The former Labour PM said the death of his newborn daughter in 2002 did “not convince me of the case for assisted dying; it convinced me of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care”. In a rare intervention ahead of the Commons debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, November 29, Mr Brown shared a glimpse of the time he and his wife Sarah spent with their baby, Jennifer, who died when she was only 11 days old. Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Mr Brown said: “We could only sit with her, hold her tiny hand and be there for her as life ebbed away. She died in our arms. “But those days we spent with her remain among the most precious days of my and Sarah’s lives.” While he acknowledged that at the heart of the assisted dying debate is a “desire to prevent suffering”, the former Labour MP called for a commission on end-of-life care to be set up, instead of the law change which MPs will consider. This commission, he said, should work to create a “fully-funded, 10-year strategy for improved and comprehensive palliative care”. “When only a small fraction of the population are expected to choose assisted dying, would it not be better to focus all our energies on improving all-round hospice care to reach everyone in need of end of life support?” he said. Mr Brown added: “Medical advances that can transform end-of-life care and the horror of people dying alone, as with Covid, have taught us a great deal. “This generation have it in our power to ensure no-one should have to face death alone, uncared for, or subject to avoidable pain.” Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP sponsoring the assisted dying Bill through the Commons, said she was “deeply touched” by Mr Brown’s decision to share his story. The Spen Valley MP said she agreed completely with his calls for better end-of-life care. But Ms Leadbeater added: “He and I agree on very many things but we don’t agree on this. “Only legislation by Parliament can put right what Sir Keir Starmer calls the ‘injustice that we have trapped within our current arrangement’. “The need to address the inability of the current law to provide people with safeguards against coercion and the choice of a better death, and to protect their loved ones from possible prosecution, cannot wait. “So for me it isn’t a case of one or the other. My Bill already includes the need for the Government to report back to Parliament on the availability and quality of palliative care, and I strongly support further detailed examination of its provision. We need to do both.” Though Ms Leadbeater made reference to the Prime Minister as she set out her difference from Mr Brown’s position, Sir Keir has opted not to say whether he will support the Bill. MPs will be given a free vote on the legislation, meaning their political parties will not require them to vote for or against it, and it will be a matter for their personal consideration. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is the latest senior minister to disclose her position on assisted dying, signalling to broadcasters on Friday that she may support the Bill. “I continue to support the principle of needing change but also to ensure that we’ve got the proper safeguards and systems in place,” she told ITV’s Good Morning Britain. Asked if that meant a “yes” when the Bill comes to the Commons, she replied: “I think I last voted on this about 20 years ago and so I have supported the principle in the past and continue to believe that change is needed but we do need to have that debate on the detail and I’ll continue to follow that debate next Friday.”By Vanessa G. Sánchez, KFF Health News (TNS) LOS ANGELES — President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations and tougher immigration restrictions is deepening mistrust of the health care system among California’s immigrants and clouding the future for providers serving the state’s most impoverished residents. At the same time, immigrants living illegally in Southern California told KFF Health News they thought the economy would improve and their incomes might increase under Trump, and for some that outweighed concerns about health care. Community health workers say fear of deportation is already affecting participation in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income residents, which was expanded in phases to all immigrants regardless of residency status over the past several years. That could undercut the state’s progress in reducing the uninsured rate, which reached a record low of 6.4% last year. Immigrants lacking legal residency have long worried that participation in government programs could make them targets, and Trump’s election has compounded those concerns, community advocates say. The incoming Trump administration is also expected to target Medicaid with funding cuts and enrollment restrictions , which activists worry could threaten the Medi-Cal expansion and kneecap efforts to extend health insurance subsidies under Covered California to all immigrants. “The fear alone has so many consequences to the health of our communities,” said Mar Velez , director of policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. “This is, as they say, not their first rodeo. They understand how the system works. I think this machine is going to be, unfortunately, a lot more harmful to our communities.” Alongside such worries, though, is a strain of optimism that Trump might be a boon to the economy, according to interviews with immigrants in Los Angeles whom health care workers were soliciting to sign up for Medi-Cal. Since Election Day, community health worker Yanet Martinez said, people are more reluctant to hear her pitch for subsidized health insurance or cancer prevention screenings. “They think I’m going to share their information to deport them,” Martinez said. (Vanessa G. Sánchez/KFF Health News/TNS) Clinics and community health workers encourage immigrants to enroll for health coverage through Medi-Cal and Covered California. But workers have noticed that fear of deportation has chilled participation. (Vanessa G. Sánchez/KFF Health News/TNS) Community health workers like Yanet Martinez encourage people to enroll for health benefits. But many California immigrants fear that using subsidized services could hurt their chances of obtaining legal residency. (Vanessa G. Sánchez/KFF Health News/TNS) Since Election Day, community health worker Yanet Martinez said, people are more reluctant to hear her pitch for subsidized health insurance or cancer prevention screenings. “They think I’m going to share their information to deport them,” Martinez said. (Vanessa G. Sánchez/KFF Health News/TNS) Selvin, 39, who, like others interviewed for this article, asked to be identified by only his first name because he’s living here without legal permission, said that even though he believes Trump dislikes people like him, he thinks the new administration could help boost his hours at the food processing facility where he works packing noodles. “I do see how he could improve the economy. From that perspective, I think it’s good that he won.” He became eligible for Medi-Cal this year but decided not to enroll, worrying it could jeopardize his chances of changing his immigration status. “I’ve thought about it,” Selvin said, but “I feel like it could end up hurting me. I won’t deny that, obviously, I’d like to benefit — get my teeth fixed, a physical checkup.” But fear holds him back, he said, and he hasn’t seen a doctor in nine years. It’s not Trump’s mass deportation plan in particular that’s scaring him off, though. “If I’m not committing any crimes or getting a DUI, I think I won’t get deported,” Selvin said. Petrona, 55, came from El Salvador seeking asylum and enrolled in Medi-Cal last year. She said that if her health insurance benefits were cut, she wouldn’t be able to afford her visits to the dentist. A street food vendor, she hears often about Trump’s deportation plan, but she said it will be the criminals the new president pushes out. “I’ve heard people say he’s going to get rid of everyone who’s stealing.” Although she’s afraid she could be deported, she’s also hopeful about Trump. “He says he’s going to give a lot of work to Hispanics because Latinos are the ones who work the hardest,” she said. “That’s good, more work for us, the ones who came here to work.” Newly elected Republican Assembly member Jeff Gonzalez, who flipped a seat long held by Democrats in the Latino-heavy desert region in the southeastern part of the state, said his constituents were anxious to see a new economic direction. “They’re just really kind of fed up with the status quo in California,” Gonzalez said. “People on the ground are saying, ‘I’m hopeful,’ because now we have a different perspective. We have a businessperson who is looking at the very things that we are looking at, which is the price of eggs, the price of gas, the safety.” Gonzalez said he’s not going to comment about potential Medicaid cuts, because Trump has not made any official announcement. Unlike most in his party, Gonzalez said he supports the extension of health care services to all residents regardless of immigration status . Health care providers said they are facing a twin challenge of hesitancy among those they are supposed to serve and the threat of major cuts to Medicaid, the federal program that provides over 60% of the funding for Medi-Cal. Health providers and policy researchers say a loss in federal contributions could lead the state to roll back or downsize some programs, including the expansion to cover those without legal authorization. California and Oregon are the only states that offer comprehensive health insurance to all income-eligible immigrants regardless of status. About 1.5 million people without authorization have enrolled in California, at a cost of over $6 billion a year to state taxpayers. “Everyone wants to put these types of services on the chopping block, which is really unfair,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat and chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. “We will do everything we can to ensure that we prioritize this.” Sen. Gonzalez said it will be challenging to expand programs such as Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, for which immigrants lacking permanent legal status are not eligible. A big concern for immigrants and their advocates is that Trump could reinstate changes to the public charge policy, which can deny green cards or visas based on the use of government benefits. “President Trump’s mass deportation plan will end the financial drain posed by illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, and ensure that our country can care for American citizens who rely on Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security,” Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to KFF Health News. During his first term, in 2019, Trump broadened the policy to include the use of Medicaid, as well as housing and nutrition subsidies. The Biden administration rescinded the change in 2021. KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, found immigrants use less health care than people born in the United States. And about 1 in 4 likely undocumented immigrant adults said they have avoided applying for assistance with health care, food, and housing because of immigration-related fears, according to a 2023 survey . Another uncertainty is the fate of the Affordable Care Act, which was opened in November to immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and are protected by the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program. If DACA eligibility for the act’s plans, or even the act itself, were to be reversed under Trump, that would leave roughly 40,000 California DACA recipients, and about 100,000 nationwide , without access to subsidized health insurance. On Dec. 9, a federal court in North Dakota issued an order blocking DACA recipients from accessing Affordable Care Act health plans in 19 states that had challenged the Biden administration’s rule. Clinics and community health workers are encouraging people to continue enrolling in health benefits. But amid the push to spread the message, the chilling effects are already apparent up and down the state. “¿Ya tiene Medi-Cal?” community health worker Yanet Martinez said, asking residents whether they had Medi-Cal as she walked down Pico Boulevard recently in a Los Angeles neighborhood with many Salvadorans. “¡Nosotros podemos ayudarle a solicitar Medi-Cal! ¡Todo gratuito!” she shouted, offering help to sign up, free of charge. “Gracias, pero no,” said one young woman, responding with a no thanks. She shrugged her shoulders and averted her eyes under a cap that covered her from the late-morning sun. Since Election Day, Martinez said, people have been more reluctant to hear her pitch for subsidized health insurance or cancer prevention screenings. “They think I’m going to share their information to deport them,” she said. “They don’t want anything to do with it.” This article was produced by KFF Health News , which publishes California Healthline , an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation . ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks rose Monday, with those benefiting the most from lower interest rates and a stronger economy leading the way. The S&P 500 climbed 0.3% to pull closer to its all-time high set two weeks ago. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 440 points, or 1%, to its own record set on Friday, while the Nasdaq composite rose 0.3%.INDIANAPOLIS – Anthony Richardson didn’t betray any frustration through his words or facial expressions Sunday during his postgame interview. But the Indianapolis Colts quarterback still made it clear he fully felt the pain of a missed opportunity. The Colts often were their own worst enemy against one of the league’s best teams in a 24-6 loss against the Detroit Lions at Lucas Oil Stadium. It’s the fourth loss in the last five outings for Indianapolis (5-7), again increasing the degree of difficulty for a desired playoff push. “Whenever you’re out there playing a good team like that, you can’t beat yourself and try to beat the other team at the same time,” Richardson said. The Colts were penalized 10 times for 75 yards and had 97 yards of total offense negated by those infractions. That created adverse downs and distances that hindered Indianapolis’ efforts to get the running game flowing. Richardson was the team’s leading rusher with 61 yards on 10 carries, but star running back Jonathan Taylor ran just 11 times for 35 yards. It was the second straight week in which the Colts failed to rush for at least 100 yards – a number that was reached in each of Richardson’s first six starts this season. “I think we had some good runs today, especially in the first half, and AR has done a great job passing the ball,” left guard Quenton Nelson said. “We just need to execute up front, blocking whatever the play is called and also limit the penalties myself.” Nelson was flagged three times – once for a false start, once for illegal use of hands and once for being an ineligible receiver down field. It was part of a sloppy performance that was far below expectations in Week 12, and it made things much easier on an excellent Detroit team that doesn’t need the help. Indianapolis’ struggles included a 3-for-12 performance on third down, a dropped touchdown pass in the second quarter by tight end Drew Ogletree and two red-zone trips that ended with just a pair of Matt Gay field goals. “We had some opportunities there, weren’t able to take advantage,” Colts head coach Shane Steichen said. “Obviously, offensively, got down in the red zone a few times, had to settle for two field goals there in the first half. Penalties hurt us. It starts with myself. We have to get those cleaned up. “We had a season-high 10 penalties, I believe, for 75 yards. That’s on me. We can’t have that. We’ve got to play clean football moving forward.” The Lions (10-1) responded with cool efficiency to keep the hosts at arm’s length. Detroit came in averaging 33.6 points per game, and quarterback Jared Goff has 20 touchdown passes. But the Lions needed just a pair of touchdown runs by Jahmyr Gibbs and another by David Montgomery along with a 56-yard field goal by Jake Bates to put this game on ice. Gibbs’ 1-yard scoring plunge gave Detroit a 7-3 lead with 12:07 remaining in the first half, and Montgomery extended the advantage to 14-6 with 3:34 left before intermission. By the time Gibbs’ 5-yard touchdown made it 21-6 with 2:19 left in the third quarter, it was obvious the Lions had all the offense they needed. Goff was 26-of-36 for 269 yards without a touchdown or interception, and Gibbs rushed 21 times for 90 yards. Meanwhile, Richardson wasn’t able to match the statistical aesthetic of his breakout game last week against the New York Jets – though he played better than the numbers suggest. Richardson finished 11-of-28 for 172 yards with no touchdowns or interceptions. He had 74 yards wiped out on four completions called back because of penalties, and a wonderfully placed long ball to Ashton Dulin ended in an incompletion when the wide receiver couldn’t get his second foot inbounds. Richardson had his share of misses, including an overthrow against a heavy rush that could have been another big play to wide receiver Alec Pierce and a close-call to wide receiver Josh Downs in the end zone in the fourth quarter. But the 22-year-old deftly moved around in and out of the pocket and kept himself a step ahead of the Detroit defense. The Lions recorded six quarterback hits but no sacks. “It was a lot of completions, a lot of good balls that he threw that kind of got pulled back (by penalties),” Pierce said. “So I’m sure his stats are not really reflecting truly how he played, how he threw the ball.” Michael Pittman Jr. had his best game of the season with six catches for 96 yards, but little else stood out offensively. The defense tallied three sacks, and rookie defensive end Laiatu Latu forced a third-quarter fumble that could have given Indianapolis the ball in Lions’ territory, but the offense recovered and finished the march to the clinching touchdown. With a little more than a month remaining in the regular season, Indianapolis understands the margin for error is dwindling. “We just got to execute,” Richardson said. “We know that was a great team right there, but they didn’t really do anything spectacular to beat us. They played the game the right way, and we didn’t go out and execute the way we know that we’re supposed to. We got behind the sticks a few times. “We let them throw a few penalties against us because of (breakdowns in) our discipline and our details. But we just gotta keep playing. Play complementary football, keep the details detailed and keep trusting the process and just buy in and try to find a way to win.”
We’ll use the conference to come with a plan to rebuild: Dlamini
GOOGLE and the US government faced off in a federal court on Monday, as each side delivered closing arguments in a case revolving around the technology giant’s alleged unfair domination of online advertising. The trial in a Virginia federal court is Google’s second US antitrust case now under way as the US government tries to rein in the power of big tech. In a separate trial, a Washington judge ruled that Google’s search business is an illegal monopoly, and the US Justice Department is asking that Google sell its Chrome browser business to resolve the case. The latest case, also brought by the Justice Department, focuses on ad technology for the open web - the complex system determining which online ads people see when they surf the internet. The vast majority of websites use a trio of Google ad software products that together, leave no way for publishers to escape Google’s advertising technology, the plaintiffs allege. Publishers - including News Corp and Gannett publishing - complain that they are locked into Google’s advertising technology in order to run ads on their websites. “Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist,” DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum told the court in closing arguments. Presiding judge Leonie Brinkema has said that she would deliver her opinion swiftly, as early as next month. Whatever Brinkema’s judgment, the outcome will almost certainly be appealed, prolonging a process that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. ‘Winners and losers’ The government alleges that Google controls the auction-style system that advertisers use to purchase advertising space online. The US lawyers argue that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites, many of which are struggling to stay in business. The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology. The government wants Google to divest parts of its ad tech business. Google dismissed the allegations as an attempt by the government to pick “winners and losers” in a diverse market. The company argues that the display ads at issue are just a small share of today’s ad tech business. TikTok not question Google says the plaintiffs’ definition of the market ignores ads that are also placed in search results, apps and social media platforms and where, taken as a whole, Google does not dominate. “The law simply does not support what the plaintiffs are arguing in this case,” said Google’s lawyer Karen Dunn. She warned that if Google were to lose the case, the winners would be rival tech giants such as Microsoft, Meta or Amazon, whose market share in online advertising is ascendant as Google’s share is falling. The DOJ countered that it simply “does not matter” that Google is competing in the broader market for online ads. “That is a different question” than the market for ads on websites that is the target of the case, said Teitelbaum. Google also points to US legal precedent, saying arguments similar to the government’s have been refuted in previous antitrust cases. Dunn also warned that forcing Google to work with rivals in its ad products would amount to government central planning that the court should reject. If the judge finds Google to be at fault, a new phase of the trial would decide how the company should comply with that conclusion. And all that could be moot if the incoming Trump administration decides to drop the case. The president-elect has been a critic of Google’s, but he warned earlier this month that breaking it up could be “a very dangerous thing.” AFPAP News Summary at 1:33 p.m. ESTNone