梅州无痛人流多少钱梅州慢性霉菌阴道炎,梅州美容整形医院,梅州做人流医院哪好,梅州各种的打胎的价格,梅州怀孕多久可以做 流产,梅州做人工打胎需要多少费用,梅州做可视打胎一共多少钱

The #NobelPrize committee couldn't reach Paul Milgrom to share the news that he won, so his fellow winner and neighbor Robert Wilson knocked on his door in the middle of the night. pic.twitter.com/MvhxZcgutZ— Stanford University (@Stanford) October 12, 2020 275

The 29th named tropical system of the Atlantic hurricane season formed on Monday, marking a new yearly record for the basin.Subtropical Storm Theta formed over the open waters of the eastern Atlantic Monday evening, packing top winds of 50 mph. The storm is far from any land, and does not pose any immediate threat to land.Theta marks the deepest jaunt down the Greek hurricane naming list. Theta is the seventh storm this season named after a letter in the Greek alphabet. The only other time the Greek alphabet has been used was in 2005.Theta is not the only storm churning in the Atlantic basin. Tropical Storm Eta is spinning in the Gulf of Mexico after striking the Florida Keys yesterday. The slow-moving system is expected to dump heavy rain over Florida over the next few days. Whether it comes ashore again is still in question.Eta previously struck Central America as a powerful Category 4 hurricane last week.The Atlantic hurricane season still has another three weeks to go, and it’s not unheard of for a system to develop in December if conditions are favorable, like they have been for much of 2020. 1123

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

Tall people are at a greater risk of cancer because they have more cells in their body, new research has suggested.A person's risk of developing cancer increases by 10 percent for every 10 centimeters (4 inches) they are over the average height, the study said, because they have more cells which could mutate and lead to cancer.Average height was defined in the study as 162cm (5 feet, 4 inches) for women and 175cm (5 feet, 9 inches) for men.The findings match with previous research, which has also connected height to an increased risk of developing a range of health problems including blood clots, heart problems and diabetes.Leonard Nunney, a professor of biology at the University of California Riverside, analyzed previous sets of data on people who had contracted cancer -- each of which included more than 10,000 cases for both men and women -- and compared the figures with anticipated rates based on their height.He tested the hypothesis that this was due to the number of cells against alternatives, such as possible hormonal differences in taller people, which could lead to an increased rate of cell division.A link was found between a person's total cell number and their likelihood of contracting cancer in 18 of the 23 cancers tested for, the study says.The research also found that the increase in risk is greater for women, with taller women 12 percent more likely to contract cancer and taller men 9 percent more likely to do so. Those findings matched with Nunney's predicted rates, using his models, of 13 percent for women and 11 percent for men.Colon and kidney cancer and lymphoma were among the types of cancer for which the correlation was strongest."We've known that there is a link between cancer risk and height for quite a long time -- the taller someone is, the higher the cancer risk," Georgina Hill from Cancer Research UK told CNN."What we haven't been sure of is why -- whether this is simply because a taller person has more cells in their body, or whether there's an indirect link, such as something to do with nutrition and childhood," added Hill, who was not involved in the study.She said the study provides good evidence of the "direct effect" theory that the total number of cells does indeed cause the link."The methodology is good - they took data from large studies, which is important, and they looked at lots of different categories of cancer."But she noted that the increase in risk of developing cancer is small compared to the effects that lifestyle changes can have."It was only a slightly higher risk and that there are more important actions that people can take to make positive changes, [such as] stopping smoking and maintaining a healthy weight," she said.Two of the types of cancer tested for, thyroid cancer and melanoma, were found to be more susceptible to an increase in risk than expected, and Nunney suggested in the study that other factors could be at play in those cases, such as geography."There are no obvious reasons for these exceptions, although the author speculates that cell turnover rates may come into play for melanoma," Dorothy C. Bennett, director of the Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute in London told CNN. Bennett, who was not involved in the study, explained that pigment cells, the source of melanoma, divide and are replaced a little faster in taller people."But I cannot at present think of any reason why this [faster division] should be so, but nor any other clear reason for the higher correlation with height," Bennett said. 3548

The 90th Academy Awards are tonight!Late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, will once against host the annual awards show at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, California -- hopefully with no envelope malfunctions this year.Whether you're watching the show at home or with friends, you can download the official Oscar ballot and make your predictions. View the nominees. 376