濮阳东方医院治疗早泄比较好濮阳东方看男科病价格比较低,濮阳东方妇科医院做人流便宜不,濮阳东方医院做人流手术收费便宜不,濮阳东方看男科病口碑好价格低,濮阳东方医院看男科病评价好收费低,濮阳东方医院治疗阳痿评价高,濮阳市东方医院线上医生咨询

It's a growing problem for people nationwide: rising student loan debt. Now, members of Congress are expected to take action. Lawmakers are introducing legislation to eliminate that debt for millions of Americans. That decision would greatly impact people like Cheryl Medina. At the age of 63, Medina wants to focus on planning for her retirement. Instead, she worries about paying her bills, especially her student loans, which she says have gotten bigger despite her paying 0 a month. “It's ,000. That is actually higher than I remember it ever being, so I think I’m paying interest only,” she says. After getting divorced 20 years ago, Medina went back to school, hoping a college degree would improve her job prospects. Now, she thinks she'll have to delay her retirement and work longer because of this debt, which at this point, Medina admits, she'll probably take to the grave with her. “To be able to afford the payments, it's not going to be paid off when I pass away,” she says. While most people think student loan debt is a young person's problem, more than 3 million people over 60 are paying off college loans. In the coming weeks, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative James Clyburn will introduce legislation to eliminate up to ,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans. They claim this will provide relief to 95 percent of borrowers and would wipe out debt entirely for 75 percent of borrowers. “It's virtually impossible for a young person to find a high-quality education as an affordable price,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) says. “We're crushing an entire generation with student loan debt.” Warren says the proposed plan would be paid for by a 2-percent yearly tax on the richest 75,000 families in the country, who have at least million in net worth. 1826

Harvey Weinstein is currently being treated for a fever and being closely monitored at the correction facility in Western New York where he's serving a 23-year prison sentence for rape and sexual assault, representatives for the disgraced movie mogul said Tuesday. Both his publicist and Weinstein's rep from the New York State Department of Corrections said they could "neither confirm nor deny" that Weinstein has tested positive for COVID-19. "We can confirm that Mr. Weinstein has a fever and is being closely monitored by the excellent medical staff at Wende CF, for which the entire legal defense team is grateful," his reps said in a statement. It was confirmed that Weinstein had initially tested positive for coronavirus back in late March. Weinstein suffers from multiple medical problems, the statement said. "It should come as no surprise that Mr Weinstein has numerous maladies and conditions, including a heart condition, high blood pressure and spinal stenosis. We are working with the NYSDOCCS and the excellent team at Wende CF to ensure Mr. Weinstein receives the proper medical attention he needs." Back when he was first confirmed COVID-19 positive, Weinstein’s lawyers said he was also dealing with the ramifications of unsuccessful back surgery stemming from a car crash last summer and a condition that requires shots in his eyes so he does not go blind.Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years on rape and criminal sex act charges. Officials had said Weinstein faced a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of 25 years in prison on the first-degree criminal sex act count, and a maximum penalty of four years in prison for third-degree rape.He was found not guilty of three other charges, including two counts of predatory sexual assault, which carried a potential life sentence.The allegations against Weinstein spawned the #MeToo movement. His trial is seen as a landmark moment for the cause.This is not the first time Weinstein has required medical treatment during his sentence. While still being held in New York City, he was taken to Bellevue Hospital for heart palpitations and high blood pressure. He later returned to Bellevue for what was termed "chest pains." This article was written by Stephen M. Lepore for WPIX. 2279

CHICAGO, Ill. – Shortages of ventilators and personal protective equipment mean many healthcare providers are going into battle unarmed. It’s sparked a heated debate behind closed doors about balancing efforts to save patients versus exposing doctors and nurses to the virus. Who lives? Who dies? Who gets priority to a ventilator? All complex questions health providers are being confronted with. “We've never had this situation before. This is unprecedented,” said Craig Klugman a professor of bioethics at DePaul University in Chicago. Bioethicists say widespread infection, protective equipment and ventilator shortages are creating unique ethical dilemmas for healthcare workers. “We will start to care for the person who is at risk of dying first,” explained Dr. Ricardo Gonzalez-Fisher, a surgical oncologist who teaches healthcare ethics at Metropolitan State University of Denver. “But if we have more people than resources that we have to. Try to save those that are savable.” “The obligation for a healthcare provider to treat the patient doesn't necessarily have a limit,” said Klugman. In Spain, some 13,000 medical workers have been infected. In Italy, more than 60 workers have died since the outbreak began. “It's not just their life. They can assume this risk for themselves,” said Klugman. “If they don’t have the right equipment, they also have the risk of infecting other patients, other healthcare providers. Their family.” Some health systems around the country are reportedly discussing unilateral do-not-resuscitate policies. It’s something that was debated during the Ebola outbreak in 2015. Determining who gets treatment and who does not is something Klugman says is taken very seriously. “We think about it very carefully and with great deliberation.” In Italy, that meant denying some care to the elderly in favor of the young. Klugman says in Illinois, a pandemic flu plan created a decade ago includes care procedures built around ethical frameworks and algorithms that help decide who should for example, get a ventilator. “We have to consider things like what is our most important value. So, the value that we're considering is maximizing the number of years of life that we can save,” said Klugman. Ultimately, a balance must be struck. “You have to make sure that the benefit of the patient overrides the harm or the risk that you're getting in,” said Dr. Gonzalez-Fisher. Otherwise, bioethicists say there may not be enough first responders to treat the infected.“When you call 9-1-1 because your loved one can't breathe, there will be nobody coming. That's the worst-case scenario,” said Klugman. 2653

A Wilson County, Tennessee, woman is facing a lawsuit after she posted a negative review on Yelp about a middle Tennessee doctor in November. Kelly Beavers is accused of defamation and libel, and false light for a post she made about Dr. Kaveer Nandigam of Nandigam Neurology in Murfreesboro. Her Yelp review, which remained on the website three weeks after she originally posted it, said, "This "Dr's" behavior today was totally unprofessional and unethical to put it mildly. I will be reporting him to the State of TN Medical Review Board and be filing a formal complaint. How this guy is in business is beyond me. Since when did they start allowing Doctors, to throw a complete temper tantrum in front of Patients and slam things when they get upset? He does not belong in the medical field at all." On November 27, the attorney for Nandigam Neurology filed a ,000 lawsuit against Beavers and her friend's son who posted a negative review on Google as well and has since been accused of conspiracy. Beavers said he wrote the review after he overheard her conversation. The lawsuit said the review "contained false, disparaging, and misleading statements." The lawsuit also suggested that the second defendant "was specifically recruited" by Beavers to post false and misleading statements. The plaintiff is also demanding Beavers to remove the post and for the court to issue an injunction to prohibit any further statements against Nandigam Neurology. As of this week, Nandigram Neurology only has Beavers' review and another post that gave the business five stars. Meanwhile, the company has 4.3 out 5 stars from the 21 reviews on Google. "Just in shock, I can't believe it," Beavers said. "They just don't want any negative reviews and they don't want people to talk about or give a bad review." Beavers said she has no regrets leaving the review on Yelp despite the legal action against her. She claimed she posted the review after what she called a disrespectful and shocking experience. After being referred to Nandigam Neurology, Beavers brought her 67-year-old father for dizziness and memory loss, which may have been early signs of dementia. There have been prior interactions with the staff but never with the doctor until the last visit. Beavers says the interaction seemed fine at first, but that said the doctor then threw a temper tantrum and slammed his clipboard when he realized she was recording the appointment on her cell phone, which is something she has done with other doctor visits. "Sometimes we all have things we forget, so that's why I record every doctor's visit. I want to make sure that I'm doing everything right," she explained. "He literally snapped and demanded my phone." Since Tennessee is a one-party consent state, she could record on her phone without the need for permission. Nevertheless, she claims she deleted the recording after he demanded her to. Later that day, an office employee called her to get her version of the story and deemed it was likely a miscommunication. The employee said phones were not allowed in the office, and the situation could have been mitigated if there was a prior notice to record. Beavers believed she should have been taken aside to address any concerns. Ken Paulson of the Free Speech Center, a nonpartisan educational institution that teaches how the First Amendment works in society, said there always needs to be a conscious effort to differentiate between stating an opinion or fact on platforms like Yelp. Words like unethical, dishonest or lying have the potential to damage a reputation or business if believed widely. "Don't state things you cannot back up. It's okay to say you didn't like this pizza or the anchovies were terrible because that's opinion, but you can't say they can't make this pizza without washing their hands. It's a difference in expressing an opinion and damaging a business or person," Paulson said. In reality, lawsuits like what Beavers is facing could be disputed in court and avoid the judicial process under the newly enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act otherwise known as an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation. The act hopes to prevent filing lawsuits as a form of intimidation and protect First Amendment rights, and has slowed down what was a common type of lawsuit in the past. "It allows you when you're sued to go to a judge and say, 'This is nonsense, they're just angry, I didn't cause any damage, will you dismiss this?'" Paulson explained. "They have to prove in the long run that you damaged them and spoke untruths." A judge is there to weed out cases that have no merit but if it is not dismissed, will still have to go through the judicial process. Speech Defense and Anti-SLAPP Lawyer Daniel Horwitz expressed his approval for the legislation when it was passed. He said an overwhelming majority of defamation and other speech-based lawsuits are not filed because a person has suffered an actual legal injury. Horwitz claims the purpose is to punish people for lawfully exercising their right to speak freely about a topic that the suing plaintiff wants to censor. “Tennessee’s new anti-SLAPP statute was specifically designed to punish abusive litigants who file baseless claims against people for exercising their First Amendment rights. The Yelp review is not even conceivably tortious, and the defendants should not give in to a bogus lawsuit like this one. Instead, they should fight back, get the plaintiff sanctioned, and make the plaintiff pay their attorney’s fees under the newly enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act," Horwitz said in a statement to NewsChannel 5.Beavers said she plans to a hire a lawyer and fight the lawsuit. Meanwhile, a request for comment for Nandigam Neurology has been left. 5817

NEW ORLEANS, La. – In the middle of Mardi Gras and just a few blocks off Bourbon Street in New Orleans, there’s an ink master leaving permanent marks on multiple generations. Jacci Gresham is known to many as America’s first black female tattoo artist. When we met Gresham, she was tattooing the jawline of one of her workers. “It’s an honor to get a panther from Jacci,” said the woman getting the tattoo. “Because she’s like the blackest panther of them all.” Gresham started tattooing in an era when women – especially black women – weren’t involved or even respected in the industry. “At that time women weren’t recognized as tattoo artists,” she said. “So, especially to see a black woman doing tattoos was kind of unusual – to see a woman doing tattoos was unusual.” Gresham gave her first tattoo in her home state of Michigan in 1972. After losing her job in the automotive industry, she moved to New Orleans and opened up what would become the city’s oldest tattoo shop – Aart Accent Tattoos and Body Piercing. Along the way, Gresham estimates that she’s inked thousands of people from all kinds of cultures – including a member of the Ku Klux Klan. “It was interesting to talk to somebody from a Klan’s person that would allow a black person to tattoo them,” she said. “And the reason why he allowed me to tattoo him – or so he said – was because I gave a good tattoo.” Gresham believes a good tattoo can help break down old racial barriers while also inspiring younger artists. “I see it every day here,” she said. “We do quite a cross section of people. I have black artists, white artists, Spanish artists. And people are looking for the art. They’re not looking at the who actually did the work.” Now in her 70s, Gresham is still perfecting her craft while adding art to human canvases with the hope her impact lasts longer than the tattoo ink that runs skin deep.“Stay on that grind,” she said. “If it’s in your heart, you can’t give it up.” 1969