Gobernador Wolf solicita a la legislatura a proteger a los residentes de Pennsylvania de los desalojos y ejecuciones hipotecarias

first_imgGobernador Wolf solicita a la legislatura a proteger a los residentes de Pennsylvania de los desalojos y ejecuciones hipotecarias Economy,  Español,  Press Release Con una orden ejecutiva que protege a los propietarios e inquilinos del desalojo o la ejecución hipotecaria que vence el 1 de septiembre, el Gobernador Tom Wolf envió cartas a la Cámara y al Senado solicitando la legislatura a extender temporalmente la moratoria existente y corregir defectos en la Ley 24 de 2020, un programa creado recientemente, que ayuda a inquilinos y propietarios de viviendas.El gobernador volvió a emitir la orden ejecutiva de desalojo y moratoria en julio; sin embargo, el Código de Servicios de Emergencia no permite más alivio relacionado con la vivienda temporal.La Ley 24 promulgada en mayo proporciona $150 millones para asistencia de alquiler y $25 millones para asistencia hipotecaria. La Agencia de Financiamiento de Vivienda de Pennsylvania administra el programa utilizando fondos de la Ley CARES. Sin embargo, el programa está ayudando a menos personas de las previstas, en parte debido a un límite de asistencia de $750. La carta del gobernador incluye recomendaciones de PHFA para abordar los problemas para que el programa pueda ayudar a más residentes de Pennsylvania a medida que la comunidad continúa luchando contra la pandemia de COVID-19 y su impacto económico.“La Asamblea General debe actuar para solucionar estos problemas de inmediato para brindar una asistencia significativa a este sector vital de la economía y prevenir el desplazamiento de los habitantes de Pennsylvania mientras continuamos luchando contra el virus COVID-19”, dijo el Gobernador Wolf. “La Legislatura debería aumentar el pago de $750 al mes a al menos el 130% de los límites de HUD, lo que en realidad ayudaría a los propietarios en áreas de mayor costo, conduciría a una mayor participación en el programa y aumentaría el número de inquilinos asistidos.“Además, el programa debería permitir que los participantes que necesiten asistencia obtengan asistencia para el alquiler sin tener que pagar atrasos. Los residentes de Pennsylvania no deberían tener que renunciar a alimentos o medicinas para mantenerse al día con el alquiler y ser elegibles para recibir ayuda”.El gobernador propuso un alivio adicional para los inquilinos hoy temprano cuando dio a conocer su agenda legislativa de otoño. El gobernador propone $100 millones adicionales para el Programa de Alivio de Alquiler PHFA CARES. La asistencia seguirá estando disponible en forma de subvención y los fondos se pagarán directamente a los dueños o propietarios.El gobernador también propone dividir $100 millones entre el Programa de Asistencia de Energía para Hogares de Bajos Ingresos (LIHEAP) y un nuevo programa de agua/aguas residuales de emergencia administrado por PENNVEST para ayudar a los clientes residenciales que estarían sujetos a la terminación del servicio cuando la moratoria actual de la PUC en terminaciones eventualmente se levanta.Lea las carta del Gobernador a la Cámara y al Senado.View this information in English. August 25, 2020center_img SHARE Email Facebook Twitterlast_img read more

End of Life Choice Bill – 1st Reading – Simon O’Connor (National)

first_imgI believe this is a sad day for the House. We are here talking about the State sanctioning killing of New Zealanders. This bill suggests that suicide is a solution under certain circumstances, and I stand today to reject this.I spent two and a bit years chairing the Health Committee as over 21,000 Kiwis from across the spectrum spoke to us, and 80 percent, who had well considered it, said no. I’ve studied philosophy and human rights, I’ve been at hospital beds and hospices, I’ve seen more death and suffering than sometimes I care to remember, and, fundamentally, I do not believe doctors should be killing their patients.Members of the House, this bill is about killing in two ways. The first is called euthanasia. It’s where the doctor takes an injection, usually something like phenobarbital, and injects it into you—only after they’ve sedated you, of course; couldn’t have the inconvenience of twitching. The other is physician-assisted suicide, where, again, they give you a massive dose of drugs. You take that yourself, at your own choosing—and hope that the kids don’t find it in the medical cabinet at the time.This bill combines both of those. That’s almost unheard of in any other jurisdiction around the world. This bill before us tonight is the worst example of euthanasia legislation in the world. I say that as someone who has looked at every piece of legislation.Where it starts, really badly, is clause 4. We hear it a lot: it’s all about terminal illness, up to six months. But the doctors, the medical people, will tell you that six months is just an indication; it’s not a guarantee. And the doctors will tell you too that they misdiagnose all the time.They also talk in this bill about irremediable, grievous conditions. That’s incredibly broad, undefined. What is “irremediable”? What is “grievous”? Basically, it includes everyone, including those with disabilities.But the bill also, rather insidiously, talks about suffering that a person deems intolerable—what you deem intolerable. Sorry, Mr Speaker—what members may deem intolerable. This is a clear indication that it is the courts who will be making decisions and choices, not this Parliament and certainly not the person.In the debate in this space, I’ve often said, it’s between choice and public safety. Let’s be very clear: the current laws as they stand mean that no one will die against their will, but this proposed law that we consider tonight will make involuntary deaths possible. We know in this House we do not make things perfect, because changing this law will allow some to assist the suicide—well, sorry. People who choose to assist in suicide will put others at risk.We know that this law applies to everyone. It does not apply simply to the rational and articulate; it applies to the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the vulnerable—all of us. Not everyone is fortunate enough to live with a loving, caring family. Not everyone has a doctor fully in tune with them and their needs. This law will apply to the depressed, the lonely, those who feel a burden, the disabled, the fearful. I should point out that these are the same feelings of a 16-year-old who is keen to suicide, the 40-year-old who has lost their farm, or the 80-year-old on the deathbed.I repeat again, as I did a few months back, that you cannot stand in this House and decry the suicide of one group of people—say, the youth—and then encourage the suicide of another group—say, the sick. They are the same feelings that are there. And I don’t say it alone. It’s very easy for the media and others to attack, but, actually, this is the opinion of the major medical groups, the psychologists, and the youth workers. I add their voice tonight.There’s a lot of talk about choice. Let me say one thing about choice: the patient in this space never makes the choice. If they did, there wouldn’t need to be doctors and psychologists and boards and panels. The doctors make the choices. The family makes the choices.If you think I’m exaggerating, go and look up an example in the Netherlands recently. A woman with dementia who, yes, years ago, had said that she would like to die by assisted suicide, was held down after being sedated by her doctor and family—they put drugs in her tea. They sedated her, held her down as she screamed and yelled, and then they killed her. The doctor was able to report it, and they just said, “Oh, well, you acted in good faith, but she’s dead now.” So much for the choice and autonomy that she exercised.And I’d point out too that if it’s about choice and autonomy, we all have it. If it’s a human right, all humans have it. There is a slippery slope, and one only needs to turn to Canada, which has already been mentioned, which is already pushing the boundaries.There are no safeguards; there are just lots of criteria. Being 18 is not a safeguard. All the reporting comes after the fact. If you get it wrong, the person’s still dead.Doctors don’t want to be part of this. The few that do will make a business of it, and there will be doctor-shopping. The conscience rights in this bill are a nonsense. If you oppose, the doctor must hand that person over to someone who will.It’s a very, very poor bill, and, fundamentally—thousands of health professionals and others have argued in the recent public debate—this is an issue where the public safety will be put at risk. So I ask this House how many involuntary deaths and errors are we willing to accept through this law: one, five, 10—last_img read more