潮州人为什么会有白癜风(汕头看白癜风医生推荐中医) (今日更新中)

VIDEO: I asked President Trump to cite specific evidence as to why mail-in ballots are fraudulent. I told him I covered politics for 5 years in Colorado (an all mail-in ballot state) and never heard @SenCoryGardner complain once. #copolitics @DenverChannel @KOAA pic.twitter.com/AebXDaDf4f— Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) June 22, 2020 348

WASHINGTON (AP) — Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to gradually move the country to a government-funded health care system has further inflamed the debate over “Medicare for All,” likely ensuring the issue will play a significant role in this week’s Democratic presidential debate.The Massachusetts senator announced Friday that her administration would immediately build on existing laws, including the Affordable Care Act, to expand access to health care while taking up to three years to fully implement Medicare for All. That attempt to thread the political needle has roiled her more moderate rivals, who say she’s waffling, while worrying some on the left, who see Warren’s commitment to a single-payer system wavering.The divide could complicate plans by Democrats to turn health care into a winning issue in 2020. The party successfully took back control of the House last year by championing programs that ensure that people with preexisting medical conditions keep their insurance coverage while arguing that Republicans want to weaken such provisions. But the Medicare for All debate is more delicate as advocates including Warren grapple with concerns that a new government-run system won’t provide the same quality of coverage as private insurance — and would be prohibitively expensive.“The Medicare for All proposal has turned out to be a real deal-breaker in who gets the Democratic nomination,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University School of Public Health professor whose teaching responsibilities include courses on political strategy in health policy and public opinion polling. “This is not just another issue.”Warren’s transition plan indicates she’d use her first 100 days as president to expand existing public health insurance options. That is closer to what has been supported by former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana. Both Democratic presidential candidates have criticized Medicare for All for wiping out private insurance — something they say many Americans aren’t ready for.Warren insists she’s simply working to expand health insurance in the short term to people who don’t have it while remaining committed to the full plan in the long run.“My commitment to Medicare for All is all the way,” Warren said while campaigning in Iowa over the weekend.Still, the transition signified a step toward pragmatism and an acknowledgement that the government has ways to expand health insurance coverage before embracing a universal system — something that would be difficult for any president to get through Congress. Consider that current entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, were phased in over years, not all at once.“If she’s looked at it and decides the sensible thing to do in order to not cause too much disruption in employment situations and within the medical system is to gear up over three years, she's probably right,” said Cindy Wolf, a customer service and shipping manager who attended the California state Democratic Convention on Saturday in Long Beach.Still, the move may prove politically problematic for a candidate who has long decried others settling for consultant-driven campaigns seeking incremental changes at the expense of big ideas.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the original architect of Medicare for All and has made fighting for it the centerpiece of his 2020 White House bid. He tweeted following the release of Warren’s transition plan: “In my first week as president, we will introduce Medicare for All legislation.”Campaigning in Nevada on Monday, California Sen. Kamala Harris said, “I believe that government should not be in a position of taking away people's choice.”“Especially on one of the most intimate and personal decisions people can make,” Harris said, “which is about how to address their health care needs.”The criticism from others was far sharper. Top Biden adviser Kate Bedingfield dismissed Warren’s plan as “trying to muddy the waters” by offering “a full program of flips and twists.” Buttigieg spokeswoman Lis Smith said it was a “transparently political attempt to paper over a very serious policy problem.”It’s easy to see the issue spilling into Wednesday’s debate because Warren rode a steady summer climb in the polls to become one of the primary field’s front-runners — but no longer seems to be rising. Polls recently show her support stabilizing, though not dipping, as focus on her Medicare for All ideas intensifies.The last two debates featured Warren failing to answer direct questions on whether she would be forced to raise middle class taxes to pay for the universal health care system she envisions. That set up a plan released two-plus weeks ago in which Warren vowed to generate -plus trillion in new government revenue without increasing taxes on the middle class — but that’s been decried by critics who accuse Warren of underestimating how much Medicare for All would really cost.And, though Warren never promised to begin working toward Medicare for All on Day 1 of her administration, the release of the transition plan, which spelled out that the process will take years, has unsettled some.Una Lee Jost, a lawyer who was holding “Bernie” signs in Chinese and English at the California Democratic Convention, called any lengthy transition to Medicare for All “a serious concern.”“We should have implemented this decades ago,” she said.___Associated Press writers Kathleen Ronayne and Michael R. Blood in Long Beach, Calif., and Michelle Price in North Las Vegas, Nev., contributed to this report. 5566

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired — kill off the Affordable Care Act. That includes its key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans. The justices met a week after the election and remotely in the midst of a pandemic that has closed their majestic courtroom to hear the highest-profile case of the term so far. They took on the latest Republican challenge to the law known as “Obamacare,” with three appointees of President Donald Trump, an avowed foe of the health care law, among them.But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional.“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said.Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said.Tuesday’s arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask.“I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. 2495

VISTA, Calif. (KGTV) – A head-on collision at a Vista intersection left one driver dead and sent three others to the hospital, San Diego County sheriff’s officials said.The collision involving two vehicles happened just before 11 p.m. Thursday on West Vista Way at Copper Avenue.According to sheriff’s officials, a black Infiniti sedan was traveling westbound on West Vista Way when it collided head-on into a blue Chevrolet hatchback that was traveling eastbound on West Vista Way.The Chevrolet’s 51-year-old male driver died at the scene, while a passenger in the car was taken to the hospital with serious injuries.The Infiniti’s 22-year-old female driver was hospitalized with serious injuries, according to officials. A passenger in the Infiniti suffered minor injuries and was taken to the hospital for evaluation.The cause of the crash is under investigation, but officials believe alcohol was a factor in the collision. 935

WASHINGTON — The Senate intelligence committee has concluded the Kremlin launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential contest on behalf of Donald Trump and says the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the campaign posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. It says Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails that were hacked by Russian military intelligence officers.The report from the Republican-led panel lays out significant contacts between Trump associates and Russians, describing for instance a close professional relationship between Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes without equivocation as a Russian intelligence officer."The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign," according to the report released Tuesday.The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is “some evidence” that Kilimnik may have been connected to the Kremlin’s operation to hack and leak Democratic emails, though it does not describe that evidence. In addition, the report says that “two pieces of information” raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to those operations, but what follows next in the document is blacked out.Both men were charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, but neither was accused of any tie to the hacking.The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Democrat Hillary Clinton. That leaves its findings open to partisan interpretation. But the report says interference in the election is indisputable. 2053

来源：资阳报