濮阳东方线上预约(濮阳东方妇科医院做人流手术很好) (今日更新中)

Roughly 27 million Americans are claiming some form of unemployment according to the Department of Labor as of late August, and that means millions are without employer-provided health insurance benefits.An estimated 12 million people in this country have lost their health insurance during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on research from the Economic Policy Institute. The group looked at net employment levels between February and August 2020, and job churn levels to estimate losses of health insurance coverage.They say roughly 6.2 million workers right now have lost health insurance that they previously got through their employer. The number was closer to 9 million initially in March and April, but estimates show roughly 2.9 million workers have gotten jobs between April and July.When you consider spouses and family members covered by a person’s employer-provided health insurance benefit, the number of Americans without health insurance during the pandemic is estimated around 12 million.The study also looked at opportunities to get coverage. They found Medicaid in certain states has been increasing enrollment, with five million additional people signing up between February and June 2020.For people who find themselves in this situation, there are some options. It basically comes down to three options: through COBRA, on the Affordable Care Act subsidized marketplace or by enrolling in a public plan like Medicaid or Medicare.If a spouse has employer-provided benefits, or a parent if you are 26 or younger, look into joining their plan within 30 days of losing benefits. 1596

Rural hospitals across the country are in a difficult spot right now. COVID-19 is hitting them harder than many metropolitan hospitals as they deal with issues of lower staffing.According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, about 20% of our nation’s population lives in rural areas, yet less than 9% of our nation’s physicians practice there.Add on the fact that according to CDC data, COVID is killing rural Americans at a rate 3.5 times higher than those living in metropolitan areas, and this issue is affecting staff and patient care.“I’m very worried about rural health care because rural health care is teetering on the brink right now,” said Dr. Kurt Papenfus, an ER doctor at Keefe Memorial Hospital in rural Cheyenne Wells, Colorado. “There’s a darkness in this illness that I can’t say I’ve said about any other illness.In late October, Dr. Papenfus contracted COVID-19 as he was traveling back from the Northeast to visit his daughter.“I was very cognizant and was wearing a mask at all times, social distancing, and washing my hands,” Papenfus said. “But I remember having this thought on the train that this is a super-spreader event.”When he got home, Papenfus got tested and was confirmed positive for COVID-19. The diagnosis put Keefe Memorial in a tailspin as he served as the only ER doctor in the small 25-bed hospital.“We are a trauma level four hospital so keeping that physician on staff 24/7 is what we are required to do,” said Stella Worley, Keefe Memorial’s CEO. “And it is getting to be more of a challenge to have hired physicians out here in rural [America].”Within minutes of learning of Dr. Papenfus’ COVID-positive diagnosis, Worley was on the phone with several different hospitals working to find a replacement. Within a few hours, they had settled on a former ER doctor who moved to another hospital in Texas a few months prior.After she agreed, Keefe Memorial paid the doctor to drive 10 hours from Texas to Colorado and fill in immediately as Papenfus recovered at home for the next two weeks.“Worst-case scenario is you would have to divert patients if there’s no one in the door to care,” said Worley.Populations in rural America tend to be older, poorer, and less insured than the nation at large, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.Since 2010, hospital closures in rural America have been growing as there have been 118, including 17 last year.The closures only exacerbate a growing lack of health care coverage in rural America, said Dr. Dan Derksen, a rural health care expert and family physician“Once a critical access hospital (25 beds with a 24/7 emergency department and at least 35 miles from another facility) closes, they almost never come back,” he said. 2756

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A peaceful protest in a sleepy suburb that’s home to the head of the California National Guard was among four demonstrations monitored by National Guard spy planes, according to the Los Angeles Times.The four planes took to the skies over cities in June to monitor protests following the killing of George Floyd. Three watched demonstrations in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. But the target of the fourth was the affluent Sacramento, California suburb of El Dorado Hills.Authorities have not explained how and why that neighborhood was chosen when other cities that had seen property destruction and street clashes — like Los Angeles, Oakland and Long Beach — were not. El Dorado Hills only saw peaceful protest during the summer unrest.The Times says that state records show that the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office requested the use of the plane, and the National Guard also sent a Lakota helicopter to the area.The Times reports that Maj. Gen. David S. Baldwin, the head of the California National Guard, lives in El Dorado Hills. Baldwin told the Times that the agency's decision to send a plane had "nothing to do" with the fact that he lived in the area.“The use of the RC-26 to meet the sheriff’s request for aerial support to provide situational awareness for law enforcement is concerning and should not have happened,” a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom said. “It was an operational decision made without the approval — let alone awareness — of the governor. After the incident, operational policies and protocols were reaffirmed and strengthened to ensure RC-26 aircraft are not used for these incidents again.” 1677

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit rent increases for some people over the next decade after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating a housing crisis in the nation's most populous state.Newsom signed the bill at an event in Oakland, an area where a recent report documented a 43% increase in homelessness over two years. Sudden rent increases are a contributing cause of the state's homeless problem, which has drawn national attention and the ire of Republican President Donald Trump."He wasn't wrong to highlight a vulnerability," Newsom said of Trump's criticisms to an audience of housing advocates in Oakland. "He's exploiting it. You're trying to solve it. That's the difference between you and the president of the United States."The law limits rent increases to 5% each year plus inflation until Jan. 1, 2030. It bans landlords from evicting people for no reason, meaning they could not kick people out so they can raise the rent for a new tenant. And while the law doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.RELATED: San Diego's top neighborhoods to get more rental space for the moneyCalifornia and Oregon are now the only places that cap rent increases statewide. Oregon capped rents at 7% plus inflation earlier this year.California's rent cap is noteworthy because of its scale. The state has 17 million renters, and more than half of them spend at least 30% of their income on rent, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.But California's new law has so many exceptions that it is estimated it will apply to 8 million of those 17 million renters, according to the office of Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who authored the bill Newsom signed.It would not apply to housing built within the last 15 years, a provision advocates hope will encourage developers to build more in a state that desperately needs it. It does not apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. It does not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.RELATED: Making It In San Diego: How housing got so expensiveAnd it does not cover the 2 million people in California who already have rent control, which is a more restrictive set of limitations for landlords. Most of the state's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco, have some form of rent control. But a state law passed in 1995 bans any new rent control policies since that year.Last year, voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative that would have expanded rent control statewide. For most places in California, landlords can raise rent at any time and or any reason if they give notice in advance.That's what happened to Sasha Graham in 2014. She said her rent went up 150%. She found the money to pay it on time and in full, but her landlord evicted her anyway without giving a reason. She was homeless for the next three years, staying with friends, then friends of friends and then strangers."Sometimes I lived with no lights, sometimes I lived with no water, depending on who I was living with (because) they were also struggling," she said. "Sometimes I just had to use my money to go to a hotel room so I could finish my homework."Graham, who is now board president for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, now lives in family housing at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is scheduled to graduate in May. She said the law, had it been in place, would have helped her.But Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, says the law adds an expensive eviction process that did not previously exist. He said that will encourage landlords to increase rents when they otherwise wouldn't."It adds unnecessary expenses to all rental home providers and makes it more difficult to sever a relationship with a problem tenant," he said. 4034

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

来源：资阳报