重庆肝内胆管结石怎么能把石头排出来重庆胆囊管结石必须要手术吗,肾结石软镜手术伤肾吗重庆,肾结石手术需要多久重庆,胆结石1cm有必要手术吗重庆,重庆肾结石治疗最佳方法,重庆化石排石的最佳偏方,肾结石软镜手术价格重庆

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

The AARP launched new ads, demanding Congress take action to help older Americans to find affordable medication.It’s a problem David Mitchell is experiencing. He is fighting blood cancer, and treatment does not come cheap.“The drugs I use right now that are keeping me alive, keeping the cancer at bay, cost 0,000 a year,” he says. “That’s retail price.”Mitchell pays for expensive, supplemental insurance so he can afford his medicine, but the sticker shock for cancer medication became an awakening.“The experience as a cancer patient brought me face-to-face with a fundamental truth, and that is drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them,” Mitchell says. “And all over the country, people are struggling with high-drug costs. They’re cutting pills in half, they’re skipping doses, they go into debt, they declare bankruptcy.”David started an organization called Patients for Affordable Drugs. He’s on a mission to lower prescription prices. This week, he’s getting help from one of the largest nonprofits in the country.AARP launched a new campaign to pressure Congress not to make any changes to a bill they passed earlier this year that lowered drug costs for seniors.“AARP is saying absolutely not. This is wrong. We’re going to protect that deal that reduced costs for Medicare beneficiaries, and we’re not gonna give Pharma a billion bailout,” Mitchell says.Healthcare was a top issue during the midterm elections, and Mitchell hopes the new ads will put pressure on the new Congress to do more.“In the midterm elections, politicians ran on a promise to lower drug prices, and we believe that voters can Congress a mandate to do it,” Mitchell says. 1678

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (AP) — A man who killed a Kansas girl more than two decades ago has been executed in Indiana.Keith Nelson became the fifth federal inmate put to death this year and second this week.Nelson received a lethal injection Friday at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, after a higher court tossed a ruling that would have required the government to get a prescription for the drug used to kill him.Questions about whether the drug pentobarbital causes pain prior to death had been a focus of appeals.Nelson grabbed 10-year-old Pamela Butler off the street on Oct. 12, 1999, as part of a plan to find a female to rape and kill. 654

The bonus of Jeffrey Mezger, one of the most powerful people in real estate, will be slashed by 25% after he went on an anti-gay tirade against his neighbor, comedian Kathy Griffin.Mezger, the CEO of homebuilder KB Home, used multiple homophobic and sexist slurs against Griffin and her partner. The tirade was caught on a security camera and a two-minute clip was published on Tuesday by HuffPost."Let's declare war, ass---- ... Let's bring it on, you b----," Mezger said during one of the tamer parts of the security camera audio recording.The verbal outburst occurred last weekend after Griffin and her partner called the police to report a noise disturbance on Mezger's property.KB Home revealed on Thursday that its board of directors decided to cut Mezger's 2017 bonus by 25%. It warned him that a similar incident will result in his firing. 865

The 2020 election is set to be unlike any other in history.With the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials expect up to 70% of all ballots to come in through the mail.There have been claims of fraud by President Donald Trump, but experts say the data does not support those claims."Somebody is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to commit voter fraud,” said Lawrence Nordon, director of the election reform program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan public policy group at NYU.Nordon says in the last few federal elections, 25% of all votes were cast through the mail. He says it can not only be more convenient, but an important tool when it comes to verifying results.“Mail ballots are paper ballots. That means we do have an opportunity to audit all of those ballots,” said Nordon. “But I think people should feel very comfortable with the security of the system.”As for security, election officials take extra measures to ensure the integrity of the ballot. Firstly, mail-in voting reduces the risk of foreign interference to nearly zero. Mail-in ballots are printed on a specific type of paper with technical markings that are difficult to duplicate. They also include several local elections like city council, school boards, and ballot initiatives. It means there are thousands of different ballots for our country’s 3,000 counties.Then you consider the actual ballot itself.It comes in a secrecy envelope that is connected to each individual voter who needs to sign it. That signature is verified by judges who are sometimes trained by the FBI to detect inconsistencies.Counties across the country also have system in place that update voter registration, death records, and address changes daily while they go in and cross-reference the data as well to make sure the ballots are going where they are supposed to and people are who they say they are.“[Voter fraud] is not a thing. I think we’ve had one prosecution in 15 years,” said Paul Lopez, clerk and recorder for the city and county of Denver.Lopez says of the nearly 213,841 votes cast by Denver residents in the state primary on June 30, 211,626 were cast through the mail. And this is for a state that had the highest voter turnout of 77% in 2016.“The biggest thing we can do is inform folks and make sure they understand the process, make sure they understand that it’s secure, that it’s safe, that it’s transparent,” said Lopez.This is not to say there are not cases of voter fraud; there are. In July 2019, prosecutors in North Carolina filed charges against a Republican political operative accused of ballot tampering in a congressional election in 2018.Since 1982, the conservative Heritage Foundation says there have been 1,088 proven cases of individual voter fraud.That may sound like a lot, but the Brennan Center for Justice says considering the hundreds of millions of votes cast in that time, it is considered so rare and happens on such a small scale, that it does not warrant the broad-based red flags some people raise. 3041