Articles by admin

No Image

37 Racehorses Have Died At Santa Anita Park Since December

NPR’s Noel King talks to Jim Chairusmi of The Wall Street Journal about a racehorse suffering a catastrophic injury at the Breeders’ Cup Classic on Saturday in Arcadia, Calif.



NOEL KING, HOST:

Millions of dollars were on the line at the Breeders’ Cup Classic over the weekend, but the headline out of that race is not about which horse won. In the final stretch at Santa Anita Park, a horse named Mongolian Groom injured his leg and was later euthanized. Now, since December, 37 horses have died at Santa Anita. Jim Chairusmi is a sports editor at The Wall Street Journal. He was at Saturday’s race. Good morning.

JIM CHAIRUSMI: Good morning.

KING: So when you were watching, could you tell what was happening, that this horse had been hurt?

CHAIRUSMI: Well, it’s funny because I had a seat right at the finish line. And I was watching the winner who was surging ahead at the line. And then I heard a gasp in the crowd, and I looked back. And I saw the horse, Mongolian Groom, that was limp. And workers quickly rushed onto the track and set up a screen because the horse was injured right in front of the grandstand. So they basically were prepared for situations like this. And workers quickly gathered around the horse and set up the screen so that the crowd was shielded from what was happening.

KING: Thirty-seven deaths of horses in less than a year since December, all at the same racetrack. What is going on here?

CHAIRUSMI: Well, you know, a lot of people are trying to figure it out. I mean, I don’t think there’s one exact reason. The track – this past winter was unseasonably wet in Southern California, a place where it doesn’t rain very often. And the track’s owners – The Stronach Group – blames some of that for the drainage system. They repaired the dirt course and such. They closed a little bit in the spring. They reopened with a new dirt track and a new drainage system. That has not prevented the deaths, as we saw on Saturday.

KING: OK. I had read about performance enhancers being a factor. Can you talk about, like, are the horses being given drugs or medication or what’s going on there?

CHAIRUSMI: Well, you know, there’s been oversight since the deaths have been happening. There has been oversight. And there has been stricter post-race medication rules and pre-race medication rules. Every horse, for instance, during the Breeders’ Cup was checked by three veterinarians. There were a lot of tests. So there are questions about whether this horse, Mongolian Groom, for instance, was sound, were there wellness issues? You know, the horse was checked over by three vets, but that doesn’t mean that the horse might’ve been sore in one of its legs or something like that. We don’t know.

KING: We just don’t know. OK. Santa Anita is facing a ton of pressure after all of this. In September, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, said “the willingness to just spit these animals out and literally take their lives is a disgrace.” That’s a quote. Do you get the sense that California might be moving toward banning horse racing altogether? Is there enough outrage, you suppose?

CHAIRUSMI: Well, coincidentally – and also Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter to the executive director of the California Racing Association and basically said we’re going to be watching. The Breeders’ Cup will be an example of, can you get through a big weekend of racing, you know, injury-free? And as we saw, 14 races happened, 153 horses ran, and the only horse that got hurt got hurt in the last of the 14 races in the stretch. So they were an eighth of a mile from being injury-free and then catastrophe struck.

KING: Just very quickly – we’ve been talking about Santa Anita, is this going on in other places?

CHAIRUSMI: Yeah, you know, to a lesser extent. I think the number is pretty staggering at Santa Anita with 37 horses since December 26. Look. I think in horse racing, the number will – probably will never be zero because, you know, these are thousand-pound animals.

KING: It’s dicey. Jim Chairusmi, Wall Street Journal, thanks so much.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Saudi Aramco, World’s Most Profitable Company, Will Make First Public Offering

President and CEO of Saudi Aramco Amin Nasser and company chairman Yasir al-Rumayyan at a press conference in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on Sunday. The privately-owned oil giant announced it will IPO next month.

AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

AFP via Getty Images

The world’s most profitable company will make its first public stock offering next month, in what could be the biggest IPO ever.

Saudi Aramco, the oil giant owned by the Saudi government, said on Sunday it will sell an unspecified number of shares, thought to be between 1% and 3% of the company. It did not specify a price range.

The company’s initial offering will be on Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul exchange. “We are proud of the listing of Aramco,” said CEO and President Amin Nasser said. “It will increase our visibility internationally.”

It has taken years to get to this moment. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2016 that he wanted the company to go public in 2017, and that it would be valued at $2 trillion. But getting its books ready has taken until now, and bankers have advised that the valuation should instead be around $1.5 trillion.

Aramco supplies about 10% of the world’s crude oil. In 2018, the company made $111 billion. That’s more than J.P. Morgan Chase, Facebook, ExxonMobil and Google parent company Alphabet put together, as CNBC pointed out.

The firm’s finances have long been guarded, but it began sharing its numbers in preparations for the IPO.

Its disclosures show that it costs Aramco $2.80 to get a barrel of oil from the ground, which it can then sell for $62 per barrel, according to The Guardian.

“It produces oil for so much less than anyone else out there,” says Ellen Wald, author of Saudi, Inc., a book about the history of Saudi Arabia and Aramco. “I mean in the United States a fracking company is lucky if it can break even at $50 a barrel.”

That’s just one part of what makes Aramco so profitable. The company also benefits from investments it has made in its infrastructure, which makes it cheap to pump its oil. Then there’s the accessibility of its oil reserves.

“These are the largest conventional oil resources on the planet,” Wald says.

The public offering is part of an effort by the crown prince to diversify Saudi Arabia’s economy and make it less dependent on oil. The move comes less than two months after Aramco’s oil facilities were attacked by drone strikes, which for a time halved the country’s oil exports. Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed responsibility, but Saudi Arabia pointed the finger squarely at Iran.

Those attacks, among other geopolitical issues, have raised questions about the safety of an investment in Aramco.

Credit rating agency Fitch recently downgraded Saudi Arabia’s rating from A+ to A, citing “increased geopolitical and military tensions in the Gulf region,” in addition to “the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia’s economic infrastructure, and continued deterioration in Saudi Arabia’s fiscal and external balance sheets.”

Aramco chairman Yasir al-Rumayyan downplayed those concerns at a press conference Sunday.

After the attacks on its oil facilities, “oil prices went up the first two days by about 20%. Then it came down by 10%,” Rumayyan said. “We have one eighth of the oil production in the world, and the oil traders saw this as a non-event. That means it is really safe. That’s what the money is saying.”

For the people of Saudi Arabia, the IPO is a huge deal.

“This is their crown jewel,” says Wald. “Many Saudis see this as an opportunity to actually invest in the incredible natural resource that was endowed to their country.”

Saudi investors will be incentivized to buy: They’ll be eligible for one extra share for each 10 they buy within the first 180 days.

But for investors elsewhere, the prospect of buying Aramco shares may be more complicated. The company is essentially owned by the Saudi royal family. In September, Crown Prince Mohammed belatedly acknowledged that he was accountable for the October 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi because “It happened under my watch,” though he did not accept responsibility. The country only lifted its ban on women driving last year, and continues to have a guardianship system that limits women’s rights.

And then there’s Aramco’s environmental record. An investigation by The Guardian found that the company is responsible for 4.38% of the world’s carbon emissions since 1965.

With all that in mind, some investors may not want their pension funds to buy shares of Aramco stock.

“People have issues with Saudi Arabia: with their treatment of women, their issues with human rights. They have issues with fossil fuels,” Wald says. “So people should be aware that this is happening and that this is something that can touch their investments, even if they don’t know it. Even if they haven’t actively decided to go into this.”

But no matter what, Wald predicts the IPO will be a historic moment.

“It will also be the first time that people get a chance to really see Aramco’s books,” she says. “It’s long been this kind of shadowy, mysterious company that has held its secrets very close to its chest. And the idea of of getting inside that and taking a look or a peek inside is really fascinating to a lot of people.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Open Enrollment For 2020 Health Care Plans

This year, as open enrollment kicks off, the federal health insurance marketplace Healthcare.gov has a few new bells and whistles.



LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

For people who get their health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, it’s that time of year again. Open enrollment for healthcare.gov kicked off on Friday. The website has been through a lot over the years. It had a famously rocky start in 2013, even as President Obama described his vision for how easy it would be to pick a health plan.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

BARACK OBAMA: Just visit healthcare.gov, and there, you can compare insurance plans side by side the same way you’d shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Every year, there have been tweaks to make things run more smoothly. As NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin reports, this year, there’s a new feature that makes it look a bit more like the website President Obama originally envisioned.

SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN, BYLINE: Star ratings – the plans you see are rated out of five stars based on information submitted by insurers and the experience of customers enrolled in the plans, just like on Yelp or Amazon.

LOUISE NORRIS: I definitely wouldn’t recommend basing your whole plan selection decision on the star ratings, but it’s another little tool people can use.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: That’s Louise Norris. She’s an insurance broker who writes about health policy for healthinsurance.org.

NORRIS: Not every plan will have them because if the plan is new, obviously, it doesn’t. And then if a plan is too small, it doesn’t have it.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: And there’s no guarantee you’ll have access to plans with four or five stars. In some states, there are no plans with more than three stars.

There’s another feature Dr. Charlene Wong likes. She’s a professor at Duke University who studied how people make health insurance choices.

CHARLENE WONG: This tool called the estimated total yearly cost – a lot of people we know from past research become overly focused on the monthly premium and may not pay as much attention to things like the deductible or how much the copayments are.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: Even with these tools, it can be daunting to pick the right plan. Wong knows it’s hard because she’s picked the wrong one. A few years ago, she got pregnant, and her bills from her prenatal visits with an in-network doctor were through the roof.

WONG: It turns out my original preferred provider was actually in Tier 3 of a tiered network.

SIMMONS-DUFFIN: She had to change doctors to keep her costs down. So take heart – this stuff is complicated, even for the experts.

Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

When Nationals Visit The White House, Sports And Politics Will Intersect Once Again

Fans gather in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 2, 2019 as the Washington Nationals hold a parade to celebrate their World Series victory over the Houston Astros.

Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

Thousands of baseball fans sporting red caps and sweatshirts, emblazoned with the Washington Nationals’ curvy W, lined Constitution Avenue in Washington on Saturday to celebrate the team’s historic World Series victory.

On Wednesday, the Nationals defeated the Houston Astros in Game 7 of the series with a 6-2 comeback, clinching the city’s first baseball championship in 95 years.

Next on the team’s schedule — a visit with President Trump.

The Nationals are scheduled to meet Trump on Monday, continuing a time-honored tradition of championship teams traveling to the White House for a meeting with the president. But in a city where partisan politics has long been the dominant sport, Monday’s visit has itself taken a political turn.

On Friday, Nationals pitcher Sean Doolittle publicly confirmed that he will skip the event. Doolittle has been vocal about his opposition to many of the administration’s policies.

“There’s a lot of things, policies that I disagree with, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with the divisive rhetoric and the enabling of conspiracy theories and widening the divide in this country,” Doolittle told The Washington Post. “At the end of the day, as much as I wanted to be there with my teammates and share that experience with my teammates, I can’t do it.”

Even before Doolittle’s decision, this year’s World Series had delved into politics. During Game 5 of the series, Nationals fans booed Trump during an appearance at the team’s Nationals Park and taunted him with cheers of “lock him up.” During Game 7 in Houston, more than 16,000 Nationals’ fans gathered for a free viewing party back in Washington and again broke into boos when a Trump campaign ad aired during a commercial break.

While the fan response captured headlines, it was hardly the first instance of baseball intersecting with Washington politics.

The first team visit to the White House was in 1865. That summer, Washington, D.C. held a three-team baseball tournament. The Athletic from Philadelphia beat the Washington Nationals to win the tournament, but both teams were invited to visit the White House to meet President Andrew Johnson. As the story goes, the players from both teams attended and then one by one, shook the president’s hand.

Even then, the meeting had a political motivation. According to The Atlantic’s Yoni Appelbaum, this first meeting was arranged by the president of the National club, Arthur Pue Gorman, a white Southerner and Johnson supporter who in the aftermath of the Civil War wanted to maintain racial segregation. He saw baseball — which was then an all-white sport — and the meeting with Johnson as a way to do this.

It wasn’t until the presidency of Ronald Reagan more than a century later that invitations for championship teams from across the sports world became a regular occurrence. So too did the practice of players snubbing those invitations.

In 1991, for example, after the Chicago Bulls won their first NBA title, Michael Jordan decided to play golf rather than meet with President George H.W. Bush.

Golfer Tom Lehman declined a meeting with President Bill Clinton, referring to him as a “draft-dodging baby killer.”

Jake Arrieta of the Chicago Cubs skipped a visit to the Obama White House, as did Boston Bruins goalie Tea Party supporter Tim Thomas.

But under the Trump administration there has been an uptick in the number of players — and in some cases entire teams — rejecting invitations to visit the White House, citing everything from scheduling conflicts to outright objections to the president’s policies.

The uptick, in part, may be due to a shift in public attitudes. Athletes who were once expected to keep their opinions silent are now cheered by some fans for speaking up and othertimes jeered when they choose not to.

When teams have accepted invitations, the decision by some players not to attend has often overshadowed the actual visit. After their victory in last year’s World Series, the Boston Red Sox visited the White House, but when they did, almost every non-white player and coach on the team was noticeably absent.

In 2017, the White House rescinded an invitation altogether after members of the NBA champion Golden State Warriors said that they were considering skipping the event. Trump tweeted the decision, saying, “invitation is withdrawn!” It was considered the first time a president ever pulled back an invite due to a spat with players.

This past summer during the Women’s World Cup, members of the Women’s National Soccer team, including Megan Rapinoe — said that if they won the tournament, they would decline an invitation to the White House. Trump responded, saying Rapinoe “should never disrespect our Country.” The team ultimately won the World Cup, but did not receive an invitation to the White House.

Since Doolittle announced his decision, he told The Washington Post that he has received a flurry of social media messages from those who disagree with his decision, calling it disrespectful.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Trump Takes In UFC Fight In NYC, Days After Tweeting Residency Change To Florida

President Donald Trump speaks to the media before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House. He’s expected to spend the weekend in New York and take in a UFC fight.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Politics is often described as a rough and tumble business. But President Donald Trump is expected to witness an actual blood sport when he takes in a much-hyped mixed martial arts event on Saturday at Madison Square Garden in New York.

This will be Trump’s second sporting event in the span of a week. On Sunday, he attended Game 5 of the World Series at Nationals Park in Washington, where he was met with boos and chants of “lock him up.”

Trump’s visit to New York comes just two days after announcing he and his family are switching their permanent residency from New York to Florida, a move that was met with cheers from some of several prominent Democrats in the state. Explaining his decision on Twitter, Trump said he lamented being “treated very badly by the political leaders” in New York.

Trump who was born, raised, built his businesses and launched his political campaign in New York, says he “hated” to have to make the decision to leave, but that “few have been treated worse” by the city and state elected officials.

He’s switching his residence to Palm Beach, Fla., where he owns the Mar-a-Lago resort, a place he’s dubbed the “winter White House.” Trump has resisted calls to release his state or federal taxes, but by switching residences, he’d go from a city that taxes top earners a 3.876% tax rate, and a state with a top rate of about 9% to Florida, which has no state income tax.

Donald Trump Jr., right, poses for a photo with Eric Trump at UFC Fight Night Saturday, Aug. 3, 2019, in Newark, N.J.

Frank Franklin II/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Frank Franklin II/AP

Before that paperwork is finalized however, he’s expected to spend much of the weekend in the Big Apple, starting with attending the UFC 244 tournament, headlined by Nate Diaz and Jorge Masvidal. The main event is for a new belt and “title” of BMF, an acronym for “Baddest Motherf*****.”

According to TMZ Sports, the belt cost $50,000 to make and other notables expected to attend include wrestler-turned-actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

Trump’s Connection to Mixed Martial Arts

UFC President Dana White, center, at a press conference ahead of UFC 244 scheduled for Saturday in New York City. The main event is between Jorge Masvidal, left, and Nate Diaz.

Michael Owens/Zuffa LLC


hide caption

toggle caption

Michael Owens/Zuffa LLC

While a MMA match may strike some as an unusual place for a commander-in-chief to spend a Saturday night, NPR’s Scott Simon pointed out on Saturday’s Weekend Edition that “the president is a fan and used to book MMA events at his casino in Atlantic City.”

Trump’s dealings with Ultimate Fighting Championship and its President Dana White, go back to 2001 when UFC 30: Battle on the Boardwalk was held at Trump’s Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.

Back then, it was a huge score for the UFC to land a venue like Trump’s. The sport had suffered for years, being banned in several states and disparaged as “human cockfighting” by the late Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In a 2018 interview with The Hill, White spoke about MMA’s “stigma” and that “venues didn’t even want us.”

“I will never say anything negative about Donald Trump,” White said at the time. “He was there when other people weren’t.”

White said he and Trump remain close, even though, for a time, Trump partnered with a rival mixed martial arts outfit called Affliction Entertainment in 2008. Affliction soon tapped out, but the UFC has scrapped its way to being a multi-billion-dollar industry, selling for just over $4 billion in 2016.

“Any good thing that happened to me in my career, Donald Trump was the first to pick up the phone and call and say ‘congratulations, I knew you guys were going to do this,'” White told The Hill.

A month prior to UFC’s sale, White spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention, something he said he was “blown away and honored” to do.

“Donald championed the UFC before it was popular, before it grew into a successful business,” White said before a crowd gathered in Cleveland.

“I will always be grateful, so grateful to him for standing with us in those early days. So tonight, I stand with Donald Trump.”

Trump is expected to stay overnight at the Trump Tower in New York on Saturday. He is expected to depart on Sunday, and perhaps add to the traffic congestion that’s already anticipated for the New York City Marathon.

YouTube

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Voters Weigh In As Elizabeth Warren Takes Health Care Plan On Campaign Trail

Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a plan to pay for “Medicare for All” without raising taxes on the middle class, and now she’s on the campaign trail talking about it.



LEILA FADEL, HOST:

Impeachment aside, health care has emerged as a dominant campaign issue for Democrats this presidential election season. The idea of better, cheaper health care is popular with primary voters. But the idea of eliminating private insurance and replacing it with a government-run system is less popular. Still, that’s what Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is endorsing. And yesterday, she released her plan explaining how she intends to pay for it. NPR’s Asma Khalid is with Warren on the campaign trail in Iowa.

ASMA KHALID, BYLINE: The first stop of the day for Elizabeth Warren was a rally at a high school in Vinton, a small town with a population around 5,000. Warren did not mention her “Medicare for All” plan in her speech. But the first question she got from the crowd, from Dee Patters, was about health care and specifically what would happen to people like her who depend on unusual lifesaving drugs.

DEE PATTERS: I wholeheartedly support universal health care. But I also worry about the transition and whether or not the continuity of care will be able to be there as we transition to “Medicare for All.”

KHALID: Warren told the crowd that her goal is to improve health care.

ELIZABETH WARREN: No insurance company in the middle to say, sorry, that doctor is out of network. No insurance company in the middle to say, I’m sorry, we don’t authorize that treatment.

KHALID: And her plan, she says, would save middle-class families money.

WARREN: We should be an America where you get the health care that you need and that no one goes broke over it.

KHALID: I caught up with Patters after the rally. She told me she’s not sure who she’s going to caucus for – either Warren or California senator Kamala Harris. She gestured to her partner and explained that they don’t think a public option being offered by some other candidates is enough. But she wants to hear more from Warren about how the country would transition to “Medicare for All.”

PATTERS: We believe in universal health care, but it’s that, you know, nagging, like, am I still going to be able to get everything I have now?

KHALID: Yesterday, Warren laid out an ambitious plan that explains how she would pay for “Medicare for All.” It’s a question she’s been badgered with for months on the campaign trail and on the debate stage. Her plan calls for higher taxes on the wealthy, cuts to defense spending and diverting money to the government that employers already pay to insurance companies.

CHRIS VAN WAUS: I appreciate that she did lay out the information and details. I think that’s good. It wasn’t really necessary for me.

KHALID: That’s Chris Van Waus, who was listening in the front row today with his daughter.

VAN WAUS: In the end, I think it’s really a value judgment more than just purely a money judgment for me. Even if my taxes go up a little bit, I’m still supportive of “Medicare for All” because I think it’s the right policy for America.

KHALID: Warren has insisted her plan will not increase taxes on the middle class. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of Americans actually do not support eliminating private insurance in exchange for “Medicare for All,” and that’s what worries Mary O’Hearn.

MARY O’HEARN: I’m all about winning this time around. It’s been a hard two and a half, three years.

KHALID: We met at a Biden rally the other day. She likes Warren. She thinks she’s smart and good at explaining her ideas.

O’HEARN: But there’s one thing about Elizabeth that I – I like if you like your health care, you can keep with that. That’s the thing that I feel strongly about.

KHALID: How strongly could be key. It’s not unusual to find voters who are uncertain about “Medicare for All” but like Warren as a candidate. The question is whether they’ll stick with her.

Asma Khalid, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Calif. Governor Seeks To ‘Jumpstart’ PG&E Bankruptcy Talks; Threatens State Takeover

From left, LA City Councilman Mike Bonin, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Eric Garcetti tour a burned home in Brentwood, Calif., on Tuesday.

Wally Skalij/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Wally Skalij/AP

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday that he wants to speed up Pacific Gas & Electric’s bankruptcy case, calling on the beleaguered utility’s executives, creditors and shareholders, as well as wildfire victims, to reach “a consensual resolution” to the negotiations before next year’s wildfire season.

“We want to broker that mediation and are calling on all the parties to come in early next week to jumpstart those negotiations,” Newsom said in a Sacramento news conference.

Newsom left little doubt that he is looking beyond the PG&E bankruptcy case and that he envisions a future in which the state takes an active role in restructuring the California’s largest utility.

“It is my hope that the stakeholders in PG&E will put parochial interests aside and reach a negotiated resolution so that we can create this new company and forever put the old PG&E behind us,” Newsom said in statement. “If the parties fail to reach an agreement quickly to begin this process of transformation, the state will not hesitate to step in and restructure the utility.”

PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January when it faced a flood of lawsuits related to California’s wildfires in 2018 caused by its equipment, with potential liabilities estimated at about $30 billion.

California lawmakers over the summer gave PG&E a deadline of June 30, 2020, to exit bankruptcy or forfeit billions of dollars in a state fund established to help utilities pay for future wildfire claims. The law also requires PG&E to spend at least $5 billion on safety improvements to access the fund.

“PG&E, as we know it, cannot persist and continue,” Newsom said in the news conference. “Everybody objectively acknowledges and agrees with that. It has to be completely transformed.”

The Democratic governor also announced that he is appointing his cabinet secretary, Ana Matosantos, as his “de facto energy czar” to help his administration to figure out what “a 21st century utility looks like.”

Newsom’s remarks follow critical comments he has made all week about PG&E as he toured the state’s wildfire areas. He has repeatedly said the power outages imposed in order to mitigate wildfire dangers were “unacceptable.”

“This is not the new normal and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said.

That remark was an apparent swipe at PG&E Corp. President Bill Johnson who said last month that utility customers could anticipate power outages for the next decade.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Open Enrollment Is Here: 6 Tips For Choosing A Health Insurance Plan

HealthCare.gov provides tools to guide you cost comparisons when you’re choosing a health care plan.

Catie Dull/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Catie Dull/NPR

It’s the season to roll up your sleeves, gather your documents, and pick a health insurance plan for 2020. For those shopping for their own plans, HealthCare.gov and the other state exchanges are open for enrollment as of November 1.

Despite the rhetoric about the implosion of the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate going away, and other attempts to hobble the law, the marketplaces are still alive and well. And many people are eligible for subsidies to bring their costs down.

In fact, HealthCare.gov has gotten sleeker and easier to use over the years (after a famously rocky start). There are new bells and whistles to make shopping for a plan easier this year. Still, figuring out how to balance premiums, deductibles and other costs, and choose a plan that will fit your needs for the coming year is hard.

Charlene Wong knows this from experience. Even as a doctor and academic at Duke University who studies how people make health insurance choices, a few years ago, she and her husband picked the wrong plan.

“We spent several days researching plans and called around to make sure the doctors we wanted to see were in network,” she says. Then she got pregnant, and found that while her OB was in network, there was a catch.

“There was a tiered network within that health insurance plan and [my OB] was in Tier 3 of network providers,” she explains. Even though she thought she’d done everything right, she ended up having to switch doctors to keep her costs down.

So take heart — health insurance can be tricky, even for the experts. Here are a few tips to help you find the right plan.

1 – Figure out where and when you need to enroll

Depending where you live, you can either use the federal exchanges on HealthCare.gov or your state’s marketplace to shop for insurance. Twelve states and the District of Columbia run their own exchanges. The federal exchange open enrollment runs until mid-December, but you might have more time if you live in a state that runs its own marketplace.

2 – Review plan options, even if you like your current one

For people who are already enrolled in an ACA plan, Charles Gaba says it’s really important to log in and check if there’s a better value, even if you’re happy with your current plan. Gaba runs the website ACAsignups.net, where he does health care data and policy analysis, focused primarily on the Affordable Care Act.

It can be tempting to skip the whole enrollment rigmarole, especially since you’ll just get rolled into the same plan or a similar plan if you do nothing during open enrollment.

“A lot of people think that because nothing changed in their lives — like, their income is the same, the same household — nothing will change for their policy or their premiums, and that’s just not true,” Gaba says.

Every year, there can be all sorts of changes that affect the kinds of plans available and the costs of those plans. For instance, this year new insurers have entered the marketplace, and premiums have gone down in some states. It’s always worth logging in and checking to see what’s changed for you and whether it makes sense to switch things up.

3 – Compare estimated yearly costs, not just monthly premiums

It’s easy to focus on the monthly premium payment when comparing plans, but Wong at Duke says don’t forget to consider other costs as well.

“A lot of people — we know from past research — become overly focused on the monthly premium and may not pay as much attention to things like the deductible or how much the co-payments are,” Wong says.

The premium price is prominently featured when you’re looking at plans, but look at other costs too. A tool available on HealthCare.gov and some state marketplaces will calculate “estimated total yearly costs” for you. This takes into account the plan’s deductible — how much you have to pay out-of-pocket for covered services before your insurance picks up the tab — and copays, put together with how much health care you expect to use in the coming year.

Wong says that yearly cost estimate can be a really useful tool when picking a plan. “Trying to figure out that math can be a little bit tricky, especially for people who are not as familiar with health insurance.” she says.

4 – Consider how much health care you use

Picking the right insurance plan involves guesswork about how many health issues you’re likely to face in the coming year, which could affect the way costs break down. Your age is usually a useful proxy for this, but there’s always a lot of unknowns, like a surprise cancer diagnosis or a car accident.

Wong points out there are basic tradeoffs to consider. “You might want to think about, ‘Do I pay a little bit more each month in a monthly premium knowing that that would mean less out-of-pocket expenses when and if I do need more medical care?” she says. “Versus — the other way around — ‘Let me pay a lower monthly premium because I don’t really anticipate needing much care, but I know I’d have this health insurance in case something really catastrophic happens.’ “

Alongside these unknowns, leverage what you do know about your health needs. If you have a doctor you like, or if you know you’re going to take a certain prescription drug, look for a plan that covers them. HealthCare.gov allows you to add your provider and your prescription drugs as you browse plans to see whether they’re covered. Another way to find out is simply call your doctors and ask what plans they accept, says Wong.

5 – Beware too-good-to-be-true plans

If you see a good deal online, make sure you’re looking at an ACA plan, warns health policy writer and insurance broker Louise Norris. When you search for health insurance on the internet, you may stumble on short term plans that advertise much lower monthly premiums, but don’t cover the ACA’s famous ten essential benefits. These include some pretty important stuff like prenatal care and mental health treatment.

Sometimes people can find good deals on premiums in the federal and state marketplaces, Norris says, but if one plan sticks out as being too good to be true, read the fine print.

“I did see some new plans popping up in some areas for 2020 where they’ll say $0 deductible,” she says. “Then you scroll down a little bit further and you have maybe $1,000 a day copay for hospitalization.” You hope you won’t spend a lot of time in the hospital, but if you do, that kind of cost could really add up.

Norris points out a new tool this year to help sort out good plans from bad — a star rating, similar to what consumers are used to on Yelp or Amazon (hearkening back to Obama’s original vision). The star ratings are based on information insurers submitted regarding cost, combined with enrollee feedback.

“Star ratings are one of those at-a-glance things where you can kind of see, “OK, how do other customers feel about this plan?’ ” Norris says. Not all plans have them since some are new, she says, but for plans that do, the stars “give you some some red flags if maybe there are some concerns.”

6 – Get free help from the pros

The Trump administration slashed federal funding for advertising open enrollment and the navigator program, but those programs do still exist: There are still people across the country trained and ready to sign people up — for free.

“My best piece of advice for people — particularly those who are less familiar with insurance, is to see if you can get some help,” Wong says. You can call for help, but she recommends trying to meet in person with “a health insurance navigator or a certified application counselor,” she says. “Importantly, these are folks who are impartial to which health insurance plan may be best for you.”

Katie Turner is one of those trained navigators — she’s been signing people up for seven years, and works with the Family Health Care Foundation in the Tampa Bay, Fla., area. Leading up to open enrollment, she’s been busy calling consumers from past years, letting them know that this is the time.

She advises people to assemble all the necessary documents, such as Social Security cards, immigration documentation, tax returns, before going into a meeting with a navigator.

Most of all, she says, don’t miss your chance to sign up for coverage if you need it.

“There is a lot of confusion out there,” Turner says. Many people are confused about what a legal challenge to the law means for the marketplaces (nothing for now), when open enrollment is, and more. “All we can do,” Turner says, “is continue to be here and provide the resources that we’ve been providing for the last seven years to help people enroll in coverage.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

After Days Of Resignations, The Last Of The Deadspin Staff Has Quit

The entire writing and editing staff of Deadspin quit after being told to “stick to sports.”

The Washington Post via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

The Washington Post via Getty Images

Deadspin, the brash and rebellious sports website, has had its entire writing and editing personnel resign just days after new management issued a mandate to staff to “stick to sports.”

On Friday, the website’s most well-known writer, Dave McKenna, was said to be stepping down, according to a post by former Deadspin Senior Editor Diana Moskovitz.

“This the final Deadspin transaction before relegation. As the last editor left with access to our work systems, I’m promoting Dave McKenna to editor-in-chief of Deadspin,” Moskovitz wrote in a post titled “Transactions, Nov. 1.”

The post continues, “McKenna has graciously agreed to accept his new position until the end of the day (this is his last day). Please note that Dave McKenna was the last [editor-in-chief] of Deadspin.”

Before the sarcasm-laden post, Moskovitz published a separate entry that was simply titled “Thank You” and notably filed under the tag “BYE.”

“I have gone over the contours of this blog in my mind so many times, and yet I still don’t know what to say,” Moskovitz said.

“So I’ll keep it simple. Thank you to our freelancers, who gave us amazing stories. Thank you to our fellow bloggers at the other sites, for being the best comrades in blog battle that we could ask for. Thank to our sources (you know who you are),” Moskovitz wrote.

She also gave a shoutout to Deadspin readers who “made this place special.”

I kept thinking there would be a “good time” to announce this, but that “good time” never came. So here goes: Last week, I gave my two-weeks notice at Deadspin.

— Diana Moskovitz (@DianaMoskovitz) October 29, 2019

Writers and editors began to quit the site en masse on Wednesday and the exodus continued through Friday. The Washington Post reports “around 20 writers and editors” handed in their resignations this week.

The turmoil began Monday, when executives with G/O Media, the parent company of Deadspin and other websites including Gizmodo, The Onion and The Root, sent a directive to the staffers of the sports website to write only on sports and sports-adjacent topics.

That left many writers peeved, because Deadspin had made its mark with its irreverent, and at times piercing commentary on culture, politics and media alongside coverage of the world of athletics.

NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik broke down the tumult at Deadspin this way on Thursday’s All Things Considered:

“So G/O Media is run by a guy named Jim Spanfeller. He worked at forbes.com and Playboy — promised advertisers, according to writers and the union there, more than they could deliver. He’s claimed that … 24 out of the top 25 stories last month were purely about sports. A number of recent editors say, hey, that’s flatly untrue; you could get as many as 100,000 readers or more for stories having little to do with sport.

“Spanfeller and others forced out an editor a couple months ago at Deadspin who didn’t want to push a more strictly sports line on writers, and a few days ago, [they] sent out a memo the morning after a post on [President] Trump being booed at the World Series, saying let’s stick to sports. And then they fired their acting editor as well.”

The acting editor who was fired was Barry Petchesky.

In a statement sent to the Daily Beast on Tuesday, G/O Media’s editorial director, Paul Maidment, said Deadspin writers should go for any story “as long as it has something to do with sports.

“However,” Maidment added, alluding to the recent firing, “We are sorry that some on the Deadspin staff don’t agree with that editorial direction, and refuse to work within that incredibly broad mandate.”

A statement about the resignations at Deadspin. pic.twitter.com/NrUmtHzZbq

— GMG Union (@gmgunion) October 30, 2019

By Wednesday, Deadspin staff resignations had begun. On that same day, GMG Union, which represents Deadspin writers, tweeted a statement alleging the actions of Spanfeller were “morally reprehensible” and that he “worked to undermine a successful site.”

The union also said the mandate to cover sports only was “a thinly veiled euphemism for ‘don’t speak truth to power.’ ”

With the editorial staff no longer on the Deadspin team, the future of the popular sport and culture site is unknown. But for many of its former staffers, like onetime editor-in-chief Megan Greenwell, Deadspin’s legacy is firmly intact.

“And with that, it’s over. Deadspin no longer employs a single writer or editor. I am gutted but so very proud of this group of people. Deadspin was a good website.”

And with that, it’s over. Deadspin no longer employs a single writer or editor. I am gutted but so very proud of this group of people.

Deadspin was a good website.

— Megan Greenwell (@megreenwell) November 1, 2019

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Opinion: Syria’s Oil Output Is Low, But Here’s Why It Matters

A convoy of U.S. military vehicles, arriving from northern Iraq, drives past an oil pump jack in the countryside of Syria’s northeastern city of Qamishli on Oct. 26.

Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images

Roger Diwan is vice president of IHS Markit and director for energy and financial markets. Daniel Yergin is vice chairman of IHS Markit and author of The Prize and The Quest.


Syrian oil is suddenly a hot topic in Washington, D.C. The announcement that U.S. forces in Syria, while generally withdrawing, would remain to protect the oil fields has focused a spotlight on the significance of those resources.

Syrian oil has always been of prime importance to President Bashar Assad’s regime. It provided about 25% of government revenues prior to the civil war. But that oil had hardly any importance to the world oil market. At 385,000 barrels per day before the civil war began in 2011, it was barely a footnote for the global market — less than half a percent of world supply.

But the rise of ISIS did suddenly make Syrian oil important to the world community — not in terms of volume but because of what it allowed ISIS to do. During the ISIS “caliphate,” production plunged by 90% to about 40,000 barrels a day in 2015. Yet ISIS was able to turn the barrels under its control into money, smuggling them into Turkey, selling in local markets — and selling to the Assad regime. Still, that minuscule amount of oil earned, at the peak, about half a billion dollars a year for ISIS, giving it the financial heft that no terrorist organization had ever had before, indeed making it by far the richest terrorist organization in the world. Among other things, it enabled ISIS to lure fighters from other groups in Syria and from abroad with higher wages.

With the rollback and then the defeat of ISIS, control of most of the oil fields passed into the hands of the Kurdish forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces. During the campaign against ISIS, the above-ground infrastructure was a target of bombing, aimed at depriving ISIS of revenues, and was further damaged in battles. There was no normal maintenance of the oil system. There are no hard numbers, but it is thought that the total output today is in the 15,000-30,000 barrels a day range. As such, it would still be an important source of revenues for the SDF and the Kurds.

It will take a lot of investment — and time — to bring back the production to the pre-civil war level, and there will be few companies willing to commit even when the sovereignty issues are resolved between the various factions controlling the oil fields.

Syria had a relatively diverse foreign investor mix before the war — from large companies like Total and Sinopec to small companies such as Gulfsands — working alongside the state Syrian Petroleum Company in production-sharing agreements. The ramp-up in violence and European Union sanctions imposed on Syria at the end of 2011 led to an exodus of nearly all the foreign companies.

Yet even prior to the civil war, Syria was not a particularly attractive destination in commercial terms for oil companies. The government took 85% of the revenues from operations, compounded by heavy-handed administration by the regime. The oil fields are concentrated in two regions in the vast eastern desert — one in the northeast of the country and the other along the Euphrates River — and are in no way comparable to the bountiful oil provinces of Iraq or the ones in the Persian Gulf. The reserves in Syria are small, dispersed and far from export facilities on the Mediterranean. Altogether, Syria’s oil resources are marginal in the great oil game of the Middle East and for the world industry.

There are several possible rationales for maintaining U.S. forces in the oil fields. One is to assure that some of these fields do not again fall into the hands of a resurgent ISIS. While ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died a few days ago, and the group’s spokesman was killed, there are still many thousands of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria, plus more held in makeshift prisons. Even if there is little chance of the “caliphate” being restored, these fighters could still cause further damage to the fields, which are the most tangible resource that Syria has.

A second possible reason is to keep the oil fields out of the hands of Assad, and possibly the Russians, and maintain as a bargaining chip for the opposition in the course of working out some kind of settlement with the Assad regime. A third would be to preserve these fields as an engine of recovery for the day when there is a post-Assad regime. But, whatever the course, it would be a long time before those fields can begin to even approach the pre-civil war level of production.

And, from the perspective of the global market, they will remain insignificant. Just look at the scale. Syria was at that 385,000 barrels per day in 2011. That same year, the United States produced 5.7 million barrels per day. Since then the U.S. has grown to 12.6 million.

What happens to Syrian oil will be important to the future of Syria itself — as a revenue source for a country that will desperately need money. That, rather than its impact on global supply, is what will make what happens to Syrian oil of significance to the world.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)