濮阳东方看妇科病技术比较专业(濮阳东方妇科医院电话多少) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO (AP) — California on Thursday temporarily banned insurance companies from dropping customers in areas affected by more than a dozen recent blazes, invoking a new law for the first time as homeowners in the wildfire-plagued state struggle to find coverage while carriers seek to shed risk.The order from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will last for one year, and it only covers people who live inside or next to the perimeter of 16 different wildfires that burned across the state in October. The Department of Insurance estimates the moratorium will affect 800,000 policies covering millions of people in portions of Los Angeles and Riverside counties in Southern California and Sonoma County in the northern part of the state.The move comes as regulators are aggressively trying to assist homeowners in wildfire-prone areas who say they are being pushed out of the commercial insurance market as climate change makes fires larger and more frequent.RELATED: Cal Fire: Acres burned across the state is much lower in 2019 than 2018Seven of the 10 most destructive wildfires in California history have happened in the last five years — including 2018′s Camp Fire, which destroyed roughly 19,000 buildings and killed 85 people in and around the Northern California town of Paradise. That blaze alone generated more than billion in insurance claims, according to the Department of Insurance.Since 2015, state officials say insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.One of those homeowners is Sean Coffey, who said he and his wife have struggled to maintain fire insurance on their home in Oakland.“The pattern repeated itself almost every year since we bought our house. We would have (coverage) for 10 months. In the fall, we would get a notice we are being dropped,” he said.RELATED: Study: Alien grasses are making more frequent US wildfiresCoffey now buys fire insurance from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to sell policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own. He must purchase a second policy to cover risks other than fire.FAIR Plan policies in wildfire-prone areas have grown an average of 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance. Last month, Lara ordered the FAIR Plan to begin selling comprehensive policies next year that cover more than just fire damage. FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan called that order “a misguided approach,” saying it will make all of the plans more expensive.Lara has the authority to order the moratorium under a bill he authored while in the state Senate last year that was signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown. The law took effect in January, and this is the first time regulators have used it.In addition to ordering the moratorium, Lara called on insurance companies to voluntarily stop dropping customers solely because of wildfire risk.RELATED: Bigger, longer blackouts could lie ahead in California“I believe everyone in the state deserves this same breathing room,” Lara said.A spokeswoman for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.While state officials rush to assist homeowners, a new report from California Auditor Elaine Howle said the state did not do enough to protect non-English speaking, elderly and other vulnerable residents during three of the state’s most devastating fires in recent years.The audit covered Butte County, site of 2018′s Camp fire, plus the 2017 Thomas Fire that burned more than 281,000 acres in Ventura County and 2017 fires in Sonoma County that killed 24 people. The audit found none of the three counties had assessed its residents to determine who might need extra help and whether resources were available to help such people, such as transportation, during a natural disaster.The audit also scolds the state oversight agency, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, for failing to assist counties in developing such plans and reviewing any plans in place.Howle says it was impossible to determine whether lives could have been saved “if the counties had planned differently or more fully implemented the best practices”her office recommends in the report.” But she noted that “inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.” 4561

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The first data from an experiment in a California city where needy people get 0 a month from the government shows they spend most of it on things such as food, clothing and utility bills.The 18-month, privately funded program started in February and involves 125 people in Stockton. It is one of the few experiments testing the concept of “universal basic income,” an old idea getting new attention from Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination.Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has committed to publicly releasing data throughout the experiment to win over skeptics and, he hopes, convince state lawmakers to implement the program statewide.“In this country we have an issue with associating people who are struggling economically and people of color with vices like drug use, alcohol use, gambling,” he said. “I thought it was important to illustrate folks aren’t using this money for things like that. They are using it for literal necessities.”But critics say the experiment likely won’t provide useful information from a social science perspective given its limited size and duration.Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, said people aren’t likely to change their behavior if they know the money they are getting will stop after a year and a half. That’s one reason why he says the experiment is “really more about story telling than it is about social science.”Plus, he said previous studies have shown people don’t spend the money on frivolous things.“What you get out of a program like this is some fairly compelling anecdotes from people,” he said. “That makes for good public relations if you are trying to drum up interest in a basic income program, but it doesn’t really tell you much about what a basic income program would do if implemented on a long-term and large-scale basis.”The researchers overseeing the program, Stacia Martin-West at the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker at the University of Pennsylvania, said their goal is not to see if people change their behavior, but to measure how the money impacts their physical and mental health. That data will be released later.People in the program get 0 each month on a debit card, which helps researchers track their spending. But 40% of the money has been withdrawn as cash, making it harder for researchers to know how it was used. They fill in the gaps by asking people how they spent it.Since February, when the program began, people receiving the money have on average spent nearly 40% of it on food. About 24% went to sales and merchandise, which include places like Walmart and discount dollar stores that also sell groceries. Just over 11% went to utility bills, while more than 9% went to auto repairs and fuel.The rest of the money went to services, medical expenses, insurance, self-care and recreation, transportation, education and donations.Of the participants, 43% are working full or part time while 2% are unemployed and not looking for work. Another 8% are retired, while 20% are disabled and 10% stay home to care for children or an aging parent.“People are using the money in ways that give them dignity or that gives their kids dignity,” Castro-Baker said, noting participants have reported spending the money to send their children to prom, pay for dental work and buy birthday cakes.Zhona Everett, 48, and her husband are among the recipients. When the experiment started she was unemployed and her husband was making 0 a day as a truck driver. They were always late paying their bills, and the pressure caused problems with their marriage.Once she got the money, Everett set it up to automatically pay bills for her electricity, car insurance and TV. She’s also paid off her wedding ring, donates a month to her church and still has some left over for an occasional date night with her husband.She said she and her husband now both have jobs working at the Tesla plant in Fremont.“I think people should have more of an open mind about what the program is about and shouldn’t be so critical about it,” she said. 4140

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — An attorney and immigrant rights activist is the first person living in the U.S. illegally to be named to a statewide appointment in the nation's most populous state, California's Senate leader announced Wednesday.The Senate Rules Committee appointed Lizbeth Mateo to be an adviser on college access and financial aid. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon framed the decision as a rebuke of Republican President Donald Trump's immigration policies.As a member of the Student Opportunity and Access Program Project Grant Advisory Committee, Mateo will advise the California Student Aid Commission to help low-income and marginalized people attend college. The position is not paid.The Senate Rules committee, which oversees such appointments, does not have a record of ever before confirming a person living in the country illegally to a statewide position, according to de Leon's office.Matteo, 33, was born in Mexico and moved to California with her parents at age 14. She was the first person in her family to earn a college degree."I hope to be able to draw from my own experiences as an undocumented, first generation college graduate," she said in a statement. "I have no doubt that California can do more for all underrepresented students, especially in regions with low college participation rates, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to help in any way I can."De Leon announced Mateo's appointment the day after Trump visited California to view prototypes of his proposed border wall and a week after the U.S. Justice Department sued the state over policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Democrats who run California government, including de Leon, vehemently oppose the wall and Trump's conservative stance on immigration.Matteo's appointment comes as the U.S. Congress is struggling to reach an agreement about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants temporary protected status to people living in the country illegally who came to the U.S. as children. The program's future is uncertain after Trump attempted to cancel it last year and tasked Congress with reauthorizing it.Although she isn't a DACA recipient herself, Mateo has been a vocal advocate of the program.Assemblyman Travis Allen, a Republican from Huntington Beach, criticized the appointment."This is an insult to every California citizen and legal resident," he said in a statement. "The California Democratic Party now prioritizes illegal immigrants over California citizens."But De Leon said Mateo embodies California values."Ms. Mateo is a courageous, determined and intelligent young woman who at great personal risk has dedicated herself to fight for those seeking their rightful place in this country," he said in a statement. 2806

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are trying again to tamp down rising housing costs by expanding rent control and stopping rental price gouging, warning a failure to act this year could result in another costly ballot measure in 2020."Our Legislature has failed to act to address the plight of struggling tenants," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said. "That has to change in 2019."California lacks enough homes to shelter its nearly 40 million people, a situation that drives up the costs of homes and rental units. The federal government considers someone "rent burdened" if they spend more than a third of their income on rent. More than half of California renters meet that threshold.At the center of the debate is a 1995 law that bans rent control on apartments constructed after that year and on single-family homes and condominiums.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Rent increases sharply in San Diego, new report showsDemocratic Assemblyman Richard Bloom wants to change the law to allow rent control on apartments built more than 10 years ago as well as single family homes, with an exception for small landlords. He said those ideas are a starting point.His proposal comes after he tried unsuccessfully to repeal the law last year, prompting tenants to take the question to the ballot. Advocates on both sides spent a combined 0 million, with the bulk coming from real estate agents in opposition.Opponents argued rent control would stifle the building of more homes. Voters ultimately rejected the ballot measure and upheld the law."It failed, but it did not end the crisis," Bloom said.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Prevalence of fake home rental scamsAssembly Democrats argue that renters need protections now, because it will take years for the state's housing supply to increase significantly."We have got to build homes and protect tenants," Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks said.Bloom said he hopes to begin conversations with groups representing real estate agents and apartment owners to avoid another ballot fight.Sid Lakireddy, president of the California Rental Housing Association, said rent control policies do not create more affordable housing. He said his group, which represents rental housing owners, is open to discussing "real solutions.""The California Rental Housing Association supports smart and effective policies that will actually make a difference by rapidly increasing our affordable housing supply," he said in a statement.The California Apartment Association and California Realtors Association did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.A Chiu bill would ban rent gouging, relying on consumer protection laws targeting price gouging following natural disasters or other emergencies.It would set a threshold, likely somewhere between 6 and 10 percent, above the consumer price index and say rent increases can't top that percentage. Chiu argued the cap would be high enough that landlords could still take in profits.Oregon recently passed a similar law.Two other bills would create a rental registry to help the state gather data on rent increases and prevent landlords from evicting people if they can't prove a cause.Several renters joined the lawmakers to talk about their own experiences with rent spikes.Stasha Powell of Redwood City brought a letter from her landlord saying her rent would be increased from ,040 a month to ,500 a month in several increments.Newsom said he wants lawmakers to bring him a package of bills to address skyrocketing rents."We need new rules to stabilize neighborhoods and prevent evictions, without putting small landlords out of business," he said during his February State of the State. "Get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it." 3776

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians who lost their home insurance because of the threat of wildfires will be able to buy comprehensive policies next year through a state-mandated plan under an order issued Thursday by the state insurance commissioner.As wildfires threaten the state, insurance companies have been dropping many homeowners who live in fire-prone areas.Most of those people turn to the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to issue policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own.But FAIR Plan policies are limited, offering coverage for fires, explosions and limited smoke damage.California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara on Thursday ordered the plan to begin selling comprehensive policies by June 1 to cover lots of other problems, including theft, water damage, falling objects and liability.Lara also ordered the plan to double homeowners’ coverage limits to million by April 1.“You have people that now are being sent to the FAIR Plan and they have no other alternative. They won’t even get a call back from an insurance company to offer them a quote,” Lara said.The FAIR Plan has been around since 1968. It is not funded by tax dollars. Instead, all property and casualty insurance companies doing business in California must contribute to the plan.Known as the “insurer of last resort,” the plan has been growing in recent years as wildfires have become bigger and more frequent because of climate change. FAIR Plan policies in fire-prone areas have grown an average of nearly 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance.Likewise, since 2015 insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data comes from the state, and it does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.The FAIR Plan is governed by a board of directors appointed by various government officials. Lara says he has the authority to reject its operating plan. On Thursday, he ordered it to submit a new plan within 30 days that includes an option for comprehensive policies and other changes.California FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan did not respond to an email seeking comment.It’s unknown how much the plan’s new policies will cost. But rates for FAIR Plan policies are supposed to break even. The insurance industry must cover any losses. And if the plan generates a profit, that money is given back to insurance companies.FAIR Plan policies have been limited because, in general, the insurance industry doesn’t want state-mandated plans to compete with private insurance plans. But Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders — a nonprofit advocating for consumers in the insurance industry — says her group is “hearing from panicked consumers daily.”“If (insurance companies) don’t like it, the solution really is to start doing their job and selling insurance again,” she said. “This is an untenable situation.” 3083

来源：资阳报