Mexican boxer, Saul “Canelo” Alvarez (32), fought Gennady Golovkin at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada for the third and final time. The match took place at 168 pound division where Canelo reigns supreme as the undisputed champion in the division.
Unlike their first fight in 2017, this time Triple G was required to move up a single weight division which can make a significant impact on a boxer’s speed and potential endurance.
The future hall of famers gave fans the much awaited fight, but Saul “Canelo” Alvarez ran away with the bout’s victory decisively.
Heavy shots were thrown by Canelo, but Triple G was mostly mute for the first 6 rounds of the fight as Canelo fought Gennady in the same manner as he did Callum Smith. I gave him 3 rounds to be honest.
Canelo continued to pummel the body in order to soften Golovkin and guarantee that ay offensive onslaught from GGG would be dampened.
In this third bout, Gennady fought ‘tentative’ as the announcers described with his offensive capacities not set into motion until later in the fight. Most fight fans saw it the same:
Here’s a few examples on Twitter
The opinions were the same for boxing experts. A nearly total wipeout for Canelo in Dan Rafael’s view:
Canelo looks to be taking an extended break as his left hand appears to have been torn through overtraining and multiple bouts with world champions. The fighter looked much better at this weight category with his conditioning not in question as it was in his last bout which took place in the 175lb category.
Ciudad de México | Desinformémonos. Los padres y madres de los 43 normalistas de Ayotzinapa se deslindaron de la participación de cinco padres de familia en una marcha para exigir la liberación de José Luis Abarca, uno de los responsables de la desaparición de los estudiantes, y aseguraron que quienes se movilizaron «fueron manipulados y llevados por Pedro Segura, empresario ganadero ligado a los Abarca y su grupo delictivo».
«La asistencia de estos padres fue a título individual, de ningún modo representan al colectivo de los 43 madres y padres», señalaron en un comunicado, en el que reafirmaron que se encuentran «de pie» para exigir verdad y justicia en la desaparición de sus hijos.
«Los intentos de cooptación y división orquestados desde los grupos del poder y las mafias no detendrán la marcha ni socavarán nuestra lucha. No es la primera vez que sufrimos estas embestidas, ya en el pasado caciques y gobernantes lo han intentado sin éxito. El amor por nuestros hijos es infinito y nuestra lucha por la justicia es inclaudicable», agregaron.
Finalmente, lamentaron la muerte de Ezequiel Mora Chora, padre del normalista desaparecido Alexander Mora Venancio, «quien bajo engaños y manipulación fue llevado a la citada marcha, donde perdiera la vida en condiciones que deben ser cabalmente investigadas».
A continuación el comunicado completo:
El día 28 de los corrientes algunas personas convocaron a una marcha en Iguala para exigir la liberación de José Luis Abarca uno de los responsables de la desaparición de los 43 estudiantes de la Normal de Ayotzinapa, a la que asistieron cinco padres de familia de los jóvenes desaparecidos que fueron manipulados y llevados por Pedro Segura empresario ganadero ligado a los Abarca y su grupo delictivo.
Al respecto manifestamos que la asistencia de estos padres fue a título individual, de ningún modo representan al colectivo de los 43 madres y padres.
Al colectivo de madres y padres de los jóvenes desaparecidos nos queda clara la responsabilidad de José Luis Abarca en la desaparición de nuestros hijos, al tenor de los datos de prueba que obran en la investigación debe ser sancionado con todo el peso de la Ley por haber cometido graves violaciones a los derechos humanos y haber truncado 43 vidas de jóvenes que tenían la esperanza de ser maestros.
Por lo demás, lamentamos el fallecimiento de don Ezequiel Mora Chora padre del estudiante Alexander Mora Venancio quien bajo engaños y manipulación fue llevado a la citada marcha, donde perdiera la vida en condiciones que deben ser cabalmente investigadas. A sus familiares ofrecemos nuestras condolencias y solidaridad.
Queremos destacar que Pedro Segura, por órdenes de la familia Abarca y otros grupos de poder, desde hace tiempo realiza acercamiento con algunos padres para cooptarlos y dividir el colectivo de madres y padres.
El colectivo de los 43 padres y madres se encuentra de pie e íntegro con la convicción de seguir en la lucha por verdad y justicia. Los intentos de cooptación y división orquestados desde los grupos del poder y las mafias no detendrán la marcha ni socavarán nuestra lucha. No es la primera vez que sufrimos estas embestidas, ya en el pasado caciques y gobernantes lo han intentado sin éxito. El amor por nuestros hijos es infinito y nuestra lucha por la justicia es inclaudicable.
¡PORQUE VIVOS SE LOS LLEVARON, VIVOS LOS QUEREMOS!
Comité de Padres y Madres de los 43.
“El presente artículo es propiedad de Desinformémonos“
President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to cancel student debt for the first $10,000 owed on federal college loans has raised debate about the fairness of such lending programs. While just over half of Americans surveyed in a June poll supported forgiving that much debt incurred for higher education, 82% said that making college more affordable was their preferred approach.
But little public attention has been focused on what is — statistically, at least — a bigger, broader debt crisis in our country: An estimated 100 million people in the U.S., or 41% of all adults, have health care debt, compared with 42 million who have student debt.
The millions under the weight of medical debt deserve help, both because medical debt is a uniquely unfair form of predatory lending and because of its devastating ripple effects on American families.
Unlike college tuition or other kinds of debt, outlays for medical treatments are generally not something we can consider in advance and decide — yes or no — to take on. They are thrust upon us by illness, accident, and bad luck. Medical treatment generally has no predictable upfront price and there is no cap on what we might owe. And, given our health system’s prices, the amount can be more than the value of the family home if incurred for a hospital stay.
When it was time for my kids to choose a college, I knew in advance almost exactly what it would cost. We could decide which of the different tuitions was “worth it.” We made a plan to pay the amount using bank accounts, money saved in college savings plans, some financial aid, a student job, and some money loaned by a grandparent. (Yes, we had enough resources to make a financially considered choice.)
Think about how different educational debts are from those incurred in health care. In one case, profiled by KHN, the parents of twins, who were born at 30 weeks, faced out-of-pocket bills of about $80,000 stemming from charges in neonatal intensive care and other care that insurance didn’t cover. In another case, a couple ended up owing $250,000 when one spouse went to the emergency room with an intestinal obstruction that required multiple surgeries. They had to declare bankruptcy and lost their home. Even smaller bills lead to trashed credit ratings, cashing in retirement accounts, and taking on second jobs; in surveys, half of adults in the U.S. say they don’t have the cash to pay an unexpected $500 medical bill.
In “taking on” medical debt, patients sign only the sort of vague financial agreement that has become ubiquitous in American health care: “I agree to pay for charges my insurance doesn’t cover,” presented on the stack of forms to sign on arrival at an emergency room or a doctor’s office. But no one can fully consider options or say “no” to care while in pain or medical distress or even properly agree to pay an unknown amount.
Student debt causes hardships because it hits people who’ve just started careers, with salaries at the bottom of the pay scale, forcing them to delay life choices, like purchasing a home or starting a family. But medical debt often comes with all that plus medical woes: In a KFF poll, 1 in 7 people with health care debt said they’d been denied care by a provider because of unpaid bills. Sometimes a bill for as little as a few hundred dollars can turn into a collections nightmare.
Already, the federal government is stepping in to assist student loan borrowers. It has paused student debt payments during the pandemic, and the Biden administration has announced that it would forgive student debt for tens of thousands of public sector workers. Late last year, the Department of Education announced that it would no longer contract with outside debt collectors but would instead deal with loan defaults and potential defaults itself to better “support borrowers.”
Medical debt collection has typically been outsourced to aggressive private agents and the for-profit medical debt collection industry; there are few guardrails. Recently, consumer credit reporting agencies have said they will no longer put small medical debts on credit reports and remove medical debts that have been paid. For many people, that will take years. Some 18% of Americans with health care debt said they never expect to be able to pay off their debt.
The irony here is that medical debt is sometimes discharged in bulk by charities, like RIP Medical Debt and church groups, which will pay pennies on the dollar to make patients’ outstanding medical debt disappear. The absurdity of this fix was shown when the comedian John Oliver, in a late-night stunt, cleared $15 million of Americans’ debt after buying it for $60,000.
But medical debt isn’t a joke and now harms a broad swath of Americans. The government could act in the short term to relieve this uniquely American form of suffering by buying the debts for a modest price. And then, it needs to tackle the underlying cause: a health care system that denies millions of people adequate care while still being the most expensive in the world.
This story was produced by KHN (Kaiser Health News), a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
“El presente artículo es propiedad de California Healthline“
(The Center Square) – California lawmakers gave the final stamp of approval Wednesday to a bill backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that provides court-ordered treatment plans and supportive services for people on the schizophrenia spectrum or with psychotic disorders.
The bill, which establishes the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Act, received broad bipartisan support in both chambers of the Legislature, passing in a 62-2 vote in the Assembly and unanimously in the Senate. The bill now heads to Newsom’s desk.
“Today’s passage of the CARE Act means hope for thousands of Californians suffering from severe forms of mental illness who too often languish on our streets without the treatment they desperately need and deserve,” Newsom said in a statement Wednesday.
Backed by cities across the state and strongly opposed by disability rights advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union, the bill would let a person petition for a court-ordered plan that could include behavioral health care, medication, and housing. The petition triggers hearings to develop a treatment plan.
Adults experiencing a severe mental illness like schizophrenia and are either “unlikely to survive safely” without supervision or have a condition that requires support to prevent deterioration could qualify for the program. The CARE plan could last for up to two years, providing services like medication and treatment.
Newsom and others have touted the measure as a way to break the cycle of homelessness and incarceration among people with severe mental problems.
The measure has faced strong opposition from groups within California and across the nation who fear it will result in coerced treatment that would take away a person’s right to make their own care decisions.
Eric Harris, the director of Public Policy with Disability Rights California, told The Center Square Wednesday that the organization still has major concerns about the bill and is “disappointed” in its passage on Wednesday.
“Forced treatment and not providing guaranteed housing is not going to be beneficial to a lot of these people,” Harris said. “We believe that voluntary treatment options that are robust and guarantee accessible, affordable housing is going to bring out the best results and have people who want to engage in this type of process.”
Harris said the bill was constructed without input from a “large number of disability leaders,” noting that leaders at Disability Rights California “weren’t consulted at all.”
The bill received several amendments in its final days in the Legislature, including one that phases in implementation. The counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and the city and county of San Francisco must implement the program by Oct. 1, 2023. The rest of the state has until Dec. 1, 2024.
Other amendments require funding from the Department of Health Care Services and substitute the director of county behavioral health as the petitioner if someone other than the director petitions the court.
As the bill wound its way through the Legislature, lawmakers raised concerns about how the program would be funded and whether counties would have the staffing to handle the program. In the end, the bill won praise from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers for its potential to curb addiction and homelessness.
“This measure, I believe, is the first truly bipartisan attempt to compassionately clear homeless encampments off our streets, sidewalks and highways, to assess the health behavior and needs of homeless individuals and to put together an actual plan to stop the downward spiral that many homeless individuals have so long been on,” Senator Brian Jones, R-Santee, said Wednesday.
Two lawmakers voted against the measure – Assemblymember Ash Kalra and Mark Stone. In a statement sent to The Center Square, Kalra said he could not support the bill because the program has “missing pieces needed for an effective, sustainable solution.”
“While I echo the urgency to find a solution, if we do not couple permanent housing and wraparound services for our unhoused with severe mental illness, we are setting them up for failure,” Kalra said.
Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign the legislation.
“El presente artículo es propiedad de The Center Square“