甘肃下肢带骨附肌肉起止点着色模型西藏男性骨盆及盆底肌肉模型,贵阳颅顶层次解剖模型,海南高级老年人静脉穿刺训练手臂模型,吉林高级外科基本技能训练工具箱,男性人体躯干模型多少钱,辽宁脊髓与椎骨关系模型,武汉超声引导下中心静脉置管术训练模型

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California wants to give more benefits to people living in the country illegally as lawmakers in the state Senate advanced a 4 billion spending proposal Wednesday that would expand health coverage and tax credits for immigrants.The proposal would let low-income immigrants living in the country illegally get government-funded health coverage if they are 65 and older or between the ages of 19 and 25.The Senate's budget writing-panel also agreed to let some people who don't have Social Security numbers qualify for the state's earned income tax credit — a program for the poor that boosts people's tax refunds. The credit would apply to people who have an individual tax identification number, which includes immigrants in the country legally and illegally."These are people who are working, who are paying taxes," Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, said. "That's a population we ought not leave behind."Some Republicans have opposed the proposals, especially since the state is also considering imposing a tax penalty on people in the country legally who refuse to purchase health insurance. But they likely don't have the votes to stop it.The proposals build on the spending plan Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom released earlier this year that would extend Medi-Cal eligibility to young adults and double the tax credit to ,000 for every family with at least one child under the age of 6, making about 3 million households eligible to receive it.Newsom's proposal did not include expanding eligibility for the tax credit to immigrants. It's unclear how much money that would cost.Newsom wanted to pay for the expanded tax credit by selectively conforming California's tax code with portions of the tax changes President Donald Trump signed into law in 2017. That would have generated about .7 billion in new revenue for the state, mostly from businesses taxes.The Senate rejected those tax changes."We've just got to figure out where else to get that money from," Mitchell said.The Senate proposal is the first indication how the Democratic-controlled legislature will react to Newsom, who took office in January. The Assembly plans to finalize its budget proposal on Friday, which trigger negotiations with the Newsom administration.Lawmakers must pass a budget by June 15. If they don't, state law requires them to forfeit their salaries.The Senate plan does not deviate much from Newsom's proposal, adopting his revenue projections that include a .5 billion surplus.The Senate plan rejects a proposed new tax on most residential water bills to pay for drinking water improvements. Instead, they opted to use 0 million of existing tax dollars to help some struggling public water systems make improvements.In 2017, more than 450 public water systems covering more than half a million people failed to comply with safety standards. That number doesn't include people who use private wells or public systems with fewer than 15 connections, which are not regulated by the state.Newsom has argued for the tax, saying it would protect the money by making it harder for lawmakers to divert the spending elsewhere. But lawmakers from both parties have balked at implementing a new tax while the state has a projected surplus of .5 billion.Still, some Republicans were wary the tax could return once Democratic leaders conclude their budget negotiations next month."My issue is trust," said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber. "Republicans have been duped, at their political peril, by placing and misplacing their trust." 3590

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's DMV is trying to improve customer service by accepting credit cards, upgrading its website and offering clearer instructions on how to obtain a new federally mandated ID, but Gov. Gavin Newsom cautioned Tuesday the agency's long wait times and other troubles aren't over."This is going to take a few years. Next year will be tough," Newsom said, referencing an expected surge in people using the Department of Motor Vehicles next year to acquire new IDs that will be required for air travel.Newsom spoke as he released a report detailing efforts the DMV is making to improve services after wait times averaged two hours last summer, prompting outrage from lawmakers and customers. The state hired the high-powered firm McKinsey & Company to recommend improvements, with the funding coming out of roughly 0 million in new money the DMV got in this year's state budget.Newsom also announced he's appointed Steve Gordon as the agency's director. Gordon is a longtime employee of the private sector, working for Cisco Systems and most recently for zTransforms, a consulting company focused on business-wide process improvement. He is not registered in a political party and will make 6,000. The state Senate must approve his appointment.The DMV has been plagued by slow-downs related to the state's "motor voter" registration program and an uptick in people applying for REAL IDs, the new federal IDs that will be required for airplane travel starting in October 2020. More than 28 million Californians may seek a REAL ID.Beyond hiring McKinsey, the state has brought in a public relations firm to create a statewide awareness campaign about the new IDs and a consulting firm to think about what DMV offices should look like. The report did not say how much each is being paid.Other changes include the planned acceptance of credit cards, which will start at a Davis office in September before expanding to Fresno, Victorville and Roseville. The state hopes to eventually accept credit cards statewide. The DMV has also started launching REAL ID "pop ups" at businesses and plans to open 100 kiosks in August, where people can do routine transactions such as renewing vehicle registration without going to a customer service window.The goal, Newsom said, is to improve through small changes. "We're not going big at first — we want to go small and build on successes," he said.The department plans to hire between 1,800 and 1,900 new workers, most of them temporary, through next year. Newsom's announcement comes a day before the DMV plans to close offices statewide for half a day for a day of training for its more than 5,000 employees.Republican lawmakers were divided on the Democratic governor's actions. Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno faulted Newsom for "making excuses" for the DMV rather than re-imagining it and criticized him for saying wait times could be long again next summer. But GOP Sen. Pat Bates from Laguna Niguel said Newsom was taking "steps in the right direction to help fix the DMV."The report did not address problems with the state's "motor voter" registration programming, and Newsom said an audit on the program will be coming out soon. 3234

Rising prices and plummeting listings — not to mention a global pandemic, record unemployment and recession — didn’t keep first-time home buyers from the market in the second quarter of 2020.Ordinarily, in April, as the second quarter of the year begins, homebuying season is well underway, and inventory and prices are both rising toward a summer peak. But the second quarter of 2020 was unusual, to say the least.Across the nation and among the most populous metropolitan areas, prices increased modestly in the second quarter and inventory became even more constrained in an already sparse market. Homeowners who’d been planning to sell reconsidered — though listings ticked up slightly in April, they fell sharply in May and June — and people who’d been thinking of buying, at a minimum, took a beat. But real estate professionals scrambled to implement virtual tours and finalize home purchases in parking lots, and market participants, particularly economically secure buyers, cautiously came out of hiding.Lured in part by record low mortgage rates, first-time home buyers made up 35% of existing home sales in June, according to the National Association of Realtors, a higher share than in the past several years. For first-timers who have stability in the COVID-19 economy, and the wherewithal to stomach a highly competitive market, buying can still make sense.In this quarterly report, we analyze median incomes in the first-time home buyer age range (25-44) compared with listing prices among the 50 most populous metro areas to come up with an affordability ratio. Budgeting for a home that costs roughly three times your annual income (an affordability ratio of 3.0) has been a rule of thumb for years, but first-time buyers often have to stretch beyond this to account for higher prices in metro areas and their lower incomes compared with repeat buyers. By weighing the affordability ratio versus home availability in the largest metro areas, we can get an idea of the conditions first-time buyers are facing when they set out to become homeowners.By looking at both quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year changes, we can get a better picture of the effects of the COVID-19 economy on this year’s homebuying market. The former can provide insight into chronological market responses to the pandemic — our first-quarter affordability report captured data only through March, just the beginning of 2020’s atypical spring season. The latter can show how this year’s second quarter contrasts with similar periods in relatively normal times.Affordability down overallHouses got slightly more out of reach for first-time home buyers in April through June, rising nationally from 4.5 times first-time home buyer income in the first quarter to 4.7 times in the second, and among the 50 largest metros from 5.1 to 5.2 times first-time buyer income. This trend is expected at this time of year. Home prices rise as the housing market heats up in the late spring and summer, but incomes don’t rise in a similar seasonal fashion. If anything, we might’ve expected a more dramatic change, but economic uncertainty on the part of sellers could have kept steeper list price increases at bay.Nine of the 50 metros analyzed bucked this trend and saw affordability improve, but barely, sometimes only by a fraction of a percent.The five most affordable metros for first-time home buyers in the second quarter include Pittsburgh (homes listed at 3.1 times first-time buyer income), St. Louis (3.4), Cleveland (3.5), Hartford, Connecticut (3.5), and Buffalo, New York (3.6). The least affordable, all in California, include Los Angeles, topping the list for the second quarter in a row, with homes listed at 12 times first-time buyer income; San Diego (9.0); San Jose (8.2); San Francisco (7.6); and Sacramento (6.6).First-time buyer guidance: Homes get less affordable in late spring to early summer, and in this regard, the second quarter of 2020 is no different. First-time buyers who are economically secure may be able to make up for the rise in home prices by qualifying for record low mortgage rates. For example, the monthly payment on a 0,000 mortgage at 4.1% interest — roughly the average rate a year ago — is ,160 per month, with 7,483 in interest over the 30-year life of the loan. However, at today’s rate of 3.1%, you’d pay ,025 per month and 8,942 in interest over the life of the loan — nearly ,000 in savings, total, and a 5 monthly break on your payment. Use a mortgage calculator to see what the difference in rates means for your budget.Unseasonal scarcity in the second quarterEven in years when supply is limited, an influx of homes hits the market during the spring homebuying season. Nationally, inventory grew 10% from the first to the second quarter of 2018, and 6% during that period last year. But in 2020, nationwide inventory dipped, albeit slightly, by about 2% quarter-over-quarter.Half of the largest metros in the country saw a decrease in average active listings from Q1 to Q2, with the largest quarter-over-quarter declines in Cleveland (-17%), Louisville, Kentucky (-14%), and Memphis, Tennessee (-14%). However, other large metros saw remarkable increases: San Jose (+62%), Denver (+47%) and San Francisco (+39%), for example. These dramatic climbs helped push the average quarter-over-quarter change among the largest 50 metros to +4%.Stepping back to look at year-over-year changes and how the supply of homes changed from Q2 2019, we found inventory dropped 23% among the 50 largest metros, on average, with 21 metros witnessing a decrease in available homes of 25% or more. Active listings in Las Vegas decreased 8%, the smallest quarterly drop of any metros analyzed and the only one of less than 10%.We’ve been in a strong seller’s market for some time now, as the supply of homes hasn’t kept pace with demand. Having fewer homes hitting the market during the first months of the pandemic only stood to worsen the situation. A highly competitive market has grown even more so, and buyers without room to negotiate could be priced out entirely.First-time buyer guidance: If you’re at all uncertain about your economic security this year and buying would mean an increase in overall housing costs or leave you with no source of emergency funds, you may want to postpone your first home purchase. The low supply of homes means you’re less likely to find a home that checks all the boxes on your wish list. A loss of income, a bout of poor health or caring for a sick loved one could be overwhelming on top of a down payment, closing costs and the expenses associated with moving.Home prices rise, as expectedWe expect prices to rise as the housing market heats up, and if 2020 is sticking to the script in any way, this is it. From the first quarter to the second, national median list prices grew 7% in 2018 and 8% in 2019. This year, they grew 7% nationally, and slightly less, 5%, on average, among the largest metros, quarter-over-quarter.Year-over-year growth was similar, rising about 3%, on average, among the 50 largest metros, after adjusting for inflation.This overall relatively unremarkable growth in prices is one silver lining for first-time buyers. Having a dramatic shortage of homes for sale could drive prices up, but it doesn’t appear that sellers are listing their homes disproportionately higher than last quarter or than at this time last year. That said, list prices are only part of the story, and there’s little doubt that the lack of supply is driving hard bargaining in the negotiation process.First-time buyer guidance: The price you see on a listing doesn’t tell the whole story. If you’re shopping in a seller’s market, be ready to act fast with an offer and compete with other buyers. You may end up paying more than list price, so shopping for homes listed under your max budget will give you a little more wiggle room if you find yourself in a bidding war.Metro spotlight: Cincinnati, Cleveland and ColumbusOhio has three metro areas in our analysis. It was also among the first states to begin canceling large events, declare a state of emergency and issue statewide restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19. These factors may have played a role in changes in the local housing markets.Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus were some of the more affordable populous metros in the second quarter, with home prices averaging 4.7, 3.5 and 4.5 times the median first-time home buyer income, respectively. Even so, all three showed rising prices compared with the same period last year. Median home prices in Cincinnati rose 12%, the third-highest increase of all metros analyzed.But the big story in these Ohio metros is a lack of availability. Though inventory among all metros analyzed fell 23%, on average, compared with last year, it fell 34% in Cincinnati, 33% in Cleveland and 25% in Columbus.When comparing this quarter’s listed homes with last quarter’s, we find a similarly dramatic decrease. Cleveland saw the largest quarter-over-quarter dip in active listings among all metros analyzed: inventory fell 17% from the first quarter. Active listings fell 10% in Cincinnati and 7% in Columbus at the time of year when most markets would typically be flooded with home listings.The one thing saving buyers from being completely locked out of homeownership: affordability. So while finding a home will prove tricky due to a lack of inventory, homes on the market are more likely to be within budget for first-time buyers.Analysis methodology available in the original article, published at NerdWallet.More From NerdWalletMortgage Outlook: A Light Lift to September RatesSmart Money Podcast: Lower Mortgage Rates, and Moving During a PandemicMortgage Outlook: Recession Presses Down on August RatesElizabeth Renter is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: elizabeth@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @elizabethrenter. 9901

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The director of California's unemployment benefits department, Sharon Hilliard, said she will retire at the end of the year. The announcement Friday comes after the agency has been overwhelmed by more than 15 million claims during the coronavirus pandemic. The agency has a backlog of more than 900,000 people still waiting to receive benefits. Hilliard has said the backlog won't be cleared until the end of January. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency Secretary Julie A. Sue praised Hilliard for helping reset the agency's culture. Republican Assembly Jim Patterson urged the governor to appoint a replacement from outside the agency. 684