做人流在昌吉哪个医院好(昌吉男科哪家强) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have capped dialysis clinics' profits in an effort to improve patient care.Proposition 8 would have limited profits for dialysis clinics that provide vital treatment for people whose kidneys don't work properly.The measure was the most expensive initiative on the 2018 ballot in California, generating more than 0 million in campaign contributions. A health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, funded the million supporting campaign. Dialysis companies contributed more than 1 million to kill the initiative.The union argued Proposition 8 would stop the dialysis companies from cutting corners to make money and force them to invest more of their revenue into patient care. Supporters say the profit-hungry companies don't adequately clean clinics and overwork staff.Dialysis providers say the measure was actually a tactic to pressure the dialysis companies to let workers unionize and would have forced clinics to close. They say most California clinics provide high quality care.Dialysis companies' effort to kill the measure was the most expensive campaign on one side of a ballot initiative in the U.S. since at least 2002. Most of that money came from the two largest dialysis companies operating in California: Denver-based DaVita Inc. and Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care.The measure would have barred dialysis clinics from charging patients more than 115 percent of what providers spend on patient care and quality improvement. If clinics exceeded that limit, they would have to provide rebates or pay penalties.Although the measure didn't spell out exactly which expenses counted toward the limit, dialysis companies argued critical management expenses would be classified as profits and bankrupt clinics.RELATED CONTENT 1898

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Athletes at California colleges could hire agents and sign endorsement deals under a bill the state Legislature sent to the governor on Wednesday, setting up a potential confrontation with the NCAA that could jeopardize the athletic futures of powerhouse programs like USC, UCLA and Stanford.Gov. Gavin Newsom has not said whether he will sign it. But the NCAA Board Of Governors is already urging him not to, sending him a letter Wednesday saying the bill "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics" and would have drastic consequences for California's colleges and universities."Because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, (it) would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions," the letter said. "These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions."Newsom has 30 days to either sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.The bill would allow student-athletes to hire agents and be paid for the use of their names, images or likenesses. It would stop California universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money. If it becomes law, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023."I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own likeness and image, this is about fairness," Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Los Angeles Democrat, said Monday.The Senate voted 39-0 to pass the bill, which has the endorsement of NBA superstar LeBron James, who skipped college and went directly to the NBA before the league changed its rules to require players to be at least one year removed from high school before entering the draft. But the bill could impact James' 14-year-old son, who is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles.The NCAA is the governing body for college sports. But membership is voluntary. Athletes can get valuable scholarships, but the NCAA has long banned paying athletes to preserve the academic missions of colleges and universities. But college sports have since morphed into a multibillion-dollar industry, igniting a debate over the fairness of not paying the industry's most visible labor force.Earlier this year, NCAA President Mark Emmert told lawmakers that passing the bill would be premature, noting the NCAA has a committee — led by Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman — that is exploring the issue. Their report is due in October.The NCAA committee has already said it won't endorse a plan to pay athletes as if they were employees, but they could ease limits on endorsement deals for athletes. The NCAA already lets athletes accept money in some instances. Tennis players can accept up to ,000 in prize money and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions.The bill still puts some restrictions on athletes, such as forbidding them from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their school's existing contracts.Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, though he did not cast a vote. He said allowing athletes to make money could make universities in rural areas less competitive because there could be fewer sponsorship opportunities in the area.But other lawmakers argued banning college athletes from being paid was a violation of their freedoms."Playing college sports should not have to come at the cost of personal liberty, dignity, self-expression or any other value this legislature is charged with protecting," said Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin. "Let's send a loud and clear message to the NCAA."But in and around California, schools and conferences believe this legislation might not be the best solution.The Pac-12, which includes Southern California, UCLA, Stanford and Cal, issued a statement Wednesday reiterating its previous stance — asking the California Legislature to delay the debate until the NCAA announces formal proposals."We all want to protect and support our student-athletes, and the Pac-12 has played a leadership role in national reforms for student-athletes over the past years," the statement said. "The question is what's the best way to continue to support our student-athletes. We think having more information and informed views will be helpful."J.D. Wicker, the athletic director at San Diego State, a Mountain West Conference member, agreed, saying "California weighing in on this complicates that.""I think the frustration for me is that they probably don't truly understand the NCAA and how we work as a governing body," Wicker said. "Again, it's schools across 50 states and it's all of us working together, whereas the state of California will only harm California schools." 4858

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Tuesday moved to cap annual rent increases statewide for most tenants as a limited housing supply in the country's most populous state continues to drive up the cost of living while pushing more people to the streets.The California Senate voted 25-10 to cap rent increases at 5% each year plus inflation for the next decade while banning landlords from evicting tenants without just cause. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says he will sign the bill into law, but first it must survive a final vote in the state Assembly where the California Association of Realtors is pushing to defeat it. Lawmakers must act by Friday.California's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, have some form of rent control, but a state law passed in 1995 has restricted new rent control laws since that year. In most places, landlords can raise rents at any time and for any reason, as long as they give advance notice.In Pomona, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, Yesenia Miranda Meza says her rent has jumped 20% in the past two years. Monday, she marched with other tenants through the halls of the state Capitol chanting: "Once I've paid my rent, all my money's spent.""I'm a rent increase away from eviction, and that's with me having two jobs," she said "So if this (bill) doesn't go through and I get another rent increase, I really don't know what I'm going to do. I'm either going to be homeless or I'll have to cram into a room with a whole bunch of other people."Opponents have likened the proposal to rent control — a more restrictive set of limitations on landlords. California voters overwhelmingly rejected in a statewide ballot initiative to overturn the 1995 law last year.California Association of Realtors President Jared Martin said the group's 200,000 members strongly oppose the bill because it will "reduce the supply and quality of rental housing." It's an argument echoed by Republican Sen. Jeff Stone, who said developers would have no reason to build new housing if they can't make money off their investment."We'll see even a greater housing crisis because of the low supply of housing," Stone said. "Either this will force our constituents to join a 60,000 homeless population that we see in the LA area, or they will simply just move to another state."But supporters say the bill includes lots safeguards to prevent that from happening. The rent caps don't apply to new construction built within the last 15 years — a provision that prompted the California Building Industry Association to drop its opposition.Plus, the caps don't apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. And duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units are also exempt."We all desperately want to build more housing. It was a very important aspect of this bill," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said.But even some Democrats who voted for the bill on Tuesday signaled they didn't like it, a sign the bill is not guaranteed to pass. Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat representing a district in the San Francisco Bay area, cited a 2018 study by Sanford University showing landlords under rent control are more likely to nudge tenants out by spending less on maintenance."Any time you reduce rate of return on an investment, you make that investment less attractive, and this is true even if new investment is exempted for 15 years as this bill does," he said.But Carolyn Wilson, a 71-year-old Sacramento resident, said she needs help now. She said her rent has increased about 0 each year and her landlord just gave her a 60-day notice to move out for on reason."All I do is get up on the computer looking for some place to go," she said. "With my income, I can't afford anything." 3819

REUNION, Fla. – The Los Angeles Lakers are this year’s NBA champions.The L.A. team defeated the Miami Heat 106-93 in Game 6 of the NBA Finals Sunday night, marking the team's 17th NBA title, tying the Boston Celtics for the record.This also marks LeBron James’ fourth NBA championship win. He previously won with the Heat in 2012 and 2013, as well as in 2016 with the Cleveland Cavaliers.Game 6 was also the 260th of James’ playoff career, lifting him into sole possession of first place on the league’s postseason appearances list. After missing the playoffs in his first two seasons, James has reached the postseason 14 times in 15 years.The 2019-2020 season was unlike any other before. First, it was suspended when the COVID-19 pandemic started in March. And then it resumed, with games played at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex near Orlando, Florida. 869

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Inmates in California prisons would be housed by their gender identity according to a bill moving through the state Legislature.The California Senate voted 29-7 on Thursday to require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to ask inmates their gender identity and to put them in prisons designed for that gender. The only exception would be if the department believed it would pose a significant security risk.The bill would require the department to refer to inmates by their preferred gender pronoun.Bill author Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, says transgender women put in prisons with men are often assaulted and raped and put in isolation for their safety.The bill now heads to the state Assembly. 771

来源：资阳报