重庆石桥铺泌尿系结石尿结石排出重庆石桥铺,石桥铺什么叫结石,重庆怎样治疗胆结石最好方法,重庆胆总管结石保守治疗的最佳方法,重庆胆囊结石会自己好吗,重庆结石能排出吗,重庆胆囊结石疼痛怎么快速止痛

Summer driving will be more expensive this year. Thanks, OPEC.Prices at the pump are likely to be 14% higher than last summer — an average of .74 per gallon, the US government estimated on Tuesday.The price of oil has climbed because of efforts by OPEC and Russia. Brent crude, the global benchmark, surged 3.5% on Tuesday to .04 a barrel, the highest since late 2014. That's already above the EIA forecast of for this summer, suggesting gas prices could go even higher. Brent crude averaged just last summer.Summer driving season, which the EIA considers April through September, is historically when demand peaks for gasoline as Americans go on vacation. The EIA expects highway travel to increase 1.3% over last summer.Although gas is well below the a gallon prices of 2008, it has risen because of the recovery in the oil markets. The average gallon of gasoline fetched .66 on Tuesday, according to AAA. That's up from .39 last year, just as summer driving season was beginning.Of course, those are just national averages. West Coast states are grappling with more pain at the pump.Drivers in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington State, Hawaii and Alaska already pay more than per gallon, according to AAA. California's average gas price has jumped to .52, compared with .99 a year ago.After crashing to just a barrel in early 2016, crude oil has more than doubled in price. Supply in the United States is very strong. Production of crude recently hit record high because of the shale oil boom.But foreign oil supply is down, largely because of OPEC's efforts to boost prices by curbing production. Saudi Arabia-led OPEC and Russia reached an agreement in late 2016 to pump less oil. OPEC and its allies agreed last November to extend the cuts through the end of 2018.The production cuts are designed to reduce the global oil glut — and they appear to be working, judging by the recovery in prices and decline in stockpiles.Saudi Arabia decided last year to slash shipments of oil to the United States, the market watched most closely by oil traders. American imports of Saudi crude declined 14% last year to the lowest since 1988, according to the EIA.At the same time, the United States is shipping record amounts of oil overseas?since Congress lifted a ban on most exports in 2015. US oil exports have nearly quadrupled since then. 2409

TAMPA, Fla. — University of Tampa graduate Nneka Jones created a powerful piece of art that became a worldwide sensation in a single day."It's been crazy and humbling," says Jones, a 23-year-old talent from Trinidad and Tobago.Her untitled piece graces the cover of the current Time magazine, a call for equality in the shape of an American flag being restitched and reimagined. "We're reshaping it as a symbol of optimism, of working toward a better future that's more close-knit," says Nneka.Her original piece can be viewed at the Epicurean Hotel in Tampa this Saturday. For tickets, click here.When you see her work, look closer.It's not a painting. It's embroidery. All hand-stitched. The sewing needle is still there. "I don't want you to just look at the artwork simply for aesthetics," says Jones. "I want you to take a message away from it or have a dialogue with the people around you."The activist artist credits this unique approach to a UT professor who challenged her to make a painting — without using paint.Her work on social media, especially a traditional painted portrait of George Floyd, caught the eye of an art director at Time.For a special issue dedicated to social injustice and a push for true equality, all curated by musician Pharrell Williams no less, Nneka was called on for the cover.Due to deadlines, she had just 24 hours to stitch the whole thing."I was like, 'Nneka, what have you gotten yourself into?'" Jones says, laughing about the frenzy to finish.Her work is now generating conversation and debate, all of which she welcomes."I'm getting a lot of support from America, and all over the world," Jones says. "But also where I'm from, Trinidad and Tobago, because I believe I'm the first Trinidadian to be on the cover of Time magazine."This story was first reported by Sean Daly at WFTS in Tampa Bay, Florida. 1894

The @PelicansNBA & @utahjazz kneel for the National Anthem ahead of the NBA restart. pic.twitter.com/TCFolP06HM— NBA on TNT (@NBAonTNT) July 30, 2020 161

STOCK MARKET UP BIG, VACCINE COMING SOON. REPORT 90% EFFECTIVE. SUCH GREAT NEWS!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 9, 2020 141

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771