Apple has no intention of developing its own search engine, according to Eddy Cue, the company's Senior Vice President of Services. Cue disclosed Apple's position during a recent court filing in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) case against Google's dominance in the search industry. According to the court filing disclosed by Reuters, Cue outlined several reasons for Apple's decision. The first reason he mentioned was that developing a search engine would require significant financial and human resources, with costs running into billions of dollars and years of effort. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of search technology due to advancements in AI (artificial intelligence) adds economic uncertainty to such a venture, says Cue. Additionally, creating a competitive search engine would necessitate building a platform for targeted advertising, which is a primary revenue source for search engines. Cue noted that search advertising is not part of Apple's core business or expertise. While Apple engages in limited advertising through platforms like the App Store, search advertising operates on a different scale and would require substantial infrastructure and personnel. Apple's approach to search involves partnerships with established players. Through an agreement called the Information Services Agreement, Google pays Apple a share of revenue generated from search queries made by Apple users. In 2022, this agreement reportedly earned Apple approximately $20 billion. In the filing, Cue also stated that Google Search is the default search engine on Safari in the US, but users can select alternatives such as Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Ecosia. Apple also has revenue-sharing agreements with other search engines that are listed as options on its platforms. The DOJ's case against Google includes scrutiny of its agreement with Apple, which some believe could lead Apple to create its own search engine or enter the search advertising market. Cue dismissed this notion, stating that such assumptions are incorrect. Apple has no intention of developing its own search engine, according to Eddy Cue, the company's Senior Vice President of Services. Cue disclosed Apple's position during a recent court filing in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) case against Google's dominance in the search industry. According to the court filing disclosed by Reuters, Cue outlined several reasons for Apple's decision. The first reason he mentioned was that developing a search engine would require significant financial and human resources, with costs running into billions of dollars and years of effort. Furthermore, the rapid evolution of search technology due to advancements in AI (artificial intelligence) adds economic uncertainty to such a venture, says Cue. Additionally, creating a competitive search engine would necessitate building a platform for targeted advertising, which is a primary revenue source for search engines. Cue noted that search advertising is not part of Apple's core business or expertise. While Apple engages in limited advertising through platforms like the App Store, search advertising operates on a different scale and would require substantial infrastructure and personnel. Apple's approach to search involves partnerships with established players. Through an agreement called the Information Services Agreement, Google pays Apple a share of revenue generated from search queries made by Apple users. In 2022, this agreement reportedly earned Apple approximately $20 billion. In the filing, Cue also stated that Google Search is the default search engine on Safari in the US, but users can select alternatives such as Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Ecosia. Apple also has revenue-sharing agreements with other search engines that are listed as options on its platforms. The DOJ's case against Google includes scrutiny of its agreement with Apple, which some believe could lead Apple to create its own search engine or enter the search advertising market. Cue dismissed this notion, stating that such assumptions are incorrect.I Have One Of 456 Limited Edition Teal ‘Squid Game’ Xbox Controllers
John says: “I agree with you totally concerning noisy fireworks, there is no need. But fireworks with a bang are over in a second. The spectacular light-show fireworks burn for ten, 20, 30 times longer and if thrown around on the ground (as bangers are) have more potential for property damage.” I agree with John on his point about the potential for damage and he is right that fireworks continue to burn and remain hot far longer than the noise they create, which is another worry. But even though the individual bangs last just seconds, most fireworks contain many bangs in quick succession, and a formal display lasts at least 20 minutes. Urban areas experience lots over several nights and weekends, so the noise aspect is a real issue. Neither problem is worse than the other, it’s rather a question of what is workable for the majority to keep enjoying fireworks with the least harm. John added: “Many pet owners rush to hold and comfort their pets which only intensifies the feeling of a threat. Far better to throw them a small treat with smile that says: ‘There is nothing wrong, you even get a treat.’ The same goes for thunder; don’t show your own fear.” (Image: Dynamicfireworks.co.uk) Having looked after dogs of all sizes and breeds for more than ten years, I can say with some authority that some are not bothered by fireworks at all, others come to you for a cuddle of reassurance, and others are absolutely bone-shakingly petrified. It has nothing to do with my own fear on display because I am not fearful at all. His suggestion of offering a treat will not work on a dog that is terrified because they are in fear for their lives, desperate to escape the perceived threat. Chucking them a treat, no matter how tasty, has no effect whatsoever. I have tried everything, and I know that if we at least reduce the noise while still being able to enjoy the annual spectacle, then that will go some way to help. Reader Horacio Romeo (who lives in Brazil!) explained that over there, only low-noise fireworks are legal, although there are still people who break that law. In reference to me mentioning that a lover of fireworks is known as a ‘pyrophile’, he said: “I am a moderate oenophile (lover of wine), a turophile (lover of cheese), a xenophile (lover of foreign things), cinephile (lover of films), a sapiophile (lover of intelligent people), a paleophile (lover of ancient things). Plus carphile, musicphile, travelphile (time and money allowing...). I just made up these words; I don't know the ‘proper’ ones in English!” On the subject of words, my current audiobook is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s ‘Sherlock Holmes – The Definitive Collection’ read wonderfully by Stephen Fry. It’s a compilation of seven novels, the first being ‘A Study in Scarlet’ to which I have just finished listening. Written in 1886, it was Doyle’s debut novel and the archaic language raised a few giggles thanks to the fact that certain meanings have evolved over the intervening 138 years. There was one in particular that made me laugh aloud every time I heard it. Now, before I mention it, I suggest you put down anything you are drinking, or if you are eating, finish your mouthful (Disclaimer: I am about to be very immature). On many occasions, Dr Watson and Sherlock Holmes can be heard ejaculating. Of course, because you are mature, educated people, you will already know that in Victorian times, ‘ejaculate’ had the same meaning as ‘exclaim’ or ‘declare’. I say ‘in Victorian times’, but it does still have that meaning today if you take the time to look it up in a dictionary, it’s just that we choose not to use it in the Doyle-esque context for reasons I hope I do not need to explain. It makes me wonder, though, are there any words you know that have completely different meanings today compared to the past? Do you have opinions, memories or ideas to share with me? Contact me via my webpage at countrymansdaughter.com, or email dst@nne.co.uk.
Seongnam City to Participate in CES 2025, Paving the Way as a Global Innovation Hub
Americans react to Trump's HHS Secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s plan to 'Make America Healthy Again' in the role, and what it would take to make this happen. Everyone's blaming health insurance company greed for the soaring claims denials and roadblocks to care. That's naive. Follow the money to find the real culprits: lying politicians. In 2013, before Affordable Care Act regulations kicked in, insurers denied roughly 1.5% of claims, according to the American Medical Association. But under ACA rules, denials increased tenfold. Now nearly 15% of claims are denied, reports Premier, an insurance consultant firm. Some insurers deny a third or more of claims, according to Kaiser Family Foundation research. Insurers are also demanding preauthorizations for a wide range of treatments and medications, tying your doctor's hands and dangerously delaying your care. THE YEAR IN CANCER: ADVANCES MADE IN 2024, PREDICTIONS FOR 2025 Your doctor has to call the insurer before beginning treatment or ordering medication. Seldom is the person on the other end of the phone a specialist in the disease or treatment in question. It could be an OB-GYN overriding what your neurosurgeon recommends, warns the AMA. Anger against healthcare insurance companies is misplaced. People should hold politicians responsible for problems they caused. (iStock) Dr. Debra Patt prescribed a drug combination for a patient with metastatic breast cancer but had to wait weeks for prior authorization. In the meantime, reports the AMA, she had to settle for standard chemotherapy, to no avail: Her patient died. "You have health plan representatives who have never met the patient, have never been at the bedside or practiced medicine but are now making treatment decisions," objects Tina Grant, senior vice president of public policy and advocacy at Trinity Health, a system of 92 Catholic hospitals. According to House Committee on Energy and Commerce testimony, 80% of the preapprovals Cigna denied for Medicare Advantage customers were overturned on appeal, a sign that legitimate care is being withheld. Cigna uses an algorithm called PxDx to deny prior authorizations in bulk. Denials and prior authorization requirements escalated after the ACA went into effect. But don't blame profit maximization. The ACA regulates underwriting profits, and if profits go up, insurers have to send customers rebates. Giants like United Healthcare have grown into money-making behemoths by buying physicians' practices, hospitals and pharmacy chains, not by selling health plans, according to IBISWorld industry research. The actual reason your health insurance is becoming unreliable is that politicians backing Obamacare knowingly made a promise that was impossible to keep without insurers resorting to predatory practices. Obamacare advocates promised everyone would be charged the same regardless of their "preexisting conditions." The math doesn't work. Every year, 5% of the population uses over 50% of the healthcare. That's a fact of nature, politics aside. Politicians, like President Barack Obama, pushed Obamacare knowing it would be difficult for insurance companies. FILE: Obama celebrates after accepting his party's nomination during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina on Thursday, September 06, 2012. (Photo by Christopher Evans/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images) Telling insurers to cover the 5% for the same price they charge healthy people is like providing monthly groceries to a skinny fashion model and the winner of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest for the same price. Ridiculous. Five percent more premium payers and 50% more medical needs. The federal government should have stepped in with extra payments to cover people with preexisting conditions. Instead, insurers were hit with a mountain of new claims and told to make it work. They adopted Draconian cost-cutting methods. The winners? Democratic politicians. Covering preexisting conditions at no extra charge is popular. The losers? Everyone else who has to worry that their next treatment will be delayed or their next claim denied. The biggest losers, sadly, are the seriously ill who suffer disproportionately from managed care's tight controls, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research paper on Medicaid managed care. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION More than half of states are now passing laws to limit prior authorization. That's a step in the right direction. But Americans need to reassess managed care. Denials and prior authorization requirements escalated after the ACA went into effect. But don't blame profit maximization. The ACA regulates underwriting profits, and if profits go up, insurers have to send customers rebates. There is next to no evidence that it improves health. President Joe Biden's assistant secretary of health policy boasts that the ACA's coverage expansion -- mostly in managed care -- reduced "morbidity and mortality." That's a blatant lie. Americans are sicker and living shorter lives than they were before the ACA. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP One alternative is to allow low-cost catastrophic insurance, which kicks in only for the large bills. Healthy people who get coverage at work would benefit from fewer interactions with an insurer and more take-home pay in lieu of a whopping $25,000 plan -- the cost this year for family coverage. Democrats try to label catastrophic coverage as "junk insurance." The Biden administration made it almost impossible to buy. But Americans are beginning to see that health plans that turn down claims and make you wait a dangerous amount of time for preauthorization are the real "junk." CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BETSY McCAUGHEY Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. Follow her on Twitter @Betsy_McCaughey .( MENAFN - EIN Presswire) NEW YORK, Dec. 28, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against PACS Group, Inc. (NYSE: PACS) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in PACS, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting : . Investors have until January 13, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in PACS securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-08636. What is the PACS Lawsuit About? The Complaint alleges that PACS is one of the largest operators of skilled nursing facilities in the United States. As alleged, PACS repeatedly represented to shareholders that it possesses a winning“turnaround” strategy to make its nursing facilities profitable. However, in truth, it is alleged that PACS's turnaround was driven by illicitly accessing Medicare benefits for thousands of patients. On November 4, 2024, prominent investment research firm Hindenburg Research published a report titled:“PACS Group: How to Become A Billionaire In The Skilled Nursing Industry By Systematically Scamming Taxpayers.” After a 5-month investigation that included interviews with 18 former PACS employees, competitors, and an analysis of more than 900 PACS facility cost reports, Hindenburg alleged that“PACS abused a COVID-era waiver, inappropriately accessing skilled care Medicare benefits for thousands of patients across its national portfolio of facilities.” Hindenburg further estimated that“the scheme drove more than 100% of PACS' operating and net income from 2020 – 2023, enabling PACS to IPO in early 2024 with the illusion of legitimate growth and profitability.” On November 6, 2024, PACS then announced that it was postponing its Q3 earnings and that it had“received civil investigative demands from the federal government regarding the Company's reimbursement and referral practices that may or may not be related to this week's third-party report.” The news caused a significant decline in the price of PACS stock. On November 4, 2024, the price of the company's stock fell 27.8%, from a closing price of $42.94 per share on November 1, 2024, to $31.01 per share on November 4, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the price of the company's stock fell 38.8%, from a closing price of $29.54 per share on November 5, 2024, to $18.09 per share on November 6, 2024. Click here if you Suffered Losses: . What Can You Do? If you invested in PACS you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ... 212-789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit . Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above. MENAFN28122024003118003196ID1109037490 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $100,000 in ASML To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 in ASML between January 24, 2024 and October 15, 2024 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [You may also click here for additional information] NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP , a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against ASML Holding N.V. (“ASML” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ASML) and reminds investors of the January 13, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com . As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the issues being faced by suppliers, like ASML, in the semiconductor industry were much more severe than Defendants had indicated to investors; (2) the pace of recovery of sales in the semiconductor industry was much slower than Defendants had publicly acknowledged; (3) Defendants had created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to customer demand and anticipated growth, while also downplaying risk from macroeconomic and industry fluctuations, as well as stronger regulations restricting the export of semiconductor technology, including the products that ASML sells; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. On October 15, 2024, ASML published earnings for the third quarter of 2024, revealing quarterly bookings of €2.63 billion, a decline of 53% quarter-over-quarter. The Company also announced it expects full year 2025 total net sales to be between €30 billion and €35 billion, with a gross margin between 51% and 53%. On this news, ASML's stock price fell $141.84, or 16.26%, to close $730.43 per share on October 15, 2024, thereby injuring investors. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding ASML’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the ASML class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/ASML or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Follow us for updates on LinkedIn , on X , or on Facebook . Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( www.faruqilaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/de2601eb-12a6-4c86-acde-1ee2f3350b29United Internet AG (OTCMKTS:UDIRF) Short Interest Down 83.6% in December
Neelachal Ispat’s Expansion Incorporates Water-Smart Technology for Better Conservation
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President-elect Donald Trump this week escalated his threats to retake control of the Panama Canal, falsely accusing Panama of allowing Chinese soldiers to control the vital shipping route and of overcharging American ships. Trump has claimed Panama charges U.S. vessels “exorbitant prices” and warned that if they are not reduced after he takes office next month, he will demand that the United States be granted control of the canal “in full, quickly and without question.” On Wednesday, Trump went on another tear. Announcing his choice for ambassador to the Central American nation, Kevin Marino Cabrera, he accused the Panamanian government of “ripping us off on the Panama Canal, far beyond their wildest dreams.” In a holiday screed on his social media site, Truth Social, Trump wished a merry Christmas to “the wonderful soldiers of China” whom he inaccurately said were operating the canal, and griped that the United States “puts in Billions of Dollars” for canal maintenance “but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’” While it is unclear what prompted Trump’s recent obsession with the Panama Canal, some Republicans have long objected to turning it over to Panamanian control. When Ronald Reagan ran for president, he said the people of the United States were the canal’s “rightful owners” and brought audiences to their feet with the line: “We bought it; we paid for it; we built it.” The United States under President Jimmy Carter’s administration entered into two treaties, culminating in formally turning over control of the canal to the Panamanians on Dec. 31, 1999. “There’s a certain wing of the Republican Party that’s always been skeptical of the handover,” said Ryan C. Berg, the director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “Complaints tend to crop up around the anniversary, and now that seems to be coming to a head because of the China issue and the desire to compete with China in the region,” he said. Here’s three important things to know about the Panama Canal as the issue moves forward. Who owns the Panama Canal? The Panama Canal was built by the United States between 1904 and 1914, and the U.S. government managed it for several decades. That situation created significant tensions with Panama over the years, and in 1964, anti-American riots broke out in the Canal Zone. The riots led to the renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties, and in 1977 Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Efraín Torrijos signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. The pair of agreements guaranteed the permanent neutrality of the Panama Canal. After a period of joint custody, the treaties called for the United States to relinquish control over the canal by the year 2000. Panama took full control in 1999, and has since operated the canal through the Panama Canal Authority. In a statement of rebuke to Trump on Sunday, President José Raúl Mulino of Panama said “every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to PANAMA.” Are U.S. vessels being overcharged? Mulino says they are not. Rates being charged to ships and naval vessels, he insisted, are “not on a whim.” Panamanian officials said all countries are subject to the same fees, though they would differ based on ship size. They are established in public meetings by the Panama Canal Authority, and take into account market conditions, international competition, operating and maintenance costs, Mulino said. Rates have gone up recently, however. That’s because starting in 2023, Panama experienced severe drought, driven by a combination of El Nino and climate change. With water levels at Gatun Lake, the principal hydrological reserve for the canal, at historically low levels, authorities reduced shipping through the canal to conserve the lake’s fresh water. Trump has called climate change a hoax. Does China control the Panama Canal? Chinese soldiers are not, as Trump has claimed, “operating” the Panama Canal. “There are no Chinese soldiers in the canal, for the love of God,” Mulino said in a speech Thursday. “The world is free to visit the canal.” A Hong Kong-based firm, CK Hutchison Holdings, does manage two ports at the canal’s entrances. And some experts have said that does raise valid competitive and security concerns for the United States because Hong Kong is now part of China. For example, Berg noted, the company would likely have data on all ships coming through the Panama Canal, giving it a data advantage. China also has been using its shipping and maritime operations to gather foreign intelligence and conduct espionage. “China exercises, or could exercise, a certain element of control even absent some military conflagration,” Berg said. “I think there is reason to be worried.” Mao Ning, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, said Tuesday that China “will as always respect Panama’s sovereignty” over the Panama Canal. China is the second-largest user of the Panama Canal after the United States. In 2017, Panama cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized it as part of China, a major win for Beijing. Can the United States reassert control? Not easily. Mulino has made clear the Panama Canal is not for sale. He noted that the treaties established permanent neutrality of the canal and “guaranteeing its open and safe operation for all nations.” And the Senate ratified the Panama Canal treaties in 1978. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s former chief of staff, suggested that the provocations were merely part of a negotiating tactic to get rates down. “You know, I don’t envision American troops going in to retake the canal, but you got to think that someone is out there scratching their head going, ‘Is Donald Trump crazy enough to do something like that?’” Mulvaney said Tuesday on “The Hill” on NewsNation. Berg said the neutrality agreement made it unlikely that Panama would even be able to grant special rates to the United States. And, he noted, Mulino is “incredibly pro-American” and likely eager to help the incoming Trump administration deal with issues like illegal immigration. “President Mulino is going to be a great ally with the United States,” Berg said. “We should not want this to devolve into some kind of political fight because we’re going to need President Mulino on a number of other issues.” This article originally appeared in The New York Times.The legal fray builds in a very close North Carolina Supreme Court election
Hyderabad : Telangana anti-corruption bureau (ACB), on Saturday, December 28, arrested a government officer in Bhadradri Kothagudem district for demanding a bribe of Rs 50,000 for doing official work. The arrested official, identified as Merugu Rathnam, has been working as the deputy surveyor at Dammannapet Mandal in Kothagudem. According to the ACB, the government officer was caught taking the bribe money for conducting a land survey and submitting an official survey report at the property owned by the complainant’s sister. The officials confirmed Merugu Rathnam was taking bribes with the chemical test for bribing as his left hand turned positive for touching the bribe money. On December 9, a senior accountant of the district treasury office in Khammam was caught demanding Rs 40,000 as a bribe for performing official duties. ACB officials arrested Katta Nagesh who demanded the bribe money to process the revised pay scale, including pay fixation, service pension, gratuity, enhanced family pension, normal family pension bills and commutation totalling Rs 3,92,960. The work concerned a dead person who was a relative of the complainant. Citizens can report incidents of bribery by calling at the hotline 1064.Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Y. S. Sharmila on Thursday accused the Narendra Modi government at the Centre of feeding people of Andhra Pradesh with lies with claims of reviving the Visakha Steel plant. The State Congress chief posted on X alleging that attempts were on to debilitate the steel plant “as part of a conspiracy to sell it to Modi’s friends at dirt cheap price.” She said even while claiming that there were no plans to privatise the plant, the Centre continued to neglect it without providing any financial aid. She said in Karnataka, which was represented by Union Steel Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, funds to the tune of ₹15,000 crore were provided as assistance to save the Karnataka Steel Plant, which employed just 243 people, while the Visakha Steel Plant was meted a raw deal, ignoring the fact that it employed 26,000 people. “The JD(S) with just two MPs, has secured ₹15,000 crore for Karnataka Steel, while the TDP and the Jana Sena Party, which are supporting the NDA government at the Centre with their 18 MPs, do not have the spine to take up Visakha Steel Plant issue,” she said. Ms. Sharmila also found fault with Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu for discussing about setting up a new plant with Mittal Steel and ensuring iron ore supply to it, instead of making a firm demand on revival of the Visakha Steel Plant. She said the Congress demanded merger of the Visakha Steel Plant into SAIL, immediate steps to start production of 7 million tonnes immediately and expansion of the plant’s future capacity to 20 million tonnes. Ms. Sharmila said should the Centre neglect or turn down these demands, the TDP and its ally Jana Sena Party should withdraw their support to the NDA coalition government at the Centre. Published - December 27, 2024 04:48 am IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Andhra Pradesh / state politics
Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Y. S. Sharmila on Thursday accused the Narendra Modi government at the Centre of feeding people of Andhra Pradesh with lies with claims of reviving the Visakha Steel plant. The State Congress chief posted on X alleging that attempts were on to debilitate the steel plant “as part of a conspiracy to sell it to Modi’s friends at dirt cheap price.” She said even while claiming that there were no plans to privatise the plant, the Centre continued to neglect it without providing any financial aid. She said in Karnataka, which was represented by Union Steel Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, funds to the tune of ₹15,000 crore were provided as assistance to save the Karnataka Steel Plant, which employed just 243 people, while the Visakha Steel Plant was meted a raw deal, ignoring the fact that it employed 26,000 people. “The JD(S) with just two MPs, has secured ₹15,000 crore for Karnataka Steel, while the TDP and the Jana Sena Party, which are supporting the NDA government at the Centre with their 18 MPs, do not have the spine to take up Visakha Steel Plant issue,” she said. Ms. Sharmila also found fault with Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu for discussing about setting up a new plant with Mittal Steel and ensuring iron ore supply to it, instead of making a firm demand on revival of the Visakha Steel Plant. She said the Congress demanded merger of the Visakha Steel Plant into SAIL, immediate steps to start production of 7 million tonnes immediately and expansion of the plant’s future capacity to 20 million tonnes. Ms. Sharmila said should the Centre neglect or turn down these demands, the TDP and its ally Jana Sena Party should withdraw their support to the NDA coalition government at the Centre. Published - December 27, 2024 04:48 am IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Andhra Pradesh / state politics