SRINAGAR: For the first time, Orbital Atherectomy and Orbital Lithotripsy procedures were performed at the Super Specialty Hospital Jammu on Tuesday. A doctor who was part of the team performing the procedures said that a 75-year-old patient from Nowshera Rajouri, who had suffered a major heart attack a couple of days ago, was referred from a private center to Government Medical College Jammu. The patient’s angiography, which was done at the same peripheral center, revealed massively calcified critical distal LMCA disease, which is a death sentence if not treated in time.
The doctor said that the treatment of left main coronary artery disease with massive calcification usually requires bypass surgery, but this patient was not willing and wanted an alternative therapy. “The clinical profile and angiography results of this patient were a goosebump feeling, but the patient had to be saved,” the doctor said.
After careful analysis, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA)/STENTING was successfully done with satisfactory results with the help of Orbital Atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL).
The doctor said that once somebody has severe calcification in their coronary arteries, the stents either do not cross or may not open properly, which can be detrimental both in the short and long term. “Hence, these patients require some form of calcium modulation therapy, and the oldest form of calcium modulation therapy is rotablation, which might fall short in vessels with larger diameter and calcium nodules,” he said.
The newer forms of therapy are intravascular lithotripsy and orbital atherectomy, which, if used in combination, can prove to be a game-changer at times, he said. This patient had large vessels, and the calcium was nodular; therefore, they used the combination of Orbital Atherectomy and IVL, which gave a result beyond imagination, the doctor said further.
“Orbital Atherectomy, with the help of a diamond burr, ablates the calcium into fine particles and creates micro-fractures in the calcium, while IVL sends shock waves and creates fractures in calcium,” he added. (KNO)
Hyderabad: Society for Earth Justice, a charitable organisation will be holding a round table meeting on the rejuvenation of the Musi River at the Soyab Hall, Sundarayya Vignana Kendram (SVK) in Bagh Lingampally.
Musi, a tributary of Krishna River that flows in Hyderabad and surrounding areas is polluted by sewage and industrial waste containing toxic and hazardous materials such as heavy metals, phenols, and pesticides.
This pollution is affecting crops, livestock, and dairy products, as well as causing skin problems, eye problems, and vomiting in certain seasons.
Research highlights the severity of the issue, and its impact on the environment and public health, hence making it crucial to take action to prevent further pollution and protect the river and its surrounding areas.
Members of the Society for Earth Justice organisation are planning to march to spread awareness on the issue, raising slogans such as, “Clean waters from musi for agriculture, clean drinking water, clean air, clean land, clean lush green lung space’ is a right to live. Let us achieve it.”
The organisation has invited citizens to participate in the meeting that will begin at 1 pm to address the critical issue of uptaking the cleanup drive for Musi River water.
Hyderabad: Tragedy struck when two friends drowned while trying to save their horse in the Musi river at Rajendranagar.
According to police, the incident happened on Wednesday. The victims who were identified as Mohd Saif and Ashu Singh had taken the horse for a walk and reached the river. After some time the horse walked deeper into the river and started to drown.
Upon noticing, Ashu Singh, despite not knowing swimming, rushed to rescue the animal. He started to drown. His friend Mohd Saif, who did not know how to swim either, came to Singh’s rescue but failed. All three of them lost their lives.
On a tip-off by locals, police rushed to the spot and retrieved the bodies with the help of a swimmer.
The bodies were later shifted to the Osmania General Hospital for postmortem. A case has been registered.
The sponsors and industry backers say that by allowing Medicare to pay for at-home care for more patients, Congress can reduce expensive hospitalizations and help stabilize Medicare’s teetering finances. “When you look at the numbers and demands on Medicare in the years on the horizon, we need to innovate,” Smith said.
The legislation would create a new Medicare benefit allowing certain beneficiaries not eligible for Medicaid to have a home health worker for up to 12 hours a week. It would facilitate house calls by allowing doctors to receive a monthly payment, in place of the existing fee-for-service structure. And it would broaden reimbursement for home-based services, including dialysis, lab tests and infusions.
The bill would also task the Department of Health and Human Services with studying additional procedures that could move to the home, such as X-rays.
Consulting firm McKinsey estimated last year that more than $250 billion worth of care in Medicare and Medicare Advantage could shift to the home over three years, including primary care, emergency visits, long-term care, infusions and acute care at home.
The timing is fortuitous. The pandemic forced providers to move more care to the home and created momentum for a long-term shift. Many elderly people embraced the change. It also spawned innovation in the private sector, as venture capitalists poured money into telehealth and at-home care startups.
The federal and state governments are “the single-biggest payer of long-term care in this country,” Dingell said. “It’s institutionally focused, period. That’s not where most people want to be. They want to be in the home in their own setting with people they know and love.”
But even as cash flows into the sector and patient demand for at-home care rises, health economists say it’s not clear this future is imminent.
‘Hard to know what the total costs might be’
While advocates tout potential cost savings, there’s scant data to back up those claims. How much money the changes would cost or save remains a crucial question as lawmakers look to rein in health care spending.
“There is potential for cost savings,” said Rachel Werner, executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, but Werner also said the package is difficult to assess as a whole.
“The cost implications probably vary across the different provisions and it’s hard to know what the total costs might be,” she said.
“Among the proposed programs, the one for which there will be the biggest demand is personal care services, which will be expensive and raises questions about whether there will be overall cost savings,” Werner said.
Werner expects that personal care services — help with daily activities — would cost, rather than save money, in part because of what economists call the “woodwork effect.” When presented with the opportunity to get at-home help, people who weren’t previously paying for services come out of the woodwork to get it.
Robert Burke, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, said he was “intrigued” by personal care services’ inclusion in the bill. Those services could be especially useful for older adults leaving the hospital who need a combination of skilled home care and help with nonmedical needs.
But while fewer stays at skilled nursing facilities may offset costs, Burke said the 12-hours-a-week of personal care the legislation outlined isn’t likely to work. A better approach would offer more care up front and less support over time, he suggested.
Supporters of the package argue that expanding payment for personal care services could prevent costly hospital readmissions.
Beyond cost, Werner, Burke and other analysts questioned whether there are sufficient workers to execute the vision.
“I am concerned we lack the workforce to do it effectively or to scale the programs to have a meaningful impact,” Werner said.
The ratio between home care workers and people who need services is worsening, according to a study Werner published this week in Health Affairs. The number of workers per 100 participants in Medicaid’s home and community-based services programs fell by 11.6 percent between 2013 and 2019, a trend that suggests it might be hard for Medicare patients to find home health aides.
Technology like remote monitoring and telehealth could scale certain services. But others, like labs, diagnostic testing and at-home primary care, need skilled workers to carry out, in person, Burke noted.
Others said the success of the lawmakers’ vision depends on execution and could be better or worse than existing care models.
“It could help or exacerbate [workforce shortages],” said Julian Harris, former health care team lead at the White House Office of Management and Budget under former President Barack Obama and CEO of ConcertoCare, which cares for patients with complex conditions in the home. “We will likely have challenges as the Baby Boomers continue to age into Medicare with staffing and care needs of patients who want to receive care in the home with some of our legacy approaches.”
The legislation would provide grants to organizations like health systems and home health agencies to build the workforce and create a task force for nursing certification standards for home care, which could result in a larger supply of workers. The Biden administration also recently directed HHS to look into regulations and guidance to improve home-care jobs.
Dingell said paying health care workers more would help address these issues, touting her legislation introduced last month that aims to boost wages via more funding.
Finally, there’s the question of cost-shifting, and whether moving care into the home will ultimately transfer labor costs to family members as they take on additional hours of informal caretaking.
“Across most of these, I would expect increased caregiver burden,” Werner said.
Supporters of the legislation contend that caregivers actually would feel more supported in this model, given the extra technology and supporting staff in the home that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
‘The pandemic showed us it is possible’
While some health economists are skeptical of the House bill’s promises, a growing lineup of health care companies are enthused.
Moving Health Home, a coalition of tech-enabled home care companies including Best Buy’s Current Health, health system Intermountain and dialysis provider DaVita, has backed the push. It’s a sister organization of the Alliance for Connected Care, a prominent telehealth lobbying group.
Both groups are led by Krista Drobac, a lobbyist who once worked for the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Obama.
Drobac’s groups see moving care into the home as a way to improve patients’ outcomes, reduce costs and bolster access. The organization points to Morning Consult polling commissioned by home health care leaders showing that about three quarters of Democrats and three in five Republicans say the federal government should prioritize boosting access to care in the home.
“Seniors and their caregivers want the option to stay home. It’s better for overall health and recovery,” said Drobac. “The pandemic showed us it is possible, and we need to build on that.”
Backers acknowledge that the empirical evidence base for home care needs to be developed more, but point to studies showing that moving care to the home doesn’t compromise patient safety.
A 2021 meta-review published in BMJ Open on hospital at-home care found that the practice “generally results in similar or improved clinical outcomes” and said expansion should be considered amid spiking health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office scored an extension of hospital at-home care through 2024 as costing $5 million — a drop in the bucket of overall health care spending.
Meanwhile, the pandemic demonstrated it’s doable and that patients want it, the industry advocates said.
“The Covid pandemic put lighter fluid on the importance of care delivery in the home and meeting patients where they’re at,” said Kevin Riddleberger, co-founder of coalition member DispatchHealth, which brings lab tests, X-rays and other urgent care into the home.
At-home testing company ixlayer, which is part of Moving Health Home, hopes bringing lab testing into the home can help treat chronic conditions by making it easier to get tested. Emcara, which provides home-based primary care, has seen 40 percent growth year over year, said Eric Galvin, the company’s CEO, largely driven by demand for care in the home.
Backers hope that leaning on technology like remote patient monitoring to track patients’ health can help reduce costs by catching issues sooner and forestalling the need for expensive drugs and treatments.
Cheryl Stanton, chief legal and government affairs officer at home care company BrightStar Care, pointed to a study by Avalere her firm commissioned that found that early intervention with targeted personal care services significantly reduced costs.
“If you’re in the home and see someone is sluggish and starting to go to the bathroom much more than usual, you can say something is wrong and have them tested early to find a UTI, rather than wait until they’ve gone into crisis and have to be hospitalized,” Stanton said.
And there’s a ready constituency for that message on Capitol Hill and at the White House, given the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund’s looming insolvency, and the impasse in Washington around another possible solution: raising taxes.
[ad_2]
#care #home #save #Medicare #lawmakers
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Sunil Gavaskar used to be called the Little Master during his playing days and could face bouncers from dreaded fast bowlers like Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee and many others without flinching. During the communal riots in Mumbai in 1992-93 he showed his courage in a different way outside the cricket field. Following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the entire city was engulfed in flames of communal carnage.
One day the former India captain witnessed an act of violence against a hapless taxi driver and his family. The family belonging to the minority community was travelling along the road when their vehicle was stopped by a murderous mob. They beat up the driver and were preparing to lynch all the family members including children. Gavaskar was standing on the balcony of his building when he saw what was happening on the street below.
He shouted to his wife to inform the police and then rushed downstairs without any weapon in his hands except his raw courage. His wife not only told the police but also informed other residents of the building that her husband had gone out to save innocent lives. She asked them to also go and help out. A few of them showed the courage to follow Gavaskar’s example and rushed downstairs.
But Gavaskar was the first to arrive at the scene. He told the rioters: “Whatever you are thinking of doing to this man and his family, you must do it to me first. I will not step out of the way.” The violent mob knew who Gavaskar was. The Indian captain was too famous a personality to go unrecognised. Seeing the cricketer’s determination they hesitated. They could not muster the courage to fight with a world famous cricket player.
When a few other residents of the building also arrived and took their positions beside Gavaskar, the would-be murderers realised that things would not go their way. After venting their frustration by shouting abuse at the taxi driver and his family members, they melted away and left the scene. The driver was clearly overwhelmed at this close shave and thanked Gavaskar and his neighbours profusely. Finally Gavaskar himself advised the man to leave the scene at once and reach his home safely.
Sunil Gavaskar never mentioned the incident thereafter to anyone. But his son Rohan, who was also a good cricketer, related the tale at an awards function which had been arranged by the Sports Journalists Association of Mumbai. Heaping praise on his father’s batting skills and determination on the cricket field, Rohan Gavaskar also told the gathering about his father’s bravery and what had transpired during the riots.
Between December 1992 and January 1993, it is estimated that more than 900 people lost their lives in Mumbai. This country needs more eminent people who have the courage and commitment towards peace that Sunil Gavaskar displayed that day. If our celebrities show this kind of fearlessness then many others will follow their example and plenty of innocent lives will be saved whenever such conflicts arise.
Laws must be judged on the basis of results. The consequences of existing lax gun laws in the US are there for all to see. According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018), with less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States has 46% of the world’s civilian ownership of guns.
It works out to 120.5 guns per hundred people for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 34.7, UK 4.6 and Japan 0.3. As for the gun-related homicides per 100,000 persons, it is 4.12 for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 0.5, UK 0.04, and Japan 0.02.
The total number of deaths from guns in the US, both homicide and suicide, in 2021 was about 48,000 which is 25% more than the deaths from car accidents.
The correlation between the scale of ownership of guns and gun deaths is glaringly obvious.
Moreover, because of the ease with which one can get any kind of gun, including rapid-firing automatic rifles, mass shootings are uniquely endemic in the US. Already there have been more than 100 mass shootings this year or more than one per day. Nearly 160 people have died in mass shootings, including 11 in Monterey Park California. Particularly tragic is the frequent mass shooting of schoolchildren and teachers. Only a few days ago three 9-year-old children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.
To understand constitutional issues, one must start by studying and analyzing the text of the relevant articles. Here is how the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment was not something new in the U.S. Constitution. More than 20 years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the Union formed, at least three states – North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia – had similar provisions in their constitutions.
The relevant clause in Pennsylvania’s Constitution (1776) reads as follows: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to the liberty, they ought not to be kept up….”
North Carolina and Virginia had almost identical provisions in their constitutions.
A careful analytical reading of the Second Amendment clearly shows that the right to gun ownership was in the context of the need of the state to have “a well-regulated militia,” for their security. No other purpose or basis for owning guns, such as sports, clay pigeon shooting, hunting, or recreation has been mentioned.
Calamity Jane, notable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age 43. Photo by H.R. Locke.
An important point must be made here. For individuals in a democracy, a specific constitutional provision for ownership of guns is not necessary. For example, Canada does not have any article in its Constitution for individual ownership of a gun, and yet private ownership of guns in that country is the second highest after the United States. Indeed, it is interesting that there is hardly any democratic country in Western Europe that has a constitutional provision for the right of gun ownership, and yet people have guns. On the other hand, countries that like the US constitutionally guarantee the right to keep and bear arms include the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, and the Philippines, not the best examples of democracy and freedom.
In a democracy, specific sanction for each right in the Constitution is not necessary. As the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes clear: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Obviously, people have all rights flowing from their unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” as so eloquently put in the 1976 Declaration of Independence. For example, an individual has the right to own cars, planes, drones, and motorboats even though there is no specific provision in the Constitution for their possession. Indeed, like so many other things they simply did not then exist. The Constitution provides general guidance, but not all the specific details. The latter is achieved by tens of thousands of laws enacted and many more rules framed in pursuit of the goals laid down in the Constitution.
An individual can own and do anything in pursuit of his right to “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” so long as he does not adversely impact the similar rights of others.
How to interpret and implement the Second Amendment in today’s circumstances?
ATF inspector at a federally licensed gun dealer
At the time when the Second Amendment was adopted, there was no organized, standing professional army in the US for external defense. In fact, because of their oppressive experience of the British colonial soldiers, there was a deep distrust of the regular Army as the clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution shows. The war of American independence was fought and won by an assortment of hastily assembled state militias’ not a regular and professional standing army. Today for its defense the United States has the world’s most powerful army with an annual budget of $750 billion. The US Army is under full civilian control and there is no question of its oppressing the people.
So, from the point of view of external defense, the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
A Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and ammunition set against an American flag.
Similarly, at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, there was no organized and elaborate National Guard, police force, FBI, or intelligence agencies for the internal security of the state, society, and the individual. Hence the emphasis on private ownership of guns for personal defense as well as the defense of the state as and when necessary.
Over the years many legal protections have been provided to the citizens against state high-handedness. Besides the right of habeas corpus, a citizen is protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the duty on the part of the arresting authority to inform the accused of his ‘right to remain silent’ and the ‘right to an attorney’, (popularly known as the Miranda rights), the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strict laws about the admissibility of evidence, etc. These protections are quite effective in safeguarding the individual’s rights.
Today, for internal security as well as personal safety and protection against state oppression, private ownership of guns is not only unnecessary but a problem. All around security will be enhanced by strengthening institutions, better training of state security personnel, improving accountability, not their distrust, and unchecked and unregulated proliferation of private ownership of guns. Though much is left to be desired, security is far better today than in the past. Attempts at constant improvements going on. In today’s urban life with large assemblies of people everywhere, offering easy targets for mass shootings, guns in everybody’s hands will make problems unmanageable.
The argument that personal safety is enhanced by the ownership of guns and carrying it everywhere is not consistent with logic or supported by facts. When people know that the others are carrying a gun the temptation is to pull out the gun and shoot the other person before he shoots you somewhat like what happens in a Wild West movie. With widespread gun ownership, instead of fistfights and injury, there is shooting and death.
This is borne out by the example of the British police. They do not carry weapons when on duty. Consequently, the criminal also does not carry a gun and shoot the policeman to avoid arrest and thus becomes guilty of homicide. He tries to run away often unsuccessfully but there is no exchange of gunfire and deaths.
So, from the point of view of internal security and personal safety also the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
It is common sense that to be effective laws must take into account the prevailing circumstances. These are quite different today from what they were more than 230 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.
At that time the total number of guns in the US could probably be counted in thousands not millions. The assembly-line mass production techniques for anything had not yet been developed. Today in US the total number of guns in private hands is over 350 million.
Even more significant is the change in the lethality and firepower of the guns. At the time of Second Amendment, the guns were muzzle-loading. It would take some minutes to load a gun and fire it. So, to fire 10 shots in quick succession you would have to first load and keep ready 10 guns which would take perhaps 20 minutes or more. This completely ruled out mass shootings by an individual.
The first breach in loading guns using cartridges was invented around 1850. The first automatic pistol was invented in 1892 by Joseph Laumann. And then came the automatic pistol with a separate magazine in the grip and today we have an R – 15 which can file dozens of shots in a minute and mow down dozens of people in seconds.
There is simply no comparison between the muzzle-loading guns of 1791 firing one shot per two minutes or so and automatic rifles like AR-15 or AK-47 firing dozens of rounds per minute. One wonders what those who made the Constitution in the time of muzzle-loading guns would have to say about the freedom to own AR-15.
Laws about gun ownership and carrying it on the person must take into account this change in the firepower of weapons. No law, not even the Constitution is a law unto itself, unchanging and unchangeable. Constitution and laws have as their purpose the welfare of the people, and their right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” They can be amended or even abrogated if, required for the good of the people. Considering the number of gun deaths especially mass shootings and deaths of innocent school children it is time to amend or reinterpret the implementation of the Second Amendment.
Regulating a right is not “infringing” it. Almost all rights of an individual including those under the First Amendment and can be regulated. No right is or can be absolute. The basic principle governing the exercise of rights is that an individual cannot pursue a right to the point where it infringes the similar right of another person. The way the right to gun ownership is being pursued is harming the Right to Life of many people as the frequent random deaths especially of innocent children testify.
An individual has the right to own and drive a car, but this right is regulated to ensure that the right of others to life and the pursuit of happiness is not endangered. The car must be registered and have an identification number plate. There must be third-party insurance coverage. The driver must achieve driving proficiency, pass a test, and have at all times a valid driving license. The car must have minimum safety standards. It must have seatbelts, and a collapsible steering column. It must meet emission standards, have good brakes and tires, and annual roadworthiness certificate. One cannot drive a car under the influence of liquor. The prescribed speed limit must be observed. One can be fined, have his license suspended, or even be imprisoned for not complying with rules.
Similarly, there are elaborate regulations about the ownership of planes, powerboats, etc.
An individual has the right to own a home; but again, there are codes and safety standards that must be followed.
One has a right to drink at the party but not drive back home under the influence of alcohol.
Such regulations are mainly for the protection of the rights of others. We live in a society with others and must respect other people’s rights.
Sick of daily mass shootings, a vast majority of Americans want to regulate gun ownership to check gun deaths. They must translate their vague sentiments into concrete action. Vote out those who oppose common sense gun possession regulations. It is time to discuss and develop a consensus on step-by-step measures to check gun violence. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, people have a right to own guns but only with regulations to ensure everybody’s safety. It has been achieved by other free and democratic societies. There is no basis for gun exceptionalism in the US. We should stop making gun ownership a fetish. The gun culture in the US is a creation of Hollywood Westerns rather than a need or reality. There is nothing glamorous or macho about gun ownership. Nobody’s safety least of all that of the individual himself is enhanced. Rationally considered everybody’s safety including that of the gun owner is diminished. An arms race in gun ownership endangers everyone’s life in society the same way that the global arms race threatens the security of every nation.
The power to change in a democracy rests with the people. Gun freedom lobbies may have money but the people who believe in common sense gun regulations have the vote. They should go to the polling station at the next election and exercise it.
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Echoing the Opposition’s apprehensions, former Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena (UBT) President Uddhav Thackeray on Sunday cited the example of Israel on how to protect democracy from authoritarianism in India.
“Look at Israel! How the people there have taken to the streets to protest against certain laws there… even the police joined the demonstrations and Israeli embassies all over the world shut down in solidarity with the people there. After it became impossible for their leader (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), the laws were withdrawn,” Thackeray said.
Addressing a mammoth rally of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), Thackeray lauded the people of Israel and asserted that “this is called democracy, unlike India where anybody who speaks against the government is targeted in different ways”, and the Constitution of the country is being trampled upon.
“It’s heartening to note that democracy is still strong in India… the farmers’ protests (2020-2021) saw the (Bharatiya Janata Party) government finally withdrawing the farm laws. Even the workers of the country are very much alert,” said Thackeray in a veiled warning.
He cautioned that those who try to trample the Constitution of Bharat Mata “will be kicked out”, and said the MVA will do everything to protect democracy in the country.
Thackeray lamented how his (original) Shiv Sena had erred for 25 years with the BJP, and nothing was done though the two parties came together in power twice (1995-1999 and 2014-2019), and gave examples of the major decisions of the MVA government of Shiv Sena (UBT)-Congress-Nationalist Congress Party did during its two-and-half years in office before it was unceremoniously toppled in June 2022.
Hammering at the BJP as ‘the most corrupt party’, the former chief minister said its name should be changed to ‘Bhrasht Jana Party’, since wherever they see any corrupt leaders, “they grab them”, but teach others lessons in public morality, as the massive gathering roared its approval more than half-dozen times during his speech.
Thackeray attacked the BJP on its brand of ‘Hindutva’, how Hindus feel insecure and are compelled to take out ‘Hindu Janakrosh Yatra’ though ruled by “the most powerful Hindu leader in the world, but his power means nothing”, and joining hands with any party irrespective of ideologies to bring down duly elected governments for grabbing power as in Maharashtra, Jammu & Kashmir, and Bihar.
NCP’s Leader of Opposition Ajit Pawar demanded to know what the Shiv Sena led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and BJP’s Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis have done for the youth, unemployed, farmers, or problems like inflation.
“Ever since this government took over, industries are fleeing from Maharashtra, the political atmosphere is vitiated and big projects are not ready to come here. This will be very damaging for the state’s economy and youth who will be deprived of jobs,” warned Pawar.
On the Shiv Sena-BJP’s ‘Savarkar Gaurav Yatra’ taken out in the state on Sunday to protest against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s utterances, Pawar pointedly asked that when the ex-governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and many other BJP leaders insulted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule, no action was taken, and how the Supreme Court recently labelled the state government as ‘impotent’.
“You only talk and do nothing. You are taking out ‘Savarkar Gaurav Yatras’, if you have the guts, then announce the Bharat Ratna immediately for Swatantryaveer Savarkar,” dared Pawar.
Congress Legislative Party Leader Balasaheb Thorat said that calling anybody ‘chor’ (thief) is now a crime and the country has witnessed what happened to Rahul Gandhi.
“He was not allowed to speak in Parliament as he was raising issues of corruption, even (Congress President) Mallikarjun was denied permission to speak, and even if they spoke, their speech records were erased. The people are watching everything. The latest opinion polls suggest that MVA will get 38 out of 48 Lok Sabha seats in Maharashtra,” said Thorat.
Taking pot-shots at the Central government, NCP senior leader Dhananjay Munde said that the BJP is simply playing a “fraud’ on the masses and it’s an “April Fool government”. He said that April 1 (All Fools Day) should be celebrated as the BJP’s birthday.
He also slammed the BJP for misusing the central investigation agencies like ED, CBI or I-T to scare and silence the Opposition but declared that “the people will not sit quiet now”.
Congress’ ex-CM Ashok Chavan said the manner in which the Shinde-Fadnavis regime grabbed power by breaking the Shiv Sena MLAs was “unprecedented in the state’s history” and will not be tolerated by the people here.
“Its not just about the MVA government, but a question of preserving democracy. The state is reeling under multiple crises, has piled up a debt burden of Rs 7 lakh crore, but they are busy in propaganda and wasting money on ‘yatras’ now,” said Chavan.
He also lauded Thackeray terming him as a humble leader who took decisions on merits in public interest without any bias on party lines, and called upon the people not to forget the treatment meted out to Rahul Gandhi in the next elections.
Elaborating on Israel, Thackeray said that Netanhayu, who is a friend of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, attempted to control that country’s judiciary, and said “similar efforts are on by the BJP to undermine the justice system in India, and we must be on our guard”.
“Democracy will end the day the judiciary goes down. In Israel, Netanyahu took back the laws due to public anger. The people vote, and the people should also keep a watch on the PM. We have the power to defend the Constitution,” said Thackeray.
This was the first mega-public meeting of MVA after it lost power nine months ago and various leaders vowed that many more similar rallies would be held in the coming days, sounding the bugle for the upcoming civic polls, and next year’s Lok Sabha and Maharashtra Assembly elections.
Hyderabad: Telangana Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD) minister KT Rama Rao on Sunday said that with the launch of the Telangana ‘Cool Roof Policy 2023 to 2028’, the state will be the first to launch the policy aimed at the reduction of the urban heat island impact.
Taking to Twitter, KTR said that the policy will be launched on Monday. “Telangana will be the only state to come out with such a policy aimed at reducing the urban heat island impact & heat stress and in the process save on CO2 emissions & save energy,” he tweeted.
The vision of the policy is to make Telangana a “thermally comfortable and a heat resilient state”, said KTR. The images shared by the minister read that the policy will help save 600 million units (Gwh) per year after 5 years with 300 square kilometres.
Through the policy the Telangana government is set to ensure faster adoption of cool roofs in the state, develop an ecosystem of suppliers, trained man power, testing and materials to support implementation of cool roofs, KTR added.
The state also aims to ensure access of cool surfaces to all with an effective monitoring and installation process.
Will be launching “Telangana Cool Roof Policy 2023-28” tomorrow
With this, Telangana will be the only state to come out with such a policy aimed at reducing the urban heat island impact & heat stress and in the process save on CO2 emissions & save energy pic.twitter.com/WbvzlYYce2
On the future of the internal combustion engine, Germany has gotten its own way, again.
The European Commission and Germany’s Transport Ministry announced a deal Saturday morning that commits the EU executive to figuring out a legal way to allow the sale of new engine-installed cars running exclusively on synthetic e-fuels even after a mandate comes into force requiring sales of only zero-emission vehicles from 2035.
“We have found an agreement with Germany on the future use of e-fuels in cars,” the Commission’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans said on Twitter. “We will work now on getting the CO2 standards for cars regulation adopted as soon as possible.”
The deal heads off a row over car legislation that was all-but-agreed until Germany, along with a small club of allies, slammed on the brakes just days before formal final approval on a law that is the centerpiece of the EU’s green agenda.
Timmermans said the Commission would “follow up swiftly” with “legal steps” to turn a non-binding annex to the law, introduced originally at the insistence of Europe’s car-making titan Germany, into a concrete workaround allowing new vehicles running on e-fuels, which do emit some CO2, to be sold post-2035.
As a first step, the Commission has agreed to carve out a new category of e-fuel-only vehicles inside the existing Euro 6 automotive rulebook and then integrate that classification into the contentious CO2 standards legislation that mandates the 2035 phase-out date for sales of new combustion-engine vehicles.
The terms of the final deal from Timmermans’ cabinet chief Diederik Samsom, seen by POLITICO, say the Commission will reopen the text of the engine-ban law if EU lawmakers manage to stop the introduction of a technical annex that would make space for e-fuels alongside the agreed CO2 standards. Reopening the proposed law’s text is a move that is fundamentally opposed by the European Parliament and green-minded countries.
The crux of the standoff was that Germany demanded binding legal language that would ensure the Commission would find a way to satisfy Berlin’s demands even if the European Parliament, or the courts, moved to block any tweaks or legal annexes to the 2035 zero-emissions legislation covering cars and vans.
In the statement, Samsom promised the Commission will publish its full e-fuels proposal as a so-called delegated act this fall. In practice, that means the original 2035 legislation will pass at first — offering the European Commission a critical win — but it sets up a future fight over the technical additions needed to satisfy Berlin.
“The law that 100 percent of cars sold after 2035 must be zero emissions will be voted unchanged by next Tuesday,” said Pascal Canfin, the French liberal lawmaker spearheading the file in the assembly. “Parliament will decide in due course on the Commission’s future proposals on e-fuels.”
Engine endgame
The deal means energy ministers can sign off on the original 2035 proposal during a meeting on Tuesday given that Berlin now has assurances that its demands will be met. In advance, EU ambassadors will review the bilateral deal between Brussels and Berlin on Monday, an EU diplomat said.
The agreement caps a decade of German pushback on EU automotive emissions rule-making.
In 2013, then-Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened late to water down previous iterations of car emission standards legislation, securing tweaks critical to the country’s hulking automotive industry.
The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Since the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, most carmakers have shifted their investments toward electric vehicles, but some industry interests, notably high-end carmakers such as Porsche and Germany’s web of combustion engine component makers, have sought to save traditional gas guzzlers from the clutches of a de facto EU sales ban.
Figuring out a final workaround on e-fuels in the 2035 legislation will still take some months, given that technical standards haven’t yet been clarified for setting out a “robust and evasion-proof” system for selling cars that can only be fuelled on synthetic alternatives to petrol and diesel, according to Samsom’s statement.
The timeline is already clear in Berlin’s perspective. “We want the process to be completed by autumn 2024,” said the German Transport Ministry, which is run by the country’s Free Democratic Party. The FDP, the most junior in Germany’s three-way governing coalition, had wanted fixed legal language to guarantee a loophole for e-fuels, which can theoretically be CO2-neutral but which wouldn’t normally comply with the emissions legislation since they do still emit tailpipe pollutants.
With the FDP’s popularity tumbling, the car policy row with Brussels has been a popular talking point in German media over recent weeks. One survey reports that 67 percent of respondents are against the engine ban legislation. Ahead of national elections in late 2025, the FDP is betting on driver-friendly policies such as e-fuels, new road construction initiatives and a block on the implementation of a national highway speed limit, to raise its profile.
Market watchers don’t anticipate e-fuels to offer much in the way of a mass-market alternative to electric vehicles, given that they are costly to produce and don’t exist in commercial volumes today. A study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research reports that even if all global e-fuel production was allocated to German consumers, the output would only meet a tenth of national demand in the aviation, maritime and chemical sectors by 2035.
“E-fuels are an expensive and massively inefficient diversion from the transformation to electric facing Europe’s carmakers,” said Julia Poliscanova from the green group Transport & Environment.
Auto politics
Despite not being on the formal agenda, the issue dominated discussions on the sidelines of this week’s summit of EU leaders in Brussels. A deal between Brussels and Berlin was only struck at 9 p.m. on Friday, hours after leaders left the EU capital, before being formally announced on social media early Saturday.
“The way is clear,” said German Transport Minister Volker Wissing in announcing the agreement. “We have secured opportunities for Europe by keeping important options open for climate-neutral and affordable mobility.”
The deal means Germany has effectively dropped its last-minute opposition to the car engine ban law, collapsing a blocking minority of Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that had put a roadblock in front of final ratification by ministers of the deal reached last October between the three EU institutions.
It remains unclear whether Italy’s attempts to find a separate workaround for biofuels — promoted personally by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the summit — also succeeded. However, without Berlin’s support, Rome doesn’t have a way to block the legislation.
German Transport Minister Volker Wissing | Maja Hitij/Getty Images
Responses to the Commission working up a bespoke fix for its biggest member country on otherwise agreed legislation were generally negative, with many arguing the e-fuels issue is a diversion.
“The opening for e-fuels does not mean a significant change for the transformation to electric cars,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the Center for Automotive Research in Duisburg. He said the Commission’s dealmaking raised “new investment uncertainties” that undermined the bloc’s efforts to catch up with China, the world’s leading producer of electric vehicles.
Still, most are just happy that the combustion engine row is ended, for now.
“It is good that this impasse is over,” said German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, who backed the original 2035 deal without a reference to e-fuels. “Anything else would have severely damaged both confidence in European procedures and in Germany’s reliability inside European politics,” the minister said in a statement.
[ad_2]
#Brussels #Berlin #find #save #car #engine
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Hyderabad: With the arrival of summer, the chairman of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC) Sriranga Rao advised residents to use electricity with caution and take adequate measures to save.
Telangana’s power distribution companies (DISCOMs) have been purchasing energy at a higher price, which has caused a rise in the total cost of electricity for all users, said a press release on Saturday.
Many have expressed concern about increased tariffs thus affecting their daily finance and household, the press release said.
The DISCOMs have been buying power at a higher price by paying Rs. 12 per unit during peak hours from a variety of sources, including thermal power plants, renewable energy sources, and power from neighbouring states. This has led to a rise in the cost of power, which is ultimately passed on to customers in the form of increased electricity bills at a time when they are already struggling to make ends meet.
