宜宾压一对双眼皮多少钱宜宾开个双眼皮恢复,宜宾用玻尿酸隆鼻大概多少钱,宜宾玻尿酸针,宜宾哪家拉双眼皮好,在宜宾去眼袋哪里效果好,宜宾有隆鼻医院吗,宜宾拉双眼皮手术

When you stay at a hotel, you wouldn't think twice about having things like smoke detectors or fire extinguishers. But what about an Airbnb? New findings out suggest many Airbnb venues in the United States may be falling short.Monica Shaffer and her husband designed her mother-in-law basement to help guests feel right at home when using Airbnb."They have a private bathroom with their own walk-in shower," Shaffer said.But most importantly, she designed it to keep them safe, if there were ever a fire."They can get out to this door if they need to," Shaffer said. "If it's an emergency fire in this room we also keep a fire extinguisher on hand in the room. It's right down here. And fire alarm as is to be expected. And there was a carbon monoxide monitor too over in that quarter. If there's ever any concern for that."When asked why Shaffer decided to undertake safety precautions, "Well I think it's just a standard expectation," Shaffer answered.Unfortunately all of the attention and care Shaffer takes, may not be as standard as you think at other Airbnb locations. New findings out from the Relevant Journal show only 57.5 percent of Airbnb venues have carbon monoxide alarms, 42.2 percent have fire extinguishers, and 36 percent have first aid kits.The results surprised Shaffer. Most Airbnbs are in private homes, and although some states have standards for rental properties, national fire safety requirements don't usually apply. Although Airbnb encourages hosts to install fire safety equipment, it doesn't require them to provide proof. Researchers hope this information will change that."You know it's having those safety precautions in place that make you feel like you're at home," Shaffer said. "And Airbnb is about staying in people's homes and feeling at home."Airbnb responded to the study with this statement:“At Airbnb, safety is our priority. All hosts must certify that they follow all local laws and regulations. We run home safety workshops with local fire and EMS services all over the world, making sure our hosts have access to the best information in order to keep their guests, their homes and themselves safe. Every listing on Airbnb clearly states the specific safety amenities it has, including smoke and CO detectors, fire extinguishers, and first aid kits, so guests can look first and then decide whether that home, tree-house, yurt, or igloo is the one they want to book or not. In addition, every home in Airbnb's Plus Collection [airbnb.com] must have a smoke and CO detector in order to even be included. The study itself says it has not undergone any ethical review, it used data from three years before Airbnb Plus even debuted, and it looks to be designed to help an incumbent industry who has its own fire safety issues that need to be addressed.“We believe more work needs to be done across the board throughout the travel and tourism industry. According to the US Fire Administration [usfa.fema.gov] there are an estimated 3,900 hotel and motel fires each year that cause 15 deaths, 150 injuries and million in property loss. Even though there have been a number of tragic high profile hotel CO poisoning incidents, only 14 states [ncsl.org] require CO alarms in hotels by statute. Sadly, only 41% [census.gov] of all homes in the US even reported having working CO detectors. Whether a home is listed on Airbnb or not, all homes and hotel rooms should have smoke and CO detectors, fire extinguishers and first aid kits. At Airbnb we give out free smoke and CO detectors [airbnb.com] to each and every host who wants one. We have been doing this for the last three years.“We will reach out to the authors of the study, as we would like to work with them to increase awareness of safety measures for all homeowners, again, whether they are Airbnb hosts or not -- and transparency is key, so we will continue to ensure our guests know exactly what safety features their Airbnb has before they book it." 4023

While balancing parenthood alone during a pandemic can challenging, adding eviction to the equation can be heartbreaking.“My heart dropped for the simple fact that I was homeless before with my four kids,” Mary Ratchford-Bass said after losing her job as an office cleaner.“Once the pandemic hit, they went to working from home and that left us with little to no work to do,” she said.Just a few days before being forced out of her apartment, Ratchford-Bass, who was born into a Baptist family, was saved by someone she never met, calling it almost a “religious experience.”“It really was,” she said. “Because when I got the eviction notice, all I could do was pray.”Helping answer those prayers and pay the rent was 13-year-old Jewish girl Rena Brittan, who became inspired to help others while studying child labor laws during a service project for her bat mitzvah.“She wanted to help people pay their rent in part because she wanted families and children to be safe,” said Rena’s mother, Dana Brittan.Dana says while her daughter is staying away from the spotlight and is no longer doing interviews, she still is helping others pay their bills.“Part of why that’s so important is because once a person is evicted from their home, it’s like having a criminal record,” she said.Rena started a GoFundMe page with the money going to the Resident Relief Foundation, a nonprofit that help people pay their rent.With a recent report by the American Apartment Owners Association showing 60% of landlords saying their tenants are unable to pay rent because of the coronavirus, Ratchford-Bass is thankful for Rena helping cover her housing cost during this crisis.“If I could give her a big hug, I would,” Ratchford-Bass said. “She just doesn’t know how much she’s helped my family and I’m sure other families, too.”So far, Rena’s GoFundMe page has raised more than ,000, an amount she hopes to increase as millions of Americans still face evictions during this pandemic. 1975

When he was diagnosed with two autoimmune diseases, Joel Hechler knew he’d be in for a battle. He didn’t realize maybe his toughest one would be with his insurance company.“I think they put the dollars ahead of a patient’s health,” Hechler said. “I don’t think they fully understand the impact the medicine will have on my long-term health and well-being."Hechler suffers from Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, diseases that attack the lining of his digestive tract. Autoimmune conditions like his can’t be cured but, with the right medication, the symptoms can be controlled.  Finding the right medicine can be hard for those suffering from autoimmune diseases. Even if there are scores of drugs on the market, some patients might only respond to one. In Joel’s case, his doctor thought he’d have a better chance trying a drug called Remicade.“I received a letter from my insurance company that denied the Remicade on the basis that I have to try a different drug before I can get to Remicade," Hechler said.Hechler's insurance company, Premera Blue Cross, wouldn’t approve the drug his doctor prescribed because they wanted him to try a cheaper one first.It’s part of a program that health insurers nationwide use called step therapy, requiring that patients try less-costly drugs before “stepping up” to more expensive ones — even if doctors believes the cheaper drug won’t work.Dr. Larry Adler is president of Huron Gastro in Ypsilanti, Michigan and says he spends virtually every day battling insurance companies over step therapy drugs.“They have to fail this medicine first before they get the new drug,” Adler said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”Adler says it's common for patients to get sicker while waiting for step therapy to run its course.In Hechler's case, it took six weeks of fighting with his insurer to convince them that the cheaper drug wouldn’t be effective. As he was waiting, he was getting worse.“It got to the point where I had to be admitted to the hospital,” Hechler said. "I was very, very sick.”Step therapies are used by insurers to try to control skyrocketing prescription medicine costs, says Glen Perry, Director of Pharmacy Contracting and Sales for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.“These drugs can cost up to 0,000 per year. These are not cheap medications,” Perry said.“It seems like you’re telling patients that, in many cases, your insurer knows what’s best for you, rather than your doctor,” Jones said.“We are trying to provide the most cost effective and safe medication use,” Perry said, adding that when a doctor and insurer disagree over a drug, they can usually resolve the case within a few days without putting a patient at serious risk.“A delay of one or two days I don’t think is really going to make that much of a difference for the medical outcome of the patient," he said.But for many patients, like Phyllis Toole, the delay is longer than a few days.Phyllis suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, a condition where her body attacks her joints. When her doctor wanted to put her on Orencia, her insurance company HAP said she needed to first try a less expensive drug, Humira.But Phyllis’ doctor was worried about possible side effects and thought Humira could be risky.After battling for months, Phyllis says the whole thing made her feel more like a number than a patient. With her doctor and insurer in a standoff, she was forced to rely on samples of the drug she got from her doctor. HAP never approved her prescription.“They’re playing doctor, is what it feels like,” Toole said. “They’re saying this is what you can have for the symptoms you have. It may make you sicker, but this is what you can have.”HAP issued the following statement to Scripps station WXYZ in Detroit: 3800

What we would have given to be a fly on the wall in the trailer with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Vin Diesel.Johnson revealed in a recent cover story with Rolling Stone that the meeting was part of the meltdown of their friendship, leaving fans all abuzz.The pair have famously starred on the "Fast & Furious" franchise together, but have since reportedly not seen eye to eye. 389

With Democrats set to take control of the House in January, speculation abounds about whether the new majority would impeach the President.Americans break against that idea, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. Half, 50%, say they don't feel that Trump ought to be impeached and removed from office, while 43% say he should be. Support for impeachment has dipped some since September, when 47% favored it, and is about the same as in a June poll (42% favored it then). Support for impeachment of Trump remains higher than it was for each of the last three presidents at any time it was asked. It's on par with President Richard Nixon, who 43% of Americans said should be impeached and removed from office in a March 1974 Harris poll.The shift on impeachment comes mostly from political independents. In September, they were evenly split on the question, with 48% behind impeachment and 47% opposed. Now, 36% favor impeachment and 55% are opposed.There's also been a meaningful shift on the question among younger adults (53% of those under age 45 backed impeachment in September, now that's down to 45%) and racial and ethnic minorities (66% favored it in September, 50% do now).Related: Full poll resultsTrump himself warned his supporters during the 2016 midterm campaign that Democrats would try to impeach him, although Democratic leaders like soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi have dismissed the idea.More recently, Trump has been worrying about the prospect, according to reporting by CNN's Jim Acosta, as a number of his former associates cooperate with the special counsel investigation into possible collusion by Trump's campaign with Russians interfering in the 2016 election.The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, told CNN's Jake Tapper that if allegations by Michael Cohen that Trump directed him to issue illegal payments to women alleging affairs to keep them quiet during the 2016 election were true, those would constitute "impeachable offenses." At the same time, Nadler made no suggestion Democrats would pursue impeachment against Trump.One reason Democrats might not impeach Trump even if he is ultimately implicated by special counsel Robert Mueller is that while they control the House, and so could potentially impeach him in that chamber with a simple majority, Republicans will still control of the US Senate. It would require the defection of 20 Republican senators to remove Trump from office if he were impeached by Democrats in the House.That defection among the President's partisans failed to happened when Republicans in the House impeached Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. There were nowhere near the 67 votes needed in the Senate to remove Clinton from office.Trump, however, is not nearly as popular now as Clinton was then. Clinton reached more than 70% approval when the House voted to impeach him in December of 1998, according to CNN/Gallup/USA Today polling.Former President Richard Nixon, who resigned rather than be impeached, had a much lower approval rating than Trump has now. He was under 30% approval when he resigned in August of 1974. Trump's approval rating has remained remarkably steady, in the high 30s and low 40s -- much less than Clinton, but much higher than Nixon.All of this remains academic since Democratic leaders have not expressed any interest in impeaching Trump.The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS December 6 through 9 among a random national sample of 1,015 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points, it is larger for subgroups. 3691