割包皮到天津武清区龙济怎么样男性医院天津市龙济医院,武清龙济医院秘尿科怎么样,天津市龙济医院韩式光化包皮手术价钱,天津武清龙济沁尿专科医院,天津龙济医院男科做什么车,武清龙济看男科好看求诚实,阳痿怎么恢复天津龙济医院

What would it take to save million for retirement? Right now, more people than ever are 401k millionaires.Financial adviser Jonathan Duong says saving million is not as impossible as it may seem."A million dollars is very achievable for folks who aren't necessarily making really large six-figure incomes," Duong says.   The average 401k millionaire has been contributing to their retirement fund for over 30 years, according to MarketWatch.  So, how do you get to million in your 401k? Duong says there are a few easy ways.   First, defer over 10 percent of your paycheck to your 401k. Fidelity Investments says it might seem like a lot, but in the end, it should leave you with an annual income that you're use to once you retire.   Next, take advantage of your employer match."A match is free money," Duong says.   MarketWatch found 28 percent of the contributions to the average 401k millionaire's account came from their employer.   "Additional things you can do is working a little bit longer and delaying social security," suggests Duong.   Delaying Social Security until you’re in your 70's will allow you to get more money opposed to taking it sooner.   “It’s fairly good to say that if you've got 25 to 30 times your annual living expenses saved up, you might be in a position to retire, but there are a lot of other details that go into it," Duong explains.   There's no rule of thumb for how much everyone should save, Duong says. It all depends on your living expenses and how much it takes for you to live comfortably.   "In my mind, the ability to start today is really a reality for most people it's never too late," Duong says. 1756

When experts look at the economy and its rebound, they go through an alphabet soup of letters, with a “V” shape recovery being the best-case scenario. It’s a fast decline with a fast recovery. Letters like “W” or “L” mean a much slower and painful path forward.A resurgence of more COVID-19 cases is shifting the likely shape of our economic recovery, and having economists evaluate the likelihood of a recovery in the shape of the more dreaded letters.“The fact that the virus has increased in a number of states shows that it is still very much a threat not only to one’s health but the economy,” said Michelle Meyer, who heads U.S. Economics at Bank of America. “The initial stage of the recovery was quite robust. It felt quite ‘V’ like, the economy was digging its way out of what was a very deep hole.”According to Bank of America, about a third of the jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered. However, the recovery has slowed down into more of a “U” shape, and now data is showing a stall with concern of a higher chance of a “W” or “L” shape recovery.“The ‘W’ trajectory would be the worst-case scenario. That would show real fragility on the economy if we dipped back into a recession,” added Meyer.Experts say it would lead even higher unemployment, and more permanent job loss and business closures. In addition, to come out of a “W” or “L” shape recovery, we would need even more stimulus money from the federal government, which may not even improve the economic downturn as much as it did the first time.“Stimulus in Washington provides a really nice band-aid and I think it helped tremendously in the first stage of this recovery but at the end of the day, we need the economy to fundamentally improve,” said Meyer.The good news is unless there is a significant or full shutdown again, a “W” shape recovery is still less likely to occur than a “U” shape.“Our analysis projects that a 'U' shape recovery with rather steep losses and growth this year and rather flat next year and then recovering subsequently is the most likely outcome,” said David Turkington, the Senior Vice President at State Street Associates.A recent State Street study based on 100 years of historical data shows that the U.S. still has 30.1% chance of a “U” recovery, and a combined 24.4% chance of a “W” or “L” shape recovery which include stagflation and depression outcomes.“The real economy I think is what determines the recovery and how that plays forward,” said Turkington.The real economy is jobs, businesses and consumer spending. Providing stability there could determine which way the economy goes. 2615

White House officials and House Democrats said Friday they’re no closer to a deal with on a stimulus package, a week after extended unemployment benefits expired.While the White House said they believe a compromise can be made on some issues, the two sides remain far apart on funding state and local governments. Many states and municipalities are struggling due to decreased revenues and increased costs amid the pandemic.There is also disagreement among the parties, including Senate Republicans, on unemployment supplements as unemployment figures remain over 10%. From April into July, unemployed workers received an additional 0 unemployment supplement on top of standard unemployment benefits. But many Republicans grumbled that the supplement gave incentive for workers to stay home amid the pandemic.Generally, however, if an employer calls an employee back to work, they're no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday that he is going to recommend executive orders addressing student loan payments, evictions and unemployment supplements. Currently, federal student loan payments are frozen into October. Also, protection ended last week on evictions.President Donald Trump told reporters late Friday that he plans on signing the order "by the end of the week." But Trump said he expects there will be legal challenges to his order. Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said that there is broad agreement on some issues, such as funding for schools to safely operate amid the pandemic. Previously, the sides also said there is agreement on providing Americans with ,200 stimulus checks for the second time this year. But Mnuchin and Meadows pointed the finger at House Democrats for not compromising on the unresolved issues.“Just to hear the comments from Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi saying they “want a deal” when behind closed doors, their actions do not indicate the same thing,” Meadows said.Meanwhile, Democrats pointed the finger back at the White House for not reaching a compromise.While the White House suggested that it would be okay with a partial stimulus package, Democrats are calling for a more comprehensive bill.“We’re asking them to be fair, to meet us in the middle, not to have a my way or the highway attitude, which they seem to have,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “We can really get this done, because there are some areas where we didn’t come to an agreement on many things, but we narrowed our differences.”Both the House and Senate have adjourned for the weekend. 2622

With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."As I have repeatedly said, I want Mississippi to be the safest place in America for an unborn child," Bryant tweeted this month in anticipation of the bill's passage. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves echoed that sentiment Monday, tweeting "It's a great day in Mississippi" along with a picture of the signing.Also known as the Gestational Age Act, Mississippi's new law makes exceptions only for medical emergencies or cases in which there's a "severe fetal abnormality." There are no exceptions for incidents of rape or incest.The law also puts physicians on notice. Doctors who perform abortions after 15 weeks will be required to submit reports detailing the circumstances. If they knowingly violate the law, their medical licenses will be suspended or revoked in Mississippi. If they falsify records, they will face civil penalties or be forced to pay fines of up to 0.The measure is just one in a string of efforts to diminish access to abortions in Mississippi, critics say."Abortion is a safe medical procedure and it is a critical part of the broad spectrum of reproductive health care that a woman may use in her lifetime," said Felicia Brown-Williams, Mississippi state director for Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates, in a statement. "This ban is not only unconstitutional -- it endangers women's health care across our state. If legislators truly cared about women's health, they would be focused on ways to improve access to health care for women, not restrict it."Access to abortions in Mississippi was already highly restrictive.It is among a small handful of states that has one remaining clinic: in this case, Jackson Women's Health Organization. Although Mississippi is among the states with a 20-week ban, up until the enactment of this latest bill, the cutoff time for abortions at the Jackson clinic was 16 weeks. And since hospitals won't perform abortions, the resulting one-week change brought on by this new law is "arbitrary," based on "capricious whim" and a way to "feed political meat" to a political base, said Dr. Willie Parker, board chairman of Physicians for Reproductive Health.Mississippi is the only state in the country that requires physicians who perform abortions to be board-certified or board-eligible obstetrician-gynecologists, a fact that's being challenged in court as unconstitutional by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Parker, an OB/GYN, explained that he could be trained in a plastic surgical procedure and be free to perform that procedure in Mississippi, even though he's not a board-certified plastic surgeon. But a family physician, a surgeon or an internist trained to perform abortions isn't given the same leeway.Mississippi also requires in-person counseling and a 24-hour waiting period before receiving an abortion, which means women must make repeat trips to the facility -- a fact that's especially burdensome for those living outside Jackson. Health plans under the Affordable Care Act, insurance policies for public employees and public funding for abortions can be applied only in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment or when a life is endangered, according to the Guttmacher Institute.About 2,000 women a year in Mississippi receive abortions, Parker said. The vast majority, 88%, receive them in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. So by 15 weeks, he estimates, 200 women in Mississippi who should have access to an abortion no longer will.For women living in poverty who need time to gather resources to pay for an abortion and for those outside Jackson who need to find ways to cover additional expenses associated with travel, House Bill 1510 will close the door to a procedure that's been a legal right for women since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973.Proponents of the bill, like Mississippi State Rep. Dan Eubanks, argue that this law will do what's best for women."Beyond the obvious debate of trying to save the lives of innocent babies, there is the often less discussed issues that relates to the health of the mother who receives an abortion," Eubanks wrote in an email. "When did looking out for the life, health and overall wellbeing of a child or its mother start getting labeled as extreme in this country?"Eubanks says that the longer a woman carries a child in her womb, "the greater the potential she will suffer from psychological, emotional, and physical damages as an outcome," though that contention is generally disputed by those who advocate for safe access to abortions.The new Mississippi law is expected to be challenged in court.The Center for Reproductive Rights points out that similar efforts in other states -- Arizona, North Dakota and Arkansas -- were shot down on constitutional grounds. And the advocacy group expects that this bill to ban "pre-viability abortion" will similarly be stopped."Mississippi politicians' flagrant assault on reproductive rights will not go unchallenged," said Lourdes Rivera, senior vice president of US programs at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a written statement. "This bill is dangerous and unconstitutional. The Center is prepared to answer any attempt to undermine 40 years of Supreme Court precedent with the full force of the law." 5500

When he was diagnosed with two autoimmune diseases, Joel Hechler knew he’d be in for a battle. He didn’t realize maybe his toughest one would be with his insurance company.“I think they put the dollars ahead of a patient’s health,” Hechler said. “I don’t think they fully understand the impact the medicine will have on my long-term health and well-being."Hechler suffers from Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, diseases that attack the lining of his digestive tract. Autoimmune conditions like his can’t be cured but, with the right medication, the symptoms can be controlled.  Finding the right medicine can be hard for those suffering from autoimmune diseases. Even if there are scores of drugs on the market, some patients might only respond to one. In Joel’s case, his doctor thought he’d have a better chance trying a drug called Remicade.“I received a letter from my insurance company that denied the Remicade on the basis that I have to try a different drug before I can get to Remicade," Hechler said.Hechler's insurance company, Premera Blue Cross, wouldn’t approve the drug his doctor prescribed because they wanted him to try a cheaper one first.It’s part of a program that health insurers nationwide use called step therapy, requiring that patients try less-costly drugs before “stepping up” to more expensive ones — even if doctors believes the cheaper drug won’t work.Dr. Larry Adler is president of Huron Gastro in Ypsilanti, Michigan and says he spends virtually every day battling insurance companies over step therapy drugs.“They have to fail this medicine first before they get the new drug,” Adler said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”Adler says it's common for patients to get sicker while waiting for step therapy to run its course.In Hechler's case, it took six weeks of fighting with his insurer to convince them that the cheaper drug wouldn’t be effective. As he was waiting, he was getting worse.“It got to the point where I had to be admitted to the hospital,” Hechler said. "I was very, very sick.”Step therapies are used by insurers to try to control skyrocketing prescription medicine costs, says Glen Perry, Director of Pharmacy Contracting and Sales for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.“These drugs can cost up to 0,000 per year. These are not cheap medications,” Perry said.“It seems like you’re telling patients that, in many cases, your insurer knows what’s best for you, rather than your doctor,” Jones said.“We are trying to provide the most cost effective and safe medication use,” Perry said, adding that when a doctor and insurer disagree over a drug, they can usually resolve the case within a few days without putting a patient at serious risk.“A delay of one or two days I don’t think is really going to make that much of a difference for the medical outcome of the patient," he said.But for many patients, like Phyllis Toole, the delay is longer than a few days.Phyllis suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, a condition where her body attacks her joints. When her doctor wanted to put her on Orencia, her insurance company HAP said she needed to first try a less expensive drug, Humira.But Phyllis’ doctor was worried about possible side effects and thought Humira could be risky.After battling for months, Phyllis says the whole thing made her feel more like a number than a patient. With her doctor and insurer in a standoff, she was forced to rely on samples of the drug she got from her doctor. HAP never approved her prescription.“They’re playing doctor, is what it feels like,” Toole said. “They’re saying this is what you can have for the symptoms you have. It may make you sicker, but this is what you can have.”HAP issued the following statement to Scripps station WXYZ in Detroit: 3800