济南泌尿外科那边好(济南啥子药能治阳痿早泄) (今日更新中)

A California attorney who was rescued after a fall in Joshua Tree National Park says he survived for five days with little water and supplies before being rescued.Paul Hanks of Santee, California drove to the park to hike on his 54th birthday last week. He had intended to spend half a day ‘"bouldering" before returning home.Hanks’ plans took a painful turn when he slipped and fell about 20 feet, injuring his leg.“It happened. I slipped and it was just, having not slipped in 45 years, it was instant and total shock,” Hanks said.Hanks crawled for miles, yelling for help. Eventually, he settled under a Joshua Tree for the night, hoping he could throw some loose dirt on himself for warmth. Hanks quickly ran out of food and supplies.“By the very first night, I was drinking my own urine. I had drank all of the water in my bottle and was refilling my bottle with my own urine.”Hanks said the decision saved his life. He later found rainwater to drink and ate a cactus.“It gave me some physical energy and it gave me some hope and it made me believe this is giving me the 24 hours I'm looking for,” said Hanks.On Hanks’ fifth day in the park, search and rescue teams found him.“These three angels appeared out of nowhere and I was... I was shocked,” Hanks said. “I just couldn't believe it. I didn't want to say I had given up. Multiple times I had written myself off as dead. That I was never going to see another human being again and they showed up.”The rescue team gave Hanks Gatorade and took him to safety. Hanks is being treated at Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs. Family members say he’ll have several surgeries for fractures on his leg, heel, forehead and pelvis. Hanks is expected to make a full recovery. 1762

A body found in the water near Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, California, was identified Tuesday as a San Francisco 49ers fan who went missing during a Nov. 12 Monday Night football game, officials said.The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner positively identified the body found Saturday by duck hunters as Ian Powers, 32, of Spokane, Washington.The body was found in low-tide water approximately one mile north of the Alviso Marina boat ramp. The boat ramp is almost three miles north of the stadium.The cause of death has been ruled as accidental drowning.Powers’ girlfriend told police he left his seat to use the bathroom and never returned.Surveillance video showed him leaving the stadium and walking out of the venue. 733

A glitch to the IRS' e-file portion of its website prompted the IRS to push back the deadline to file taxes from today (April 17) to tomorrow (April 18). The IRS said that both individuals and businesses can take advantage of the extra filing day without penalty. “This is the busiest tax day of the year, and the IRS apologizes for the inconvenience this system issue caused for taxpayers,” said Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. “The IRS appreciates everyone’s patience during this period. The extra time will help taxpayers affected by this situation.”The IRS said that during the system outage, taxpayers were able to file their tax returns electronically through their software providers and Free File.Taxpayers using paper to file and pay their taxes at the deadline were not affected by the system issue, the IRS said. The glitch shuttered part of the IRS' website, not allowing some who file taxes online to complete their taxes. The glitch was resolved by 5 p.m. ET.  1009

A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall."The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to A growing group of Republicans want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be the party's choice in the Alabama Senate race, but ethics experts say Sessions either would have to have to leave the Department of Justice or continually disavow campaigns to put him in the seat if he wants to run for the office and avoid legal trouble.This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas both said they would support Sessions as a write-in candidate over Republican candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused of pursuing sexual relationships with teenagers when he was in his 30s.Moore denies the allegations, and says he has no plans leave the race. And Sessions has not indicated that he's planning to run for his old seat.But ethics experts say that even if Sessions does not himself campaign to be a write-in candidate in the race, he could have an "affirmative duty" to disavow campaigns to put him in the Senate while he's still the attorney general. If he remains silent, he could be in violation of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law restricting the ability of most federal employees to engage in political campaign activities.Walter Shaub, a former director of the US Office of Government Ethics who's now at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that the federal Office of Special Counsel has issued an advisory opinion on write-in candidates, which specifies:"(S)uch a candidacy is permissible only if spontaneous and accomplished without an employee's knowledge. You acknowledge that you have heard rumors of a write-in effort to elect you to the school board. It would be a violation of the Act if you encouraged this effort or remained silent. The Act imposes on you an affirmative duty to disavow this effort through public announcements and other appropriate means." It remains to be seen whether the OSC considers the comments by McConnell and Cornyn as imposing an "affirmative duty.""There's a question as to whether it's a write-in campaign or a stray comment from one guy," Shaub said following McConnell's comments. "If McConnell keeps talking about it, he's going to create an affirmative duty."Larry Noble, a senior director at the Campaign Legal Center who's a CNN contributor, said Republicans such as McConnell are "putting (Sessions) in a very difficult position" by even suggesting he be a write-in candidate."We are close to the line of his having to disavow," Noble added.For Sessions to be eligible as a write-in candidate, Noble said, he would have to "affirmatively disavow" any campaign or resign from office to avoid violating the Hatch Act.Sessions would likely be asked about his support for the write-in candidacy frequently until the December 12 election. Questions could also be raised about whether he was having private conversations about the effort with the state party and the Republican National Committee, which also would violate the Hatch Act.In response to a request for comment, Sarah Isgur Flores, director of public affairs for the Department of Justice, said, "Our ethics officials will need to evaluate precisely what has been said by others and then review what, if any, affirmative obligations we may have."Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan Law School professor who specializes in constitutional litigation, noted that a few previous attorneys general -- including Dick Thornburgh and Robert Kennedy -- have campaigned for Senate seats, but neither were floated as write-in candidates."It's extremely suboptimal for an attorney general, who is supposed to have some insulation from electoral politics, to be actively running for a political office," Bagenstos said, adding, "And of course there would be lots of possible recusal questions."Aside from ethical considerations, running as a write-in candidate would be a long shot even if Sessions resigned.Few candidates have won Senate seats via write-in campaigns. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, won her seat that way in 2010, but prior to her election the last person to do it was Strom Thurmond in 1954.However unlikely, a Sessions victory would serve two purposes for the GOP: The party would retain the seat, and Sessions would leave the DOJ after months of public criticism by President Donald Trump over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and not to prosecute Trump's political enemies. 4412 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year."Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more. 4383

<云转化_句子>

来源：资阳报