Latest news with #Pollack
USA Today
a day ago
- Sport
- USA Today
David Pollack warns why 'tough season' could be coming for Gunner Stockton, UGA offense
The Georgia Bulldogs have been predicted to finish second in the SEC during the 2025 college football season. The media expects Georgia to fall to the Texas Longhorns in the SEC championship. One big question mark for Georgia ahead of the 2025 season is Georgia quarterback Gunner Stockton, who is entering his first year as the starter and has just one career start. Yes, Stockton helped Georgia win the 2024 SEC championship against Texas, but the 2024 version of Georgia was flawed and lost three games. College football analyst David Pollack thinks the Bulldogs have to be better surrounding Stockton than they were last season in order for Georgia to have a better season in 2025. "Gunner Stockton cannot lead this team back to where they were a year ago if it's the same team," said Pollack. "If they can't run the football, it's not going to happen. Like they've brought in a bunch of receivers. That's (2024) the worst rushing season Georgia's had in 20 years." Last year, Georgia finished as the second-worst rushing offense in the SEC (124.4 yards per game). The Bulldogs could run the ball against Texas, who had one of the nation's best defenses, but Georgia's rushing offense was not consistent or dominant enough. "If Gunner Stockton is a guy that can play action pass and use that part of his game and they do what Georgia has done with Stetson Bennett and Carson Beck and all these guys, he absolutely can be successful. If you're going to drop back and throw the ball 30, 40 times a game and not have a run game, I don't think he they're going to be back where they were (SEC champions and College Football Playoff appearance)," said Pollack. One thing Georgia has working in its favor is its schedule. The Bulldogs have a challenging SEC schedule, but Georgia opens the season with a pair of non-Power Four opponents, so Gunner Stockton and Georgia's other new starters will have a good opportunity to get experience heading into Georgia's big Week 3 game at Tennessee. "This is a team that's breaking in a bunch of new components. The interior of that offensive line, guard, center, guard, they all got drafted. Like, they're all gone. So that that's going to be a a big part of it," continued Pollack. Georgia has just one offensive lineman on the All-SEC team, so the Dawgs enter the year with some serious questions up front. Additionally, Georgia's defense had three players drafted in the first-round of the 2025 NFL draft, so Kirby Smart and Georgia lost some critical pieces on both sides of the ball. "I think Gunner's a really good player," Pollack noted. "I think he's got a really, really good arm. I would love to see him continue to grow and get better at the intermediate. I'd love to see him learn how to change pace with the football. Like he's got a big windup (in his throwing motion)." Last year, Stockton completed 45 of 64 passes for 440 yards, one touchdown and one interception. He attempted 48 of his passes against College Football Playoff opponents. "I'm 100% sure if you're not going to give him a running game, it's going to be a tough season for the Georgia offense," said Pollack.
USA Today
13-07-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
David Pollack identifies Auburn's biggest question mark ahead of the 2025 season
The former Georgia linebacker sheds light on his greatest concern surrounding Auburn ahead of the season. There are plenty of questions surrounding the Auburn Tigers ahead of the 2025 season, and one former Georgia linebacker has identified the biggest one. David Pollack, a former Georgia linebacker and ESPN analyst, recently discussed Auburn during an episode of his podcast, "See Ball, Get Ball", where he shed light on his biggest concern for the Tigers ahead of the 2025 season. Pollack did not label a position group, or even a member of the coaching staff, as a giant question mark, but instead a player. Auburn will have a new quarterback in Jackson Arnold this season, who signed with Oklahoma as a five-star quarterback and Gatorade Player of the Year from Texas. He had an up-and-down stint in Norman and will get a fresh start on the Plains. Pollack shares that Arnold is Auburn's biggest preseason question "by far" and that the Tigers' success hinges on Arnold's ability to run the football. 'Last year was tough. But I do think the one thing that I know about [Arnold] is that he's an elite runner. And I do know Hugh Freeze with an elite runner at quarterback is a dangerous freaking animal. Because then he gets to the RPO games, the quick game. He changes tempo as good as anybody in the country with their green light and red light. They'll come up to the line of scrimmage and go 'fast, fast, fast' but then they'll wait for the last second on the play clock.' Pollack feels that Auburn's offense will be solid with an experienced offensive line and a "1-2 punch" at wide receiver with Cam Coleman and Eric Singleton. It all hinges on Arnold's ability to give Auburn more dimensions, which should be easy to achieve. He rushed for 560 yards in two seasons at Oklahoma, including 444 last season for the Sooners. Contact/Follow us @TheAuburnWire on X (Twitter), and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Auburn news, notes, and opinions. You can also follow Taylor on Twitter @TaylorJones__
The Herald Scotland
02-07-2025
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Millions will lose health insurance under Trump tax bill
Another 5 million could lose coverage if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made Affordable Care Act plans more affordable for consumers. The legislation amounts to "the biggest rollback in health care coverage in the history of the United States," said Joan Alker, a research professor and executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tiebreaking vote July 1 to pass the Senate bill 51-50, said in social media posts the Medicaid cuts are "immaterial" compared to savings the bill will fund through bolstered immigration enforcement. The House is scheduled to consider the legislation on July 2 in advance of Trump's self-imposed July 4th deadline for his signature domestic policy legislation. How will the legislation cut Medicaid? The legislation would require states to double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states, which administer Medicaid, would have to set up systems to verify a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation requires "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work 80 hours a month or qualify for an exemption, such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The original House version limited the work requirement to low-income adults without children, but the Senate version added the work requirement to parents of children older than 13. The legislation defines "able-bodied" people as those not medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks because of administrative miscues. What do hospitals and doctors think of bill? Medicaid insures 83 million low-income children and adults, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. That represents more than 1 in 5 Americans. Health policy experts have warned the cuts could harm rural hospitals and doctors who serve a higher percentage of people enrolled in Medicaid. The Senate bill added a $50 billion rural health care fund, double the amount that an earlier version of the legislation proposed. Still, hospitals are "deeply disappointed" the bill cleared the Senate, said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, a trade group. Pollack said the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts would cause "irreparable harm to our health care system," and reduce access to care for all Americans. Hospitals are required to diagnose and stabilize anyone who visits an emergency room. Eliminating coverage of nearly 12 million Americans will "drive up uncompensated care for hospitals and health systems," Pollack said. Pollack said hospitals might be forced to cut services and staff, and patients could face longer wait times in emergency rooms. Some rural hospitals and facilities in underserved communities could close, Pollack said. Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the cuts to Medicaid and a federal food assistance program "will make our country sicker, put children at risk of going hungry and make it harder for families to afford basic necessities" while delivering tax cuts. When will the Medicaid cuts take effect? Medicaid recipients won't immediately be impacted by the legislation. The bill sets a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for states to begin twice-a-year eligibility checks and verify work or exemption status of non-disabled enrollees. However, some states already have submitted waivers to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to begin Medicaid work requirements. CMS might choose to approve the waivers and allow some states to launch Medicaid work requirements before January 2027, Alker said. A KFF survey found nearly 2 in 3 people on Medicaid are employed full or part time, and others would qualify for an exemption from the work requirement because they are caregivers or students. Just 8% were not working due to inability to find work, retirement or other reasons, KFF said. While the bill doesn't mandate work requirements before January 2027, states will likely need to plan for big changes before then, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the KFF program on Medicaid and the uninsured. States will need to prepare for smaller Medicaid payments from the federal government while adding the extra administrative duties of verifying an enrollee's work or volunteer status. "Some states are anticipating this reduced revenue," Tolbert said. "At the same time, they are also required to make pretty costly changes to their eligibility systems." 'Death by a trillion cuts': Health care workers lobby Republicans in Congress Johannah Alabi's days usually consist of feeding, bathing, and caring for residents at two nursing homes in Bloomfield, Conn. She said most of her patients depend on government health insurance programs, so she is concerned about what will happen to them and her job if Trump signs the bill into law. Medicaid is the primary payer for 63% of nursing home facility residents and an additional 13% rely on Medicare as their primary payer, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. "If some of that money is going to be taken away, something has to give," Alabi said. "It's going to come down to the resident care. It's going to come down to the food. It's going to come down to the activities." That's why she was inspired to join Service Employees International Union members to lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill last week. They arrived at the Capitol with signs reading, "Death by a trillion cuts," and wearing shirts with the message, "Republican cuts kill." Jennifer Woods, another SEIU member who works in the claims department at Kaiser Permanente, ran into Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during her trip to Washington. She said she tried to explain how cuts could "ruin people's lives" and potentially lead to some patients' deaths as she followed him through the Capitol building. "He just shook his head and would keep going," Woods said. "He didn't really say anything. None of them did."
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What Brands Should Know About Forthcoming Canadian, US PFAS Regulations
About 12,000 different chemicals make up the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. These 'forever chemicals' have innumerable uses across product categories like footwear, apparel and accessories. They've also been linked to manifold risks to human health and the environment. Whether used as a part of a manufacturing process or as an additive in a finished product, PFAS has been found in groundwater, drinking water and different bodies of water accessible to humans. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure may lead to reproductive effects and interference with hormones, developmental delays in children, certain cancers, and immune system damage. More from Sourcing Journal WTO to Intervene in Trade Disputes Between Canada and China DHL Express Canada Seeks 'Anti-Scab' Law Exemption, Citing 'Essential' Services DHL Express Canada Plans Temporary Shutdown on Stalled Labor Talks With these issues as a backdrop, the Canadian Apparel Federation and Marten Law hosted a webinar Wednesday dedicated to understanding the recent governmental intervention when it comes to companies' use of PFAS. James Pollack, who leads Marten Law's consumer products regulatory practice, laid out the legislative continuum when it comes to regulation. The first set of products that became the focus of PFAS bans were children's products, and the next tranche of prohibitions focused on cookware, with the idea that PFAS might move from cooking surfaces or packaging into food. 'What's interesting is the next set of products that became a focus for folks was textiles, including apparel and footwear. And I think part of it is this visceral sense of, 'Well, I'm putting it on my body. There must be some sort of dermal transmission,'' Pollack said. Research on this is still ongoing, with a number of universities Like Duke researching whether PFAS can be absorbed through the skin. Last year, a team of researchers at Environment International, a team of researchers released findings that PFAS can indeed permeate the skin's barrier and enter the bloodstream. 'There are a number of states that have started to regulate PFAS in apparel and textiles more broadly, and each of the states defines those subjects differently,' Pollack said. In Washington state, for example, intentionally added PFAS—which is added to a product to attain a technical effect, like waterproofing—is banned. But other states, like Vermont, have an expanded ban that covers all PFAS detectable within a product, even if it's unintentionally added as a result of a manufacturing process. Manufacturing is becoming an increasingly studied part of the PFAS journey, as the chemicals might be used on machines as a lubricant or a surfactant to help a plastic mold release, for example. According to Pollack, regulation may have outpaced science at this juncture, with a less-than-complete understanding of PFAS' risks or methods of transmission into the human body. Most believe that drinking water is the primary route of exposure, though there are studies about whether it might be inhaled as dust particles, for example. As such, clothing and products like carpets (which might release those particles) are being studied. In California, key regulations include bans on intentionally added PFAS chemicals in textiles, cosmetics and food packaging. The rollout of the PFAS textile ban will come in waves, as stipulated by AB1817. On Jan. 1, total organic fluorine levels were limited to 100 ppm, and that number will drop to 50 ppm in 2027 (though apparel made for severe outdoor conditions has until 2028 to achieve compliance). Meanwhile, Maine, Minnesota and New Mexico have also made aggressive moves to ban the use of PFAS, with the former being the first to implement a comprehensive ban on all non-essential uses (though it's considering a bill that would exempt fluoropolymer-coated cookware). Minnesota and New Mexico also have broad bans on intentionally added use of PFAS, though Minnesota is mulling exempting commercial and industrial products. The state is also implementing mandatory chemical reporting requirements for products currently offered for sale on store shelves on Jan. 1, 2026. 'Those states are implementing these broad bans, and they create limited exemptions for what are called currently 'unavoidable uses,' which you have to apply for,' Pollack said. 'You have to show that there's no viable alternative and that the use is helpful for… the functioning of society or health and wellness of people. So a relatively limited exemption possibility there.' Isabel Carey, a senior associate with the firm who heads up its Toronto office, spoke to Canada's regulatory environment. 'In March, Environment Canada and Health Canada proposed adding PFAS chemicals as a class with a major note as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,' she explained, noting that fluoropolymers—a major type of PFAS used in the textile and apparel industry—are excluded because of differences in how people are exposed to them and the hazards that they pose to human health. Once the government's proposal to classify the chemicals as toxic substances is finalized, there's no immediate regulatory consequence, nor does the classification prohibit the use of PFAS in the Canadian economy. It simply authorizes the government to issue regulations targeting those substances. According to Marten Law, the agencies further proposed phasing out PFAS use 'wherever feasible'—firstly, in firefighting foams, and then across a range of industries like textiles, food packaging, cosmetics and medical devices where they believe the chemicals can be replaced. During Phase Two of regulation, Canada will evaluate prohibiting PFAS use in industries where alternatives are not available, and where the chemicals aren't being used for the protection of human health, safety or the environment. The agencies haven't proposed binding regulations to implement their plans, but have announced that implementing regulations will be developed beginning in 2027, Marten Law added.
Black America Web
17-06-2025
- Business
- Black America Web
Survey Says: Most High-Level Business Executives Believe DEI Initiatives Are Necessary To Avoid Legal Risk
Source: Jackson State University / Getty Since taking office in January, President Trump has made eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all facets of American life one of his key goals. While he's been relatively successful in getting colleges and universities to bend the knee, it's been a more complicated situation when it comes to American businesses. A recent survey has potentially revealed the reason for that, as many business leaders believe removing DEI initiatives opens them up to legal risk. According to Fortune, a joint survey of 1,000 C-suite executives revealed that 83 percent believe DEI initiatives are necessary for their company's well-being. Another 68 percent believed removing them would open them up to potential discrimination lawsuits. The survey also interviewed 2,500 employees and found that 76 percent of respondents would stay at a company that maintained its DEI initiatives, and 43 percent would leave a company if they pulled back. The survey was conducted by Catalyst, a non-profit focused on women's inclusion in the workplace, and NYU School of Law's Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. Source: Screenshot / Pollack, A., Glasgow, D., Van Bommel, T., Joseph, C., & Yoshino, K. (2025). Risks of retreat: The enduring inclusion imperative. Catalyst & Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. 'Opting out of DEI is not a neutral act—it's a choice with consequences,' Christina Joseph, project director of the Advancing DEI Initiative at the Meltzer Center, told Fortune. 'That's because these programs help root out harmful policies that especially affect marginalized groups. This report reminds us that without those safeguards, organizations face more, not less, legal exposure.' This survey only proves what we've already seen: the average person either supports or, at the very least, isn't actively opposed to DEI initiatives. In fact, another recent poll shows that companies that keep their DEI initiatives are viewed more favorably by the public. The only people upset about DEI are people who can't compete on an even playing field, or keeping it a buck, are just straight up racist. To some degree, it makes sense why we're seeing universities withdraw from their DEI initiatives. Many of them depend on federal funds to survive, so while they may not necessarily agree with the pullback, they don't really have a choice. Especially considering that the Department of Education (DOE) has been explicitly weaponized to go after any university it believes is trying to provide equitable opportunities for Black, brown, and LGBTQ students. Source: To be clear, I'm not advocating or being an apologist for these moves; I simply understand why they're happening. Conversely, it doesn't make much sense for businesses to engage in this pullback as they don't depend on federal funds, and it's unclear what, if any, legal action the Trump administration could take against a company for continuing DEI initiatives. Apple announced that they would continue their DEI initiatives, and all the president did was angrily post about it on Truth Social. I'm not a legal scholar, but thankfully, Catalyst's poll also included corporate lawyers. A vast majority, 88 percent to be precise, believed that DEI initiatives were essential to avoiding legal risk. So it seems like companies have more to lose by pulling back from DEI than continuing forward. We've seen the opposing approach to DEI initiatives play out in the marketplace this year. Target has been the, uh, target of several boycotts this year as a result of withdrawing from their DEI initiatives as soon as they thought it was politically expedient. This has resulted in foot traffic being down in the stores and the company reporting a drop in first-quarter sales. Target's woes are so pronounced that several companies have started listing consumer boycotts as a potential financial risk in investor reports. On the other end of the equation is Costco, which has stood firm on its commitments to DEI and actually beat its sales expectations for the first quarter. Whether it comes to employees, executives, lawyers, or consumers, it appears the majority are in agreement: DEI works for everybody. Now, if only someone could get that message through to the weirdos running the country right now. SEE ALSO: DEI's Economic Impact: What The Data Reveals Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations SEE ALSO Survey Says: Most High-Level Business Executives Believe DEI Initiatives Are Necessary To Avoid Legal Risk was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
