濮阳东方看妇科病怎么样濮阳东方医院男科看早泄评价好很不错,濮阳东方医院做人流评价高,濮阳东方医院看妇科价格比较低,濮阳东方妇科导航,濮阳东方看妇科收费便宜,濮阳东方医院看早泄口碑好收费低,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿咨询

WASHINGTON — The Senate returns to Washington as all eyes are on Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa for clues to whether they will support any effort to approve a Supreme Court justice before November's election. President Donald Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are moving quickly to set up a nominee, confirmation hearings and a vote to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats oppose a Trump appointment so close to an election. Trump's Democratic rival, Joe Biden, is urging other Republican senators to join Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in opposing a confirmation vote before the race is decided.In an interview on Monday, Trump said he thought that both Murkowski and Collins would be "badly hurt" for choosing not to vote for a Supreme Court justice nominee.The Republican caucus currently holds a 53-47 voting edge in the Senate. With Murkowski and Collins promising not to confirm, the GOP can only afford to lose two more Senate votes and still confirm a Supreme Court justice. Vice President Mike Pence would hold the tiebreaker in the event of a 50-50 vote, and would likely vote to confirm a Trump-appointed justice. 1213

WASHINGTON (AP) — Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to gradually move the country to a government-funded health care system has further inflamed the debate over “Medicare for All,” likely ensuring the issue will play a significant role in this week’s Democratic presidential debate.The Massachusetts senator announced Friday that her administration would immediately build on existing laws, including the Affordable Care Act, to expand access to health care while taking up to three years to fully implement Medicare for All. That attempt to thread the political needle has roiled her more moderate rivals, who say she’s waffling, while worrying some on the left, who see Warren’s commitment to a single-payer system wavering.The divide could complicate plans by Democrats to turn health care into a winning issue in 2020. The party successfully took back control of the House last year by championing programs that ensure that people with preexisting medical conditions keep their insurance coverage while arguing that Republicans want to weaken such provisions. But the Medicare for All debate is more delicate as advocates including Warren grapple with concerns that a new government-run system won’t provide the same quality of coverage as private insurance — and would be prohibitively expensive.“The Medicare for All proposal has turned out to be a real deal-breaker in who gets the Democratic nomination,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor whose teaching responsibilities include courses on political strategy in health policy and public opinion polling. “This is not just another issue.”Warren’s transition plan indicates she’d use her first 100 days as president to expand existing public health insurance options. That is closer to what has been supported by former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Both Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Medicare for All for wiping out private insurance — something they say many Americans aren’t ready for.Warren insists she’s simply working to expand health insurance in the short term to people who don’t have it while remaining committed to the full plan in the long run.“My commitment to Medicare for All is all the way,” Warren said while campaigning in Iowa over the weekend.Still, the transition signified a step toward pragmatism and an acknowledgement that the government has ways to expand health insurance coverage before embracing a universal system — something that would be difficult for any president to get through Congress. Consider that current entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, were phased in over years, not all at once.“If she’s looked at it and decides the sensible thing to do in order to not cause too much disruption in employment situations and within the medical system is to gear up over three years, she's probably right,” said Cindy Wolf, a customer service and shipping manager who attended the California state Democratic Convention on Saturday in Long Beach.Still, the move may prove politically problematic for a candidate who has long decried others settling for consultant-driven campaigns seeking incremental changes at the expense of big ideas.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the original architect of Medicare for All and has made fighting for it the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid. He tweeted following the release of Warren’s transition plan: “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation.”Campaigning in Nevada on Monday, California Sen. Kamala Harris said, “I believe that government should not be in a position of taking away people's choice.”“Especially on one of the most intimate and personal decisions people can make,” Harris said, “which is about how to address their health care needs.”The criticism from others was far sharper. Top Biden adviser Kate Bedingfield dismissed Warren’s plan as “trying to muddy the waters” by offering “a full program of flips and twists.” Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said it was a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem.”It’s easy to see the issue spilling into Wednesday’s debate because Warren rode a steady summer climb in the polls to become one of the primary field’s front-runners — but no longer seems to be rising. Polls recently show her support stabilizing, though not dipping, as focus on her Medicare for All ideas intensifies.The last two debates featured Warren failing to answer direct questions on whether she would be forced to raise middle class taxes to pay for the universal health care system she envisions. That set up a plan released two-plus weeks ago in which Warren vowed to generate -plus trillion in new government revenue without increasing taxes on the middle class — but that’s been decried by critics who accuse Warren of underestimating how much Medicare for All would really cost.And, though Warren never promised to begin working toward Medicare for All on Day 1 of her administration, the release of the transition plan, which spelled out that the process will take years, has unsettled some.Una Lee Jost, a lawyer who was holding “Bernie” signs in Chinese and English at the California Democratic Convention, called any lengthy transition to Medicare for All “a serious concern.”“We should have implemented this decades ago,” she said.___Associated Press writers Kathleen Ronayne and Michael R. Blood in Long Beach, Calif., and Michelle Price in North Las Vegas, Nev., contributed to this report. 5566

VIDEO: I asked President Trump to cite specific evidence as to why mail-in ballots are fraudulent. I told him I covered politics for 5 years in Colorado (an all mail-in ballot state) and never heard @SenCoryGardner complain once. #copolitics @DenverChannel @KOAA pic.twitter.com/AebXDaDf4f— Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) June 22, 2020 348

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic and Republican lawmakers want the U.S. Postal Service to immediately reverse operational changes causing delays in deliveries nationwide.Moves by the Republican postmaster general to cut back operations come as big volume increases are expected for mail-in election voting.Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday the changes threaten the timely delivery of “threaten the timely delivery of mail — including medicines for seniors, paychecks for workers and absentee ballots for voters.”Montana Republicans Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte urge the Postal Service to reverse a July directive eliminating overtime for hundreds of thousands of postal workers.A Postal Service spokesperson disputes reports the Postal Service is slowing down mail. 843

WASHINGTON (AP) — Allied missiles struck at the heart of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal in a show of force and resolve aimed at punishing the Assad government for a suspected poison gas attack against civilians and deterring the possible future use of such banned weapons."A perfectly executed strike," President Donald Trump tweeted Saturday in the aftermath of his second decision in two years to fire missiles against Syria. "Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!"His choice of words recalled a similar claim associated with President George W. Bush following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Bush addressed sailors aboard a ship in May 2003 alongside a "Mission Accomplished" banner, just weeks before it became apparent that Iraqis had organized an insurgency that tied down U.S. forces for years.Syria's chief allies, Russia and Iran, called the use of force by the United States, Britain and France a "military crime" and "act of aggression" with the potential to worsen a humanitarian crisis after years of civil war. The U.N. Security Council planned to meet later Saturday at Moscow's request."Good souls will not be humiliated," Syrian President Bashar Assad tweeted, while hundreds of Syrians gathered in Damascus, the capital, where they flashed victory signs and waved flags in scenes of defiance after the one-hour barrage launched Friday evening (early Saturday in Syria).The strikes "successfully hit every target," Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said at a briefing Saturday, disputing the Russian military's contention that Syrian air defense units downed 71 out of 103 cruise missiles fired by the allies.Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said no aircraft or missiles involved in the operation "were successfully engaged by Syrian air defenses." He said 105 weapons were launched against three targets, and that the U.S. was not aware of any civilian casualties.A global chemical warfare watchdog group said its fact-finding mission would go as planned in Douma, where the apparent use of poison gas against civilians on April 7 that killed more than 40 people compelled the Western allies to launch their attack. Syria has denied the accusation.But France's foreign minister said there was "no doubt" the Assad government was responsible, and he threatened further retaliatory strikes if chemical weapons were used again, as did Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, who said the assault was a "one-time shot," as long as chemical weapons weren't used again.NATO representatives planned a special session to hear from U.S., British and French officials.Pentagon officials said the attacks, carried out by manned aircraft and from ships that launched cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea, targeted the heart of Assad's programs to develop and produce chemical weapons, and delivered "a very serious blow," said McKenzie.Trump said the U.S. was prepared to sustain economic, diplomatic and military pressure on Assad until he ends what Trump called a criminal pattern of killing his own people with internationally banned chemical weapons. That did not mean military strikes would continue; in fact, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said no additional attacks were currently planned.Russian leader Vladimir Putin reaffirmed the Kremlin's skepticism about the allies' Douma claim, saying Russian military experts had found no trace of the attack. He criticized the U.S. and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for international inspectors to visit the area.But British Prime Minister Theresa May cited reports she said indicated the Syrian government used a barrel bomb — large containers packed with fuel, explosives and scraps of metal — to deliver the chemicals. "No other group" could have carried out that attack, she said, adding that the allies' use of force was "right and legal."German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the West's response was "necessary and appropriate."Mattis disclosed that the U.S. had not yet confirmed that the Douma attack -- the most recent suspected Syrian chemical weapons attack, on April 7 -- included the use of sarin gas. He said at least one chemical was used — chlorine, which also has legitimate industrial uses and had not previously triggered a U.S. military response.He said the targets selected by U.S., British and French officials were meant to minimize civilian casualties."This is difficult to do in a situation like this," he said, in light of the volatility of chemical agents.Defense officials from the countries involved in the attack gave differing accounts of how much warning was given to the Russians, Syria's powerful ally.Dunford said the U.S. did not coordinate targets with or notify the Russian government of the strikes, beyond normal airspace "de-confliction" communications. But the description from an ally put things differently. French Defense Minister Florence Parly said that "with our allies, we ensured that the Russians were warned ahead of time."At a Pentagon news conference alongside Mattis, and with British and French military officers beside them to emphasize allied unity, Dunford said the attacks targeted mainly three targets in western Syria.Dunford said missiles first struck a scientific research center in the Damascus area that he said was a center of Syrian research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology. The second target was a chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs. He said this was believed to be the main site of Syrian sarin and precursor chemical production equipment.The third target was a chemical weapons equipment storage facility and an important command post, also west of Homs, Dunford said.British leader May said in London that the West had tried "every possible" diplomatic means to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. "But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted" by Syria and Russia, she said."So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime," May said. "This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change."French President Emmanuel Macron said in a statement that a target of the strike was the Syrian government's "clandestine chemical arsenal."The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons.The decision to strike, after days of deliberations, marked Trump's second order to attack Syria. He authorized a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles to hit a single Syrian airfield in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad's use of sarin gas against civilians.Trump chastised Russia and Iran for supporting "murderous dictators," and noted that Putin had guaranteed a 2013 international agreement for Assad to get rid of all of his chemical weapons.White, the Defense Department spokeswoman, said the strikes did not "represent a change in U.S. policy or an attempt to depose the Syrian regime." But, she said, "We cannot allow such grievous violations of international law." 7086