fish table casino
The "Eight Treasures Pill" is a traditional Chinese herbal remedy that is commonly used to improve overall health and vitality. However, the counterfeit version being produced and sold by the accused individuals contained harmful substances and lacked the proper quality control measures, posing a serious risk to consumers.In the wake of Ashworth's sacking, the management at Manchester United must work quickly to address the concerns and fears of their staff. They must provide reassurance and clarity about the future direction of the club and ensure that all employees feel valued and supported. The Telegraph's decision to dismiss Ashworth may have created a climate of fear and uncertainty, but it is up to the leadership at Manchester United to restore trust and confidence among their team.
London honored for supporting student mental health and eliminating barriers to care NATICK, Mass. , Dec. 23, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boston Business Journal honored Uwill founder and CEO Michael London as part of its 2025 Innovators in Healthcare list . Honorees represent a cross-section of Boston -based innovators addressing some of the most urgent and pressing challenges in the health care industry. London is the founding CEO of Uwill , the leading mental health and wellness solution proudly supporting more than 3 million students at 400 institutions globally. Utilizing its proprietary technology and counselor team, Uwill pioneered the first student and therapist matching platform. The solution offers an immediate appointment with a licensed counselor based on student preferences, all modalities of teletherapy, a direct crisis connection, wellness programming, realtime data, and support. "It's truly an honor to be recognized among this incredible group of innovators," said Michael London , Uwill founder and CEO. "At Uwill, our mission is to break down barriers to mental health care, delivering immediate and accessible support to students worldwide. This recognition reflects more than innovation—it underscores our unwavering commitment to addressing a vital need for students everywhere." London is a recognized thought-leader and pioneer within social impact entrepreneurship, having created more than one billion dollars in company value throughout his career. In 2013, he founded Examity, a leader in learning validation and online proctoring. Prior, London led Bloomberg Institute, an EdTech start-up funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg . Earlier in his career, he founded College Coach and co-founded EdAssist, both acquired by Bright Horizons Family Solutions. In 2019, he was a finalist for the EY Entrepreneur of the Year Award and held a position on the Massachusetts Governor's Commission for Digital Education and Lifelong Learning. Michael is a current Trustee at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He is a Member of the Advisory Board at Babson College where he graduated with honors. He also received his MBA from Boston University . About Uwill: Uwill is the leading mental health and wellness solution for colleges and students. As the most cost-effective way to enhance a college's mental health offering, Uwill partners with more than 400 institutions, including Princeton University , the Ohio State University , Santa Fe Community College , and University of Alabama - Online. Uwill is also the exclusive teletherapy education partner for the Online Learning Consortium and teletherapy education partner of NASPA. For more information, visit uwill.com . Contact: Brett Silk bsilk@uwill.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uwill-founder--ceo-michael-london-named-innovator-in-healthcare-302338655.html SOURCE Uwill, Inc
GOP congresswoman's troubling absence reignites age-old debateRICHMOND — With Donald Trump’s return to the White House and Republicans taking full control of Congress in 2025, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion is back on the chopping block. More than 3 million adults in nine states would be at immediate risk of losing their health coverage should the GOP reduce the extra federal Medicaid funding that’s enabled states to widen eligibility, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. That’s because the states have trigger laws that would swiftly end their Medicaid expansions if federal funding falls. The states are Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. The 2010 Affordable Care Act encouraged states to expand Medicaid programs to cover more low-income Americans who didn’t get health insurance through their jobs. Forty states and the District of Columbia agreed, extending health insurance since 2014 to an estimated 21 million people and helping drive the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows. In exchange, the federal government pays 90% of the cost to cover the expanded population. That’s far higher than the federal match for other Medicaid beneficiaries, which averages about 57% nationwide. Conservative policy groups, which generally have opposed the ACA, say the program costs too much and covers too many people. Democrats say the Medicaid expansion has saved lives and helped communities by widening coverage to people who could not afford private insurance. If Congress cuts federal funding, Medicaid expansion would be at risk in all states that have opted into it — even those without trigger laws — because state legislatures would be forced to make up the difference, said Renuka Tipirneni, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Decisions to keep or roll back the expansion “would depend on the politics at the state level,” Tipirneni said. For instance, Michigan approved a trigger as part of its Medicaid expansion in 2013, when it was controlled by a Republican governor and legislature. Last year, with the government controlled by Democrats, the state eliminated its funding trigger. Six of the nine states with trigger laws — Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Utah — went for Trump in the 2024 election. Most of the nine states’ triggers kick in if federal funding falls below the 90% threshold. Arizona’s trigger would eliminate its expansion if funding falls below 80%. Montana’s law rolls back expansion below 90% funding but allows it to continue if lawmakers identify additional funding. Under state law, Montana lawmakers must reauthorize its Medicaid expansion in 2025 or the expansion will end. Across the states with triggers, between 3.1 million and 3.7 million people would swiftly lose their coverage, researchers at KFF and the Georgetown center estimate. The difference depends on how states treat people who were added to Medicaid before the ACA expansion; they may continue to qualify even if the expansion ends. Three other states — Iowa, Idaho, and New Mexico— have laws that require their governments to mitigate the financial impact of losing federal Medicaid expansion funding but would not automatically end expansions. With those three states included, about 4.3 million Medicaid expansion enrollees would be at risk of losing coverage, according to KFF. The ACA allowed Medicaid expansions to adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $20,783 for an individual in 2024. Nearly a quarter of the 81 million people enrolled in Medicaid nationally are in the program due to expansions. “With a reduction in the expansion match rate, it is likely that all states would need to evaluate whether to continue expansion coverage because it would require a significant increase in state spending,” said Robin Rudowitz, vice president and director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF. “If states drop coverage, it is likely that there would be an increase in the number of uninsured, and that would limit access to care across red and blue states that have adopted expansion.” States rarely cut eligibility for social programs such as Medicaid once it’s been granted. The triggers make it politically easier for state lawmakers to end Medicaid expansion because they would not have to take any new action to cut coverage, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. To see the impact of trigger laws, consider what happened after the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down Roe v. Wade and, with it, the constitutional right to an abortion. Conservative lawmakers in 13 states had crafted trigger laws that would automatically implement bans in the event a national right to abortion were struck down. Those state laws resulted in restrictions taking effect immediately after the court ruling, or shortly thereafter. States adopted triggers as part of Medicaid expansion to win over lawmakers skeptical of putting state dollars on the hook for a federal program unpopular with most Republicans. It’s unclear what Trump and congressional Republicans will do with Medicaid after he takes office in January, but one indicator could be a recent recommendation from the Paragon Health Institute, a leading conservative policy organization led by former Trump health adviser Brian Blase. Paragon has proposed that starting in 2026 the federal government would phase down the 90% federal match for expansion until 2034, when it would reach parity with each state’s federal match for its traditional enrollees. Under that plan, states could still get ACA Medicaid expansion funding but restrict coverage to enrollees with incomes up to the federal poverty level. Currently, to receive expansion funding, states must offer coverage to everyone up to 138% of the poverty level. Daniel Derksen, director of the Center for Rural Health at the University of Arizona, said it’s unlikely Arizona would move to eliminate its trigger and make up for lost federal funds. “It would be a tough sell right now as it would put a big strain on the budget,” he said. Medicaid has been in the crosshairs of Republicans in Washington before. Republican congressional leaders in 2017 proposed legislation to cut federal expansion funding, a move that would have shifted billions in costs to states. That plan, part of a strategy to repeal Obamacare, ultimately failed.
Valve is back with another feature update for its PC gaming store and client Steam. This time, It is adding granular settings for users to choose when and how exactly can games download updates. This is part of the brand-new Steam Client Beta update that went live today. Currently in the live build, Steam will measure users' previous interactions with games to judge whether a brand-new updates needs immediate downloading, or keep it for later. There are existing options to set download times and speed limits, but these have not been deemed enough: "While this default behavior works in most cases, there are times when you need more control of when updates are applied. Some users might want to delay updating a 200GB game until they are ready to play it again in a few months, especially if they are on metered connections or have monthly bandwidth caps. For others who play the same game every night, they might want updates downloaded as soon as they are available. The process of automatic updates itself can be changed in the beta client now. The Downloads section in the app's settings page can be used to change the default behavior to "let Steam decide when to update the game" or "wait to update until the game is launched." Next, going to any game's properties in the beta client will reveal the new Automatic Updates section that applies changes just to that title. The four available options here are: set it to use the chosen Global Setting, wait until the user launches the game to update, let Steam decide (depending on user history), and give priority to download any update to it immediately, skipping any other restrictions. Once Valve decides the feature is ready to ship, it will move to the main client from beta at a later date. For those who can't wait, they can switch to the Steam Beta Client by heading to the app's Settings > Interface section and changing the Client Beta Participation dropdown to the latest version available.Numerology Predictions Today, December 12, 2024: Read your personalized forecast for numbers 1 to 9With the upgraded group call feature, users can now easily connect with a larger number of friends, family, or colleagues all at once. Whether it's for virtual gatherings, online meetings, or catching up with loved ones, the increased participant limit offers a more inclusive and engaging communication experience. This enhancement is particularly useful for businesses and organizations that rely on efficient and effective communication among team members.
Let this be a lesson to all that the safety and security of individuals are of paramount importance, and any violation of these fundamental rights will not be tolerated. We must remain vigilant, united, and committed to upholding the values of justice, integrity, and respect for all members of our society.
Bill Shorten represents the best in Australian politics. And the worst. In his valedictory speech to the House on Thursday, ending 17 years in parliament, he spoke of the achievement in government that was “closest to my heart” – the National Disability Insurance Scheme. “The NDIS belongs alongside Medicare and superannuation as examples of Australian exceptionalism.” Illustration by Simon Letch Credit: Shorten is rightly proud of the NDIS. It was a world-first undertaking and instantly set the standard for the way that civilised societies should treat their disabled citizens. It was not all his work. As Shorten acknowledged, it was Kevin Rudd who gave him his start in the field by appointing him as the parliamentary secretary for disabilities in 2007. “I thought I knew hardship, having seen disadvantage representing workers,” Shorten told the House. “But nothing had prepared me for the way literally hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability and their carers were sentenced to a second-class life of lesser opportunity.” And it was Julia Gillard who committed her government to implementing it. Shorten recalls asking the then prime minister to do just one thing: “I asked her to meet five people in my office and leave her phone outside for an hour and a half.” She heard their stories and was persuaded. Credit must also go to Tony Abbott, the opposition leader who embraced the idea. As he said: “Normally I’m Mr No, but on this occasion I’m Mr Yes!” It’s hard for any major reform to endure without bipartisan support; Abbott gave it that support. Bill Shorten delivers his valedictory speech in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer But Shorten can take most of the credit for creating the scheme when Labor was in power in 2007-2013, and for repairing it now that Labor is in power once more. By the time Anthony Albanese gave Shorten responsibility for the NDIS in 2022, it had veered out of control. It had become an open secret that it was rife with rorting. Not rorted by the disabled people receiving help, but by the companies and individuals who were supposed to help them and who then billed the government for services provided. The incoming minister was appalled to discover that, if a service provider sent their invoice to the National Disability Insurance Agency between 5pm and 6.30pm, they were paid immediately without any verification. And that 92 per cent of them were unregistered. And that there was no specified list of authorised services. Providers were charging the public purse some outrageous sums for some outrageous supposed needs: “What we have seen is the rise of opportunistic, unethical providers,” Shorten said earlier this year. “They’re selling snake oil. They’re selling stuff which frankly doesn’t work and shouldn’t be being paid for.” That included airline lounge memberships, sex work, pet costs, cigarettes and vapes, illegal drugs, tarot card reading, clothes, guns and cuddle therapy. So Shorten published a list of approved services, the first one, last month, banning all those categories, among others. Shorten’s awkward munching helped make democracy sausage word of the year in 2016. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen It’s no wonder that the costs of the NDIS blew out spectacularly. It’s now on track to become the most expensive item on the federal budget, overtaking the age pension, by 2030. The original 2011 estimates for the scheme were that it would cover 411,000 people and cost $13.6 billion a year. This year it has 660,000 participants with budgeted cost of $42 billion. It’s obvious that the scheme is succeeding in giving life-changing help to many but failing the test of sustainability. Unreformed, the scheme would have to be cut back or shut down. As its father, Shorten was best placed to fix it. And, crucially, the one most trusted to fix it. Last year, the government announced measures to restrain its annual cost growth of 14 per cent to 8 per cent by 2026-27. This is essential to achieve Shorten’s stated aim – to make it “politician-proof”. Among other reforms, he replaced 10 of the 11 top managers and recruited Kurt Fearnley as chair. Shorten persuaded state governments to increase their share of funding from next July. He tripled the number of staff at the Quality and Safeguards Commission to improve scrutiny. He created a Fraud Fusion Taskforce which, over its two-year lifespan, has put 50 people before the courts, prevented $60 million in fraud and currently has more than $1 billion in payments under investigation. Shorten played a key role in removing Kevin Rudd as PM in 2010 and then reinstalling him, at Julia Gillard’s expense, in 2013. Credit: Andrew Meares He’s not quite finished, but he has put the scheme on “train tracks” to sustainability , as he puts it. Compared with the outlay growth anticipated in 2022, Shorten’s reforms will have saved the taxpayer well over $100 billion over the course of a decade. In creating – and then repairing – such an important improvement to the lives of Australia’s people, Shorten shows Australian politics at its best. But he was also one of the faction chiefs who connived to destroy two elected Labor prime ministers, ushering in the “coup era” of Australian politics, the rampant regicide of the “revolving door” prime ministership that made Australia a laughing stock for a decade. If that only damaged Labor governments and destabilised the political system, that would be bad enough. But it did much more. We can now see that the factional fun and games in the corridors of Canberra inflicted enduring harm on the people’s trust in democracy. Shorten wasn’t the instigator of the threshold event, the 2010 lightning coup against Kevin Rudd. The motive force was Mark Arbib with sidekicks Karl Bitar, David Feeney, Stephen Conroy and Don Farrell. And, of course, the willing participation of Julia Gillard; you can’t have a challenge without a challenger. Shorten, with wife Chloe, concedes defeat after the 2019 election. Credit: AP But Shorten, as leader of elements of the Victorian Right faction, energetically joined the execution of the elected prime minister. He said at the time that he feared that he and his little gang would be cut out of the victors’ circle if the coup succeeded. His motives were self-interested and unprincipled. So he helped remove Rudd and install Gillard. Only to then connive against Gillard and help restore Rudd to the prime ministership as electoral oblivion loomed. The madness, of course, soon infected the Liberals, too. Rudd-Gillard-Rudd was followed by Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison. One consequence is that John Howard was the last Australian prime minister to be re-elected. But democracy is much bigger than politics, politicians, factions, parties, prime ministers and even elections. It is, at core, an act of the people’s confidence in the virtue of collective decision-making, of trust in our fellow citizens and submission to the greater good. So what happens when the people who are supposed to model these ideals expose themselves to be self-interested thugs, grasping opportunists and self-involved narcissists? Unsurprisingly, Australians have been discouraged and disgusted. People’s trust in democracy has not recovered from the era of the disposable leader. The ANU and Griffith University’s Australian Election Study shows that the public disapproved of every leadership coup, regardless of party or personality. Loading The proportion of Australians saying they are “satisfied with democracy” was in a healthy 80 per cent range in the late Howard and early Rudd years, the highest at any time since 1969. It peaked at 86 per cent in 2007, the year Rudd was elected. From the moment he was torn down, this proportion started to shrink non-stop until it hit bottom at 59 per cent in 2019. For perspective, this was its lowest since the dismissal of the Whitlam government. When the pandemic struck, trust in government recovered somewhat. But, to this day, satisfaction with democracy has not recovered to the pre-coup era, according to the Australian Election Study. Does Shorten regret his part in the destruction of two Labor prime ministers, the onset of the coup mania and the enduring damage to Australians’ confidence in democracy? “You do regret your mistakes, you don’t forget your failures,” Shorten said in his valedictory on Thursday, and for a moment the House held its breath in anticipation. Shorten resumed: “Oh, what I would give to go back to election day 2016 and turn that sausage in bread around the right way.” He got a laugh as the audience recalled that much-publicised lapse in democracy sausage etiquette when he approached it from the side instead of the end. But this was not any metaphor for political remorse, however. Asked for his political regrets, Shorten falls back on Frank Sinatra: “Regrets. I’ve had a few, but then again too few to mention.” When I ask him straight whether he regrets his part in the downfall of two Labor prime ministers, he disavows responsibility and only replies: “I regret that the instability occurred.” The journalist David Marr wrote a 2016 assessment of Shorten in the Quarterly Essay . It was titled “Faction Man”. Today, Marr looks back on Shorten’s political career and concludes that “he never ceased being a man of factions”. The best and the worst of Australian politics. Peter Hartcher is political editor. Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. License this article Political leadership Bill Shorten ALP Kevin Rudd Julia Gillard For subscribers Opinion Peter Hartcher is political editor and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Connect via email . Most Viewed in Politics LoadingWhile some users have expressed disappointment over the new restriction, citing inconvenience and the need for flexibility in accessing content across multiple devices, others have acknowledged the rationale behind Tencent Video's decision. By aligning its VIP policy with industry standards and best practices, Tencent Video aims to create a more sustainable and secure streaming ecosystem for both users and content providers.
Burt, the huge Australian crocodile who had a cameo in ‘Crocodile Dundee,’ dies at 90