now Ströbele is waging another political battle, probably the most noteworthy one of his life. Last Thursday, he went to Moscow and spent three hours speaking with Edward Snowden, the man whose revelations about the spying activities of the United States have both captivated the world for months and deeply changed its perceptions.

Ströbele, a lawmaker from the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg election district in Berlin, was the first politician in the world to meet with Snowden in his Moscow exile. Snowden's mission is now Ströbele's mission. He wants to bring the American whistleblower to Germany to testify before an investigative committee of the German parliament, the Bundestag, and in doing so provide him with a secured right of residence in Germany.

Ströbele knows that granting Snowden the right to stay in Germany would create problems for German-American relations. The Americans have already submitted an extradition request, just in case Snowden ever sets foot on German soil. But Ströbele doesn't care. He sets his own priorities and, once again, he believes himself to be on the right side of history, notwithstanding Germany's trans-Atlantic partnership with the United States. "If the political will exists, as well as the courage, including the courage to stand up to presidents, then it's possible," Ströbele said after returning from Moscow.

More here.

Plus, "Asylum Debate: Germany Wants to Question Snowden":

Since revelations emerged two weeks ago that America's National Security Agency had long spied on Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone communications, calls have been growing for whistleblower Edward Snowden to be offered political asylum in Germany.

Well, he can't stay in Russia forever. He's still a man without a country. Interesting though is how much  the German left digs the guy. Anything to stick it to Obama right in the eye.

#ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Coming In on the Short Side. Just a Little...

At The Last Refuge, "Report: October Obamacare Enrollment Fewer Than 50,000."

And you know, if the numbers aren't coming in the way you want them (the way you need them!), no problem. Just tweak the numbers until they're just right!

At WonkBlog, "Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition":

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

WTF?

If Amazon counted all the items sitting in my shopping cart as "paid" I'd be broke a long time ago.

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) November 12, 2013

Word.

Mystery of the Gurlitt Family and the Munich Nazi Art Find

At Der Spiegel, "Phantom Collector: The Mystery of the Munich Nazi Art Trove":

The world has been captivated by the discovery of more than 1,400 works of art in a Munich apartment, among them many lost masterpieces stolen by the Nazis. The mystery surrounding the paintings reveals much about the great tragedies of the 20th century -- and Germany's attempt to grapple with its past.

Two men are on horseback, it's summer, the colors are radiant, the riders are deep in conversation, and one of the horses prances in the surf. It's a brief moment on a beach in Holland - but it is also a moment for eternity.

Max Liebermann's painting, "Two Riders on the Beach," is an Impressionist masterpiece. He painted it in 1901, and a Jewish sugar refiner from Breslau in Lower Silesia, now the Polish city of Wroclaw, owned it for more than 30 years -- until the Nazis confiscated the work. After that, it disappeared.

Two attorneys in Berlin have been searching for the Liebermann for the last five years. Lothar Fremy and Jörg Rosbach specialize in restitution cases. In the postwar period, they helped clients assert claims for expropriated property in eastern Germany. The lawful heirs of the Liebermann paintings are brothers, 88 and 92, who live in London and New York, respectively. The sugar refiner from Breslau was their great uncle. The painting is probably worth about €1 million ($1.34 million) today.

When Fremy and Rosbach switched on the television last Tuesday, they weren't expecting much. The public prosecutor's office in the Bavarian city of Augsburg was giving a press conference on a mysterious Munich art find, and it was being broadcast live. Yet what they saw on TV was the announcement of the largest discovery of lost art from the Nazi period since World War II. Eleven of the 1,406 art works that had been seized in Munich a year and a half ago were presented in the press conference. The Liebermann was one of the paintings.

Talk about international intrigue.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Nazi Art Cache."

PTSD Veterans Fight Addiction to Prescription Painkillers

At WSJ, "For Veterans With PTSD, A New Demon: Their Meds: Threat of Addiction to Prescription Painkillers Heightened With Mental Illness":

NEWPORT, N.H.—Desperation drove Timothy Fazio, a former Marine, to turn up around midnight at a veterans' hospital near Boston. His post-traumatic stress disorder was causing flashbacks and blackouts. He had leapt from a balcony.

And he had overdosed, twice, on painkillers originally prescribed for a hand injury suffered in Iraq.

"I want detox," Mr. Fazio told doctors that night in 2008, his medical files say.

After a week of withdrawal, Mr. Fazio checked himself out of the Veterans Health Administration hospital—and was given 168 pills of the same opiumlike drug he was already addicted to, according to his files, which The Wall Street Journal has reviewed. The next day, the hospital gave him another 168 pills.

PTSD and painkillers are the twin pillars of a new mental-health crisis in America. Many of the more than two million Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer, as Mr. Fazio does, from a mixture of pain and PTSD. The VA treats many of them with powerful opioid painkillers for their pain. But opioids can be a combustible mix with mental illness because of a heightened addiction risk.

Effectively, some critics say, it amounts to treating mental illness with addictive narcotics.

A study by a VA researcher found that veterans with PTSD were nearly twice as likely to be prescribed opioids as those without mental-health problems. They were more likely to get multiple opioid painkillers and to get the highest doses. Veterans with PTSD were more than twice as likely to suffer bad outcomes like injuries and overdoses if they were prescribed opioid painkillers, the study found.

In Mr. Fazio's case, between 2008 and 2011 the VA prescribed him more than 3,600 pills containing oxycodone, a narcotic painkiller from the same family as heroin and morphine, his records show. He overdosed a total of six times.

"I was always a tough kid, but I feel like this has been the toughest fight of my life," Mr. Fazio said in March, after a spell of homelessness that saw him sleeping in an ATM lobby. "I don't know if I'm going to win it."

The VA declined to comment on Mr. Fazio's treatment and said it would review his records. It said it follows uniform guidelines and procedures for veterans' pain care, adding that those are being reinforced with further training of doctors and patients in safe opioid use. "The Veterans Health Administration has worked aggressively to promote the safe and effective use of opioid therapy for veterans," it said.

The number of vets with both PTSD and pain isn't known. But some 30% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans under VA care have PTSD, VA figures show, and more than half suffer chronic pain.

Continue reading.

'The White House is Desperate to End #ObamaCare Blues...'

Major Garrett reports, for CBS News:



I know the press is still soft for the Chicago Jesus, but all this critical reporting on the mofo's utter incompetence and moral bankruptcy is quite stunning. It's almost as if George W. Bush was back in the White House.

More here, "Obama's Second Term FUBAR as Approval, Personal Favorability Hit the Crapper."

Obama Tech Support Arrives to 'Fix' the Website and #ObamaCare

Tweeted this out after cracking up on Facebook yesterday.

.@RSMcCain Via @PRHouseworth, the tech surge is coming to fix #ObamaCare! pic.twitter.com/8GTRlKHgaG

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 12, 2013

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Union 'Card-Check Neutrality Agreements'

It's supposed to be one of the most important labor cases before the Supreme Court in decades, at the New York Times, "Supreme Court to Take Up Challenges to Union Practices":

Labor leaders and businesses are closely watching a Supreme Court case to be argued this Wednesday that involves a popular strategy used by unions to successfully organize hundreds of thousands of workers.

That strategy — widely deployed by the Service Employees International Union and the Unite Here hotel workers union — involves pressuring an employer into signing a so-called neutrality agreement in which the employer promises not to oppose a unionization drive. By some estimates, more than half of the recent successful unionization campaigns involve such agreements, which sometimes allow union organizers onto company property to talk with workers.

Benjamin Sachs, a professor of labor law at Harvard Law School, said the case before the Supreme Court was potentially “the most significant labor case in a generation.”

Professor Sachs said that if the court ruled against labor, it could significantly hobble efforts by private sector unions to organize workers. He added that the other big labor case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this session could have a significant impact on public sector unions. In that case, a home-care worker has asked the court to rule that the state of Illinois violated her First Amendment rights by requiring her to pay “fair share” fees, much like dues, to a union she did not support.

In the case being argued on Wednesday, Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, an employee of Mardi Gras Gaming in Florida sued Unite Here, asserting that its neutrality agreement with the company was illegal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in his favor, finding that the agreement was a “thing of value” that federal labor law bars employers from giving to any union or union official.

More at that top link.

And at Labor Pains, "SCOTUS to Ask, “What about the Employees?”":

Mardi Gras Gaming agreed to recognize a card-check procedure, not to speak out on the issue of unionization, and to hand over a list of unionizable employees to the union. In return, the union agreed not to strike and to help pass a ballot measure allowing slot machine gambling. Employees who oppose unionization like Martin Mulhall, who filed suit to block the agreement, had no seat at the table.

The Cato Institute legal team argues that these perks absolutely are “things of value,” noting:

We argue that, not only are Mardi Gras’s concessions clearly “things of value,” they are the types of exchanges that the Taft-Hartley Act was specifically passed to prohibit. The union exchanged a promise of “peace” from strikes and boycotts for concessions from the casino that compromised Mr. Mulhall’s right to dissent from unionization. The “exchange” was little better than extortion.

It's extortion alright. The union goons are breathing down their necks.

Infighting Can Be Fun – Meanwhile We're Losing the #War

Via Becca Lower:

Yes, we need to have the conversation about where the Republican party is going. People like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz (and others) are making compelling arguments. But should that mean losing the path we’re all on, the one that leads to beating back the forces of the Left who despise us and everything we have built together as Americans? Should that fall victim to our squabbles? Not on Veterans Day, not any day. While we’re infighting about whether someone’s speaking the conservative message exactly the way we’d like them to, we’re losing the #War.

RTWT.

President Moron

From William Gensert, at American Thinker, "Obama: The Most Dangerous of Morons":

There have been bad presidents -- see Jimmy Carter.  Yet has there ever been a president as staggeringly incompetent as Barack Obama?  Really, can there be any other explanation for his performance as president than the man is, well...a moron?

Let's face it, we all know them.  They are the people who either started out with money, or have spent a lifetime failing up.  Despite a distinct lack of accomplishment, personal or professionally, they believe they are the smartest person in every room.  They cannot utter a sentence that does not include "I," "me," and "my," and they never stop speaking.  To quote Alice Roosevelt, they are "the corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding and the baby at every christening."

They seem to Forrest Gump their way through life, with one undeserved success after another.

Does this remind you of anyone?

Have you ever noticed how many of these "really smart" people there are in government?  It's a magnet for morons, and it seems every damn one of them is portrayed by the media as a genius in his own right.  Yet, they never seem to be able to do anything but make things worse, and usually much worse.

These are America's morons and Barry is their leader.

Obama has strange tastes.  His favorite show is Homeland.  He's proud to tell people this, and don't get me wrong, I like the show myself -- as a work of fiction.  Then again, I'm not the President of the United States of America.  In that case, the bar should be set higher.

A president who brags about liking a show where one of the lead characters assassinated the Vice President of the United States is not one to be taken seriously as president, or as anything.

One more time for emphasis, the President of the United States willingly tells people his favorite show is one in which the Vice President was assassinated.

What is this guy, a moron?

The answer is yes, he is a moron, and worse, he is the most dangerous of morons, one who doesn't think he is a moron.

Don't get me wrong, this is not an anti-moron screed.  In my life, I have had more than 2,000 people work for me.  Morons have their place.  A good manager reads an employee and his skill set and uses that person to the maximum of his abilities.  A moron can contribute.  A moron can be an effective employee -- I've had many of them.

Yet when he is delusional and lacks self-awareness, he often has the 'I can do anything' syndrome and ends up thinking he can be President of the United States, while believing he's got game like Lebron and is smarter than all his advisors.

A dangerous moron, at times, can self-limit the damage done, by lightening the workload.  Having surprisingly risen past his level of competence, he naturally thinks he is actually so great, he doesn't have to work hard.  So...he doesn't.  Instead he plays golf, and throws parties, and gives speeches, and looks longingly at his reflection in the mirror.

Narcissus was convinced no one was prettier than Narcissus.  And Barry is convinced no one smarter than Barry.

A moron can be productive -- providing he knows his limitations and can use what God has given him within those limitations.  A dangerous moron, however, is all arrogance and bluster, always convinced that every one of his incompetent actions and the inevitable results, are actually brilliant successes and if not, somebody else's fault.  Dangerous morons hate to admit they were wrong.  They are also incapable of feeling shame or guilt.

Dirty Harry Callahan said: "A man's got to know his limitations."  And Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair.  Well...Barack Obama is the iconic "empty suit," which, by definition is the most dangerous of morons...

Continue reading.

Grim Toll Rises in Philippines

At WSJ, "Grim Toll Rises Amid Ruin and Chaos: Death Toll Above 1,700 Is Likely Much Higher":

People covered their faces with towels and scarves against the stench of death Monday, clogging the typhoon-ravaged roads of the hardest hit part of the Philippines in a traffic jam of desperation.

Headed into one center of devastation were Filipinos frantic to find loved ones, or help, or both; fleeing in the other direction were battered and fearful survivors of the howling winds and raging waves of supertyphoon Haiyan.

As the death toll surged and food and water became scarce three days after the storm, tens of thousands of refugees struggled to find their way to aid. With the return of cellphone signals and as rescuers cut their way toward isolated communities on Monday, the depth of the loss of lives became clearer. The government put the death count at 1,744—and it was expected to rise much further. Thousands remained missing.

On the streets of Tacloban, capital of the shattered province of Leyte, stiffened animal carcasses and human bodies were a common sight, some out in the open, others partly covered by tarps or sheet metal.

The road to Tacloban's airport was jammed with people trying to get out as limited commercial service restarted. At the same time, the road into town was also snarled by motorbikes and cars—even as humanitarian workers warned that both food and water were rapidly running out.

Continue reading.