濮阳东方看男科病评价好收费低(濮阳东方医院男科看阳痿评价很高) (今日更新中)

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's leaders are getting a raise.A state commission voted Friday to increase Governor Gavin Newsom's salary from 2,000 to around 0,000 in December.The Citizens Compensation Commission also agreed to give a 4% raise to legislators and other state elected officials, such as the lieutenant governor and treasurer.Chairman Tom Dalzell cited the health of the state's economy and California's budget surplus for the move."California remains high," he said of pay for state officials. "So is our cost of living."Newsom will not be the highest-paid governor, however. While America's most populous state currently has the highest-earning chief executive, the New York Legislature voted this year to pay Gov. Andrew Cuomo a salary of 5,000 in 2020 and 0,000 in 2021.But the governor will still earn far more than California's median income, which is around ,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.This will mark the seventh year in a row California's governor has gotten a raise and Newsom's pay will near a previous peak for the job of around 2,000.Rank-and-file members of the 120-seat Legislature earn around 0,000, still below a past peak of around 6,000. The lieutenant governor is paid around 1,000, the attorney general around 5,000 and the controller and treasurer around 1,000.Created in 1990 following a statewide vote, the commission is appointed by the governor and usually meets once a year to set the salaries as well as benefits for California's elected officers. The Legislature was previously responsible for setting the salaries of state elected officials. 1644

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. (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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

来源：资阳报