濮阳东方妇科地址在哪濮阳东方男科口碑好服务好,濮阳东方医院妇科怎么走,濮阳东方医院看阳痿技术非常专业,濮阳东方妇科医院技术权威,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮手术贵吗,濮阳东方医院妇科可靠,濮阳东方医院治阳痿收费标准

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., and Rep. Ben McAdams, D-Utah, announced on Wednesday they have tested positive for coronavirus. Diaz-Balart was the first sitting member of Congress to announce a positive coronavirus test. McAdams' announcement came hours laterDiaz-Balart and McAdams participated in votes on Friday, including one to extend sick leave and unemployment benefits to some American workers amid the spread of the virus. Diaz-Balart remains in D.C. under a self-quarantine, and is not planning on returning to Florida during his quarantine. "I want everyone to know that I am feeling much better," Diaz-Balart said. "However, it is important that everyone take this extremely seriously and follow CDC guidelines in order to avoid getting sick and mitigate the spread of this virus. We must continue to work together to emerge stronger as a country during these trying times." Meanwhile, McAdams is holed up in his Utah home. "On Saturday evening, after returning from Washington, D.C., I developed mild cold-like symptoms," McAdams said. "In consultation with my doctor on Sunday, I immediately isolated myself in my home. I have been conducting all meetings by telephone. My symptoms got worse and I developed a fever, a dry cough and labored breathing and I remained self-quarantined. "On Tuesday, my doctor instructed me to get tested for COVID-19 and following his referral, I went to the local testing clinic for the test. Today, I learned that I tested positive. I am still working for Utah's and pursuing efforts to get Utah's the resources they need as I continue doing my job from home until I know it is safe to end my self-quarantine." 1670

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has authorized the diverting of .6 billion in military construction funds for 11 wall projects on the southern border with Mexico, according to defense officials and a letter from Esper to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has been obtained by CNN.In his letter, Esper told Congress he has "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated total cost of .6 billion, are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency."The letter does not include the word "wall," as is typical in Defense Department announcements of this kind, but details how the funds will be used for new fencing projects at various border locations.The announcement fulfills a promise made by President Donald Trump in February to tap military construction funds to build his border wall. The move was slammed by Congress when it was first announced and only recently completed a Pentagon legal review.On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the decision "a slap in the face" to service members."This decision will harm already planned, important projects intended to support our service members at military installations in New York, across the United States, and around the world," Schumer wrote in a statement. "It is a slap in the face to the members of the Armed Forces who serve our country that President Trump is willing to cannibalize already allocated military funding to boost his own ego and for a wall he promised Mexico would pay to build."Schumer said that the lost funding would delay critical construction projects at military installations in New York, such as the US Military Academy at West Point.Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also condemned the move."President Trump's immigration efforts have failed since day one. Today, he made it clear he is willing to take funds from our troops and disaster victims and divert them to try to protect his political right flank. And ultimately, that could put Americans at risk," he said in a statement."This isn't just an attempt to shift funding, it's a bid to shift power away from Congress to the president. Clearly, this administration is trying to circumvent Congressional authority and this ill-advised attempt should be legally challenged and struck down by the courts." Reed added.The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that "it would seek a court order blocking use of the funds as part of its lawsuit challenging the president's abuse of emergency powers to secure funds for a wall Congress denied."Military construction projects put on holdDefense Department officials say 127 military construction projects are being put on hold in order to use the .6 billion to fund building 175 miles of southern border wall.Construction is expected to begin in about 135 days in areas where the federal government already owns the land along the border, including the Department of Defense's Barry M. Goldwater test range in Arizona, according to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller Elaine McCusker.McCusker said projects on private land could go past 2020 due to issues involved with land acquisition.According to chief Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman, half the money is coming from deferred projects overseas, and the other half were planned for projects in the US.The money originally intended for overseas projects will be tapped first.Though it was not immediately clear which military construction projects would be put on hold, the move could jeopardize the construction of command and control, drone and cyber projects as well as training facilities in the US and overseas.Which projects will be impacted?Defense officials said Tuesday that members of Congress whose states or districts will be impacted by the decision are being informed about the list of projects and once that process is completed the public will be told. US allies are also being informed about the impact to overseas facilities.Hoffman called the impacted projects "important" and said the Defense Department is working to get Congress to appropriate additional money to back fill the funds which are being re-directed to the border as well as attempting to get allies to pick up the tab for the US construction projects overseas.Democrat appropriators 4417

Seven people were arrested after the famous "Bean" sculpture in Chicago's Millennium Park was vandalized.The stainless steel structure, officially known as 167

SALT LAKE CITY — When a bill to require a woman seeking an abortion in Utah to have an ultrasound passed the State Senate, with every single woman lawmaker in the chamber 183

Public versus private. Government versus private sector. Big bureaucracy versus big business. Delivering healthcare to Americans is once again a central question in this year's presidential election, and the plans proposed by two of the top Democrats in the 2020 field have very little in common. For Elizabeth Warren, she is proposing an entirely public plan with no role for private insurance. At the June presidential debate, Warren agreed that she would eliminate private insurance if she has her way. “Look at the business model of an insurance company,” Warren said. “It's to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care"But a change from private to public would be a dramatic change for most Americans. Nearly 66 percent of Americans used private insurance in 2017, according to U.S. Census figures. Also, a number of Americans are employed by insurance companies. According to the Insurance Information Institute, more than 500,000 Americans are employed in the insurance industry. These facts are not lost on Biden, who advocated at Thursday's debate to maintain the private insurance system."I think the Obamacare worked," Biden said at Thursday's debate. "I think the way we add to it, replace everything that has been cut, add a public option, guarantee that everyone will be able to have affordable insurance, number one."Warren claimed during Thursday's debate that a Medicare-for-All system would lower overall costs."And the answer is on Medicare for All, costs are going to go up for wealthier individuals and costs are going to go up for giant corporations," Warren said. "But for hard-working families across this country, costs are going to go down and that's how it should work under Medicare for All in our health care system."The Congressional Budget Office released a report in May on the total cost of moving to a government-run healthcare system. The report says that nearly half of healthcare expenses in the U.S. come from the private sector, with the rest being funded through federal, state and local governments. Overall, Americans spend .5 trillion in healthcare per year, the CBO says. But the CBO could not put an estimate on exactly how much the average person would spend with a Medicare-for-All system. The report says a number of factors such as whether state governments will pay into the system, and whether citizens can opt out of public insurance all options would affect costs. The CBO states that the federal government has lower administrative costs than private insurance. The cost to administer all of Medicare was 6 percent, compared to 12 percent for private insurers in 2017, the CBO says. The CBO added that administrative costs could decrease even further as a Medicare-for-All system would have fewer eligibility exclusions. Although both Biden and Warren still lack key details for their plans, Biden has stated his goal is to have 97 percent of Americans insured. Warren claims that nearly 100 percent is possible with her plan. As of 2017, 91 percent of Americans were insured. The number of uninsured in 2010, at the time of Obamacare's passage, was nearly double, according to the Census. Even without changes to law, healthcare costs will likely rise in the U.S. Government estimates peg healthcare spending per year at trillion by 2027. The rate that healthcare expenses will rise will outpace overall GDP by .8 percent per year, according to government figures. 3509