山东痛风到晚上厉害(山东尿酸多少就会痛风) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have capped dialysis clinics' profits in an effort to improve patient care.Proposition 8 would have limited profits for dialysis clinics that provide vital treatment for people whose kidneys don't work properly.The measure was the most expensive initiative on the 2018 ballot in California, generating more than 0 million in campaign contributions. A health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, funded the million supporting campaign. Dialysis companies contributed more than 1 million to kill the initiative.The union argued Proposition 8 would stop the dialysis companies from cutting corners to make money and force them to invest more of their revenue into patient care. Supporters say the profit-hungry companies don't adequately clean clinics and overwork staff.Dialysis providers say the measure was actually a tactic to pressure the dialysis companies to let workers unionize and would have forced clinics to close. They say most California clinics provide high quality care.Dialysis companies' effort to kill the measure was the most expensive campaign on one side of a ballot initiative in the U.S. since at least 2002. Most of that money came from the two largest dialysis companies operating in California: Denver-based DaVita Inc. and Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care.The measure would have barred dialysis clinics from charging patients more than 115 percent of what providers spend on patient care and quality improvement. If clinics exceeded that limit, they would have to provide rebates or pay penalties.Although the measure didn't spell out exactly which expenses counted toward the limit, dialysis companies argued critical management expenses would be classified as profits and bankrupt clinics.RELATED CONTENT 1898

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) -- California's attorney general disclosed an ongoing probe into Facebook's privacy practices Wednesday, as it sued the company over its repeated refusal to turn over documents and answer questions.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said his probe has been going on for more than a year. He said he was disclosing it now because his office was making a public court filing to force the company to comply with subpoenas and requests for information."Facebook is not just continuing to drag its feet in response to the Attorney General's investigation, it is failing to comply," the lawsuit said.The lawsuit was filed in state Superior Court in San Francisco.The California probe, one of many legal and regulatory inquiries into Facebook, began as a response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and grew into an investigation into whether Facebook misrepresented its privacy practices, deceived users and broke California law.Cambridge Analytica, a data mining firm, gathered details on as many as 87 million Facebook users without their permission. The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook billion this summer for privacy violations in an investigation that also grew out of that scandal. California officials say questions have been raised about what Facebook knew and why it didn't prevent third parties such as Cambridge Analytica from misusing user data.The court filing said Facebook hasn't given answers on 19 of the attorney general's questions and hasn't given any new documents in response to six document requests. The filing also said Facebook has refused to search the emails of top executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, as the state requested.Becerra's office said it requested additional information after Facebook took a year to respond to an initial subpoena.Investigators sought communications among executives on developers' access to user data, the relationship between ad spending and access to data and the introduction of new privacy features and privacy-related news stories. Officials also sought information on the effects of privacy settings on third-party access to data and Facebook's enforcement of policies.Facebook, which has its headquarters in Menlo Park, California, didn't respond to requests for comment.California hadn't joined a separate probe involving attorneys general from New York and other states. The New York probe is looking into Facebook's dominance and any resulting anticompetitive conduct. California is also a holdout in a separate probe into Google's market dominance.The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have also gone after Facebook on privacy. The Massachusetts attorney general's office is set to argue in a state court Thursday why Facebook should be compelled to stop resisting and turn over documents for its investigation.Facebook's various legal troubles have yet to make a significant financial dent on the company. Even the FTC's billion fine, the largest ever for a tech company, came to just under one-tenth of Facebook's revenue last year. The penalty was criticized by consumer advocates and a number of public officials as being too lenient.___AP Technology Writers Mae Anderson and Frank Bajak contributed to this report. 3248

Richard Ojeda, the former congressional candidate who lost his 2018 bid as a Democrat in southern West Virginia, is running for president in 2020."I'm Richard Ojeda and I'm running for the President of the United States of America," he announced Monday at the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC.Prior to his announcement, Ojeda filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for President and teased the run in an email to supporters on Sunday night.Ojeda's entry to the race is unexpected and highlights just how massive the Democratic field for President will be in 2020. Democratic operatives believe big-name candidates will announce presidential bids in early 2019, but fully expect candidates like Ojeda and others to explore a run starting in late 2018.Ojeda's unique candidacy -- he is a former Army paratrooper who ran on the Democratic ticket as a populist and Trump critic in Republican West Virginia -- markedly over-performed how Hillary Clinton did in the state in 2016. Trump won the state's 3rd Congressional District by 49 percentage points in 2016. Ojeda closed that gap, losing by 12 percentage points earlier this month.But getting through a Democratic primary could be difficult: Ojeda voted for Trump in 2016, something that may be beyond the pale for some Democrats.Ojeda has soured on Trump, though, and Trump called him "a total whacko" at campaign events in 2018.At his announcement on Monday, Ojeda said, "I think I relate to the people far more than what the President can ever relate to these people. The very people he comes down to West Virginia and stands in front of could never afford one single round of golf in some of his fancy country clubs. That's not where I stand."He continued, "I stand with the working-class citizens. I am a Democrat because I believe in what the Democratic Party is supposed to be: taking care of our working-class citizens."Although Ojeda handily lost to Republican Carol Miller, he told his supporters in an email on Sunday that his run taught him people across the country were feeling the same pain that he has seen in Appalachia."Everyday, hundreds of letters poured in from around the country where you shared your stories with me. You wrote about not being able to afford college, losing loved ones to drug addiction and struggling day-to-day to make ends meet," he writes. "This is an American problem and it has to change."Ojeda has long argued that the Democratic Party has lost its roots and become a party controlled by special interests and wealthy donors, and his presidential campaign will likely hinge on that message.He closes the email by inviting supporters to join him for a noon ET announcement.Ojeda got ahead of the announcement, however, by filing a presidential committee with the FEC and sitting down for an interview with The Intercept, where he announced his intention to run."We're going to have quite a few lifetime politicians that are going to throw their hat in the ring, but I guarantee you there's going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are people like myself that is, a working-class person that basically can relate to the people on the ground, the people that are actually struggling," he told The Intercept. "I'm not trying to throw stones at people that are rich, but once again, we will have a field that will be full of millionaires and I'm sure a few billionaires." 3406

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The California Supreme Court overturned the 2005 death sentence for Scott Peterson in the slaying of his pregnant wife.The court says prosecutors may try again for the same sentence if they wish in the high-profile case. It upheld Peterson's 2004 conviction of murdering his wife Laci Peterson.Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, and investigators said that on Christmas Eve in 2002, Scott Peterson dumped the bodies from his fishing boat into San Francisco Bay.The court on Monday said the trial judge made several significant errors in jury selection that undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.The court ruled potential jurors for the death penalty phase were improperly dismissed after saying they disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it."The trial judge made a mistake by kicking those people off the jury, so the only people that sat on the jury were in the death penalty camp," said criminal defense attorney Gretchen von Helms.Prosecutors will now decide whether to retry the sentencing phase.While the sentence was overturned, the court affirmed the murder convictions. "The sentencing was a positive step. The other decision (convictions affirmed) was about what we expected. Now we go to the habeas appeal," said Lee Peterson, Peterson's father.The court will examine the case again when it decides a separate habeas corpus challenge, based on evidence. not presented at the original trial. Peterson's father declined to talk about the arguments in the appeal, but says he's expecting a development within the next four months.Peterson's family issued this full statement in response to the court's decision:Our family is sincerely grateful that the California Supreme Court recognized the injustice of Scott’s death penalty. For a long and difficult 18 years, we have believed unwaveringly in Scott’s innocence, so today’s decision by the court is a big step toward justice for Laci, Conner and Scott.Now our family will do two things: First, we wait for Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager to decide whether to pursue a new penalty phase trial. If the DA elects to do so, a new jury would be seated, and they would hear all the evidence. They would then decide only Scott’s sentence: life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. While we hope for the opportunity to present the new evidence to a jury, it is not likely that this penalty phase trial will happen. The case against Scott has weakened to the point where no jury would ever sentence him to death again and the District Attorney is aware of these facts.Second, we wait for the court to address the new forensic and eyewitness evidence we have submitted that shows Laci was alive the morning of December 24th and demonstrates Scott’s innocence. When the court reviews this in the coming months, we are confident they will grant Scott a new guilt phase trial.Our family has been deeply moved by the outpouring of support not only from family and friends but also from the hundreds of people from all walks of life who have shared their faith in Scott’s innocence. For more information on the case, please visit our website at ScottPetersonAppeal.org. 3275

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's increasingly deadly and destructive wildfires have become so unpredictable that government officials should consider banning home construction in vulnerable areas, the state's top firefighter says.Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Director Ken Pimlott will leave his job Friday after 30 years with the agency. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said government and citizens must act differently to protect lives and property from fires that now routinely threaten large populations.That may mean rethinking subdivisions in thickly forested mountainous areas or homes along Southern California canyons lined with tinder-dry chaparral. Los Angeles County supervisors on Tuesday were considering whether to allow a 19,000-home development in fire-prone mountains amid heavy criticism of the location's high fire danger.California residents should also train themselves to respond more quickly to warnings and make preparations to shelter in place if they can't outrun the flames, Pimlott said.Communities in fire zones need to harden key buildings with fireproof construction similar to the way cities prepare for earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and should prepare commercial or public buildings to withstand fires with the expectation hundreds may shelter there as they did in makeshift fashion when flames last month largely destroyed the Sierra Nevada foothills city of Paradise in Northern California.California already has the nation's most robust building requirement programs for new homes in fire-prone areas, but recent fire seasons underscore more is needed. Officials must consider prohibiting construction in particularly vulnerable areas, said Pimlott, who has led the agency through the last eight years under termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown.He said it's uncertain if those decisions should be made by local land managers or at the state level as legislative leaders have suggested. But Pimlott said "we owe it" to homeowners, firefighters and communities "so that they don't have to keep going through what we're going through.""We've got to continue to raise the bar on what we're doing and local land-use planning decisions have to be part of that discussion," he said.California's population has doubled since 1970 to nearly 40 million, pushing urban sprawl into mountain subdivisions, areas home to fast-burning grasslands and along scenic canyons and ridgetops that are susceptible to fires. After a crippling drought, the last two years have seen the worst fires in state history. November's fire in the northern California town of Paradise was the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century, killing at least 85 people and destroying nearly 14,000 homes.A year earlier, a fire that ripped through the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Rosa killed 22 people and destroyed more than 5,000 homes and other structures.Every year since at least 2013, firefighters did not anticipate California's wildfires could get worse, Pimlott said. But each year the fires have increased in intensity — driven by dry fuels, an estimated 129 million drought- and bark beetle-killed trees, and climate change.In response, the state is doing more planned burning to eliminate brush and dead trees that serve as fuels for wildfires. The state will also add seven large firefighting aircraft, replace a dozen aging helicopters, provide firefighter counseling and ensure that firefighters have enough time off for medical checkups to help them manage the mental and physical stress from a fire season that now never ends.He said California leads the nation in clearing away dead trees and thinning forested areas that are crowded with trees that can fuel fires, contrary to criticism by President Donald Trump who has blamed forest mismanagement for the fires."No other state, or even the federal government, are putting the amount of investment into this space as California," Pimlott said.The department's philosophy for many years has been to stamp out fires quickly to protect people and property. Prescribed burns were previously used sparingly out of concern they could get out of control, but he said the department is making "a sea change" by recognizing that starting fires under optimum conditions is a good way to reduce dangerous fuels.Recent fires that have burned into cities have made clear that those protections need to be centered around vulnerable communities, he said. Paradise, for example, was built on a ridge atop steep canyons that helped channel the wind-driven fire, while wildfires have repeated blown into Northern and Southern California subdivisions from neighboring wildlands thick with tinder-dry fuel.Pimlott rose through the ranks from seasonal firefighter to deputy director of fire protection before his appointment as chief of the agency. In that role he doubles as the state's chief forester and oversees a department that includes nearly 8,000 firefighters, forest managers and support staff.He said he has seen fire conditions worsen each passing year during his three decades with the agency, taking its toll on residents and firefighters alike."Folks can say what they want to say, but firefighters are living climate change. It's staring them in the face every day," he said.To adapt, he advocates wildfire warning systems that not only use new technology like automated phone calling systems, but maybe restoring civil defense-style emergency sirens in some areas. City planners must prepare communities "unlike we ever have before" with easy evacuation routes and new evacuation centers.And he said Californians must treat "red flag" extreme fire danger warnings the way Midwesterners treat tornado warnings — as imminent threats."The reality of it is, California has a fire-prone climate and it will continue to burn," he said. "Fire is a way of life in California and we have to learn how to live with it, we have to learn how to have more resilient communities." 5973

来源：资阳报