Home »

Popular News

Popular News

[6-15-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing the public that use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising consumers not to purchase or use Rhino 7 Blue 9000, a product promoted and sold for sexual enhancement on various websites and in some retail stores.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) team has won a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Ventures Program Award to design a public health surveillance mobile application that will improve the ability of NARMS to carry out its mission.
Social Security does not protect everyone equally. Some professions are excluded from participation in the system and because of this these individuals receive severely reduced benefits in retirement. These excluded professions are state and government positions that offer pension plans…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising consumers not to purchase or use Eros Power Zone 1900, a product promoted and sold for sexual enhancement on various websites and in some retail stores.
[12-19-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has completed a safety review of the heart drug Multaq (dronedarone). This review showed that Multaq increased the risk of serious cardiovascular events, including death, when used by patients in permanent atrial fibrillation (AF).
This CVM Update is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's fourth progress report highlighting its recent actions to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued warning letters to six manufacturers of unapproved levothyroxine sodium drugs for hypothyroidism in dogs.
Open any magazine aimed at the upper middle class and you’ll find lots of ads about retirement planning: financial firms fighting over which one will ‘advise’ you and get you to invest your money with them. But, for most people, that isn’t the most important part of retirement planning. In fact, most people don’t have significant retirement savings, so arguing about who or how to invest them is irrelevant. Their “financial planning” is more likely to be about whether and when to pay the credit card bill.So what kind of retirement planning really matters? There are lots of answers, but here are two of the most important: How long you work and when you apply for Social Security. For most people, these matter far more than whether your savings are invested in stocks or bonds.Working Longer Requires More than Wishful Thinking. One of the great blessings of modern medicine is that people are living longer. But one of the consequences of that blessing is that unless people work longer and/or save more while they’re working, they’re more likely to run out of money in retirement than ever before. (The decline of traditional pensions, which paid lifetime income benefits, hasn’t helped either.) Most folks know this and are responding. According to a recent survey, 65 percent of baby boomers expect to work past 65.But those expectations may not be met. Currently, about half of workers stop working before age 65: some are wealthy enough; more often they’re just not healthy enough. Flexible retirement is more slogan than fact. Moreover, the job market isn’t as flexible as some may hope. Yes, an increasing percentage of seniors are working at least occasionally (~35 percent of men over 60, ~25 percent of women), but that doesn’t mean they’re doing their dream job on their chosen schedule. Increasingly, most of those who do work past 65 work full-time. Twenty years ago about 60 percent of workers over the age of 65 worked part-time; today about 60 percent work full-time. It’s not clear why part-time work has declined, but one reason may be that employers still haven’t adjusted to the idea. A recent Transamerica Survey found that 66 percent of age 55+ US workers expect they will enter retirement flexibly -- but only 25 percent report that their employer offers the opportunity to move from full-time to part-time. However, the best way for employers to change is for their employees to ask (or have a union that does). Retirement planning involves more than wishful thinking. If you want a flexible or a phased retirement, you need to know what your options really are – and the time to find out is long before you’re on the verge of retirement. Defer Applying for Social Security? The other step that matters for most people is when they choose to apply for Social Security. Many apply as soon as they legally can do so, generally at age 62. For most people, that’s a mistake, because it means they will get reduced payments for the rest of their lives. Most others claim their Social Security benefits by the time they reach the “normal retirement age”, which for baby boomers is 66 years. (The normal retirement age is gradually being raised; for those born after 1959 it’s age 67.) For many people, that’s a mistake, too, because your lifetime benefit increases each year that you delay from 62 up to age 70.How much more will your Social Security be if you start taking it at 70 instead of claiming benefits at the earliest possible age? A lot. For baby boomers, waiting till 70 increases the annual benefit by about 8% or each year of delay. That means instead of taking an annual payment at 62 of $10,000 a year, waiting 8 years means your annual payment will rise to $17,600 – inflation indexed for life. (If you keep working after age 62, then the math can be even more compelling, because Social Security is based on your highest 35 years of earnings.) If you are married, delaying also increases payments to your spouse after you die.Of course, lots of folks have justifications for taking the lower payment at 62. Some say, “I won’t live long enough to make up the difference” – but in fact most people do live that long and many live longer. Others say, “I need the money to pay my bills.” But if you have savings or home equity, it’s worth using those first and taking Social Security later.So the next time someone approaches you about moving your 401k money over to them, consider the option they won’t tell you about: spending it first and deferring Social Security. After all, Social Security gives you a guaranteed 8% return for waiting – and an 8% guaranteed return is hard to beat. (But they probably won’t tell you that, either.)Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Inside Sources. AuthorsJoshua GotbaumPublication: Inside Sources
National Video Supply located in Santa Clarita, California is voluntarily recalling the following product to the consumer level: RHINO 7 3000 Platinum Capsules packaged in single 1 count blister hang tab cards with UPC # 700729253748 ALL LOT NUMBERS WITHIN EXPIRY.
Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, speaks at a Brookings Retirement Security Project event, November 12, 2015.“Social security is not going broke,” said Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, at a Brookings Retirement Security Project event this week. She was joined by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray to discuss retirement planning and to unveil a new retirement calculator. “Social Security is the only guaranteed monthly income for a majority of older consumers,” Cordray said.After their keynote addresses, a panel of retirement security experts moderated by Guest Scholar Joshua Gotbaum discussed efforts to improve retirement planning and what knowledge the average American needs to make retirement planning achievable. Ted Gayer, VP and director of Economic Studies at Brookings, introduced the event.Here are 10 facts about Social Security and retirement planning mentioned during the event. Full video is available below and on the event's page.1/3 of U.S. households spend all of their available resources in every pay period60 million people received Social Security benefits in September 2015For the average worker, Social Security replaces only about 40 percent of pre-retirement earnings45 million people are already 65 or order, and 10,000 people are turning 65 each dayThe average American now spends about 20 years in retirement(in 1950, the average was about 4 years)4 in 10 Americans aged 51-59 are reaching retirement with limited or no savings, and are projected to face a saving shortfall~2/3 of the 40 million Americans 65 and older who receive Social Security benefits depend on those benefits for ½ or more of their retirement incomeIt's about 70 percent or more of income for those 80 or olderOnly 60 percent of people who retire claim to have done any retirement planning at allDelaying claiming Social Security “buys” people 6-8 percent more real benefits per year once they do take itOlivia Mitchell, a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, explained this last point, noting that if a person stopped working at 62 but waited to claim benefits until 70, he or she would receive a benefit 76 percent higher in (real) dollars per month for life. “When to claim Social Security is many older Americans' most important financial decision they will ever make in their lifetimes,” according to Mitchell.Learn more about the event here and watch the video: if (typeof VELIR === 'undefined' || !VELIR) { var VELIR = {}; } if (typeof VELIR.youtubePlayers === 'undefined' || !VELIR.youtubePlayers) { VELIR.youtubePlayers = []; } var player7I7RcLaUoQc; function onYouTubeIframeAPIReady7I7RcLaUoQc() { player7I7RcLaUoQc = new YT.Player('player7I7RcLaUoQc', { height: '338', width: '600', videoId: '7I7RcLaUoQc', playerVars: { controls: '1', autohide: '1', modestbranding: '1', rel: '0', enablejsapi: 'true', allowfullscreen: 'true', }, events: { } }); }; VELIR.youtubePlayers.push(onYouTubeIframeAPIReady7I7RcLaUoQc);Helping America plan for retirement: Keynote remarksVideoHelping America plan for retirement: Keynote remarksAuthorsFred Dews
[11-04-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding healthcare providers and patients about the need to enroll in the Avandia-Rosiglitazone Medicines Access Program by November 17, 2011 in order to continue prescribing and receiving rosiglitazone-containing medicines (Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl).
[12-20-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received a report of a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS) who died within 24 hours of taking the first dose of Gilenya (fingolimod).
Bee Extremely Amazed LLC, Jewett, OH is voluntarily recalling various products marketed for weight loss to the consumer level due to findings of undeclared drug ingredients including sibutramine and/or phenolphthalein.
Government spending on the elderly continues to climb. Fueled by rapid growth in the number of Americans over age 65 and increased spending on benefits per person, public expenditures devoted to the elderly continue to edge up. A crucial question for future policy making is whether rising outlays on programs for the aged will squeeze out spending on programs for children, especially investments in their schooling. Many pessimists think this outcome is inevitable, and they urge us to reduce government commitments to the elderly to make room for spending on the young.Federal spending is especially concentrated on the elderly. The Urban Institute publishes annual estimates of federal outlays on children and adults over 65. The estimates inevitably show a huge imbalance in spending on the two groups. In 2011, federal spending for the elderly amounted to almost $28,000 per person over 65. In the same year, per capita spending on Americans under 19 amounted to just $4,900 per person. This means aged Americans received $5.72 in federal spending for every $1.00 received by a child 18 or younger.The Urban Institute’s latest estimates show that federal spending on youngsters has trended down in recent years. After reaching a peak of about $500 billion in 2010, expenditures on children fell 7 percent by 2012, and they have remained unchanged since then.Future prospects are not encouraging. Urban Institute analysts predict that from 2014 to 2025, only 2 percent of federal spending growth will go to children. Almost 60 percent will be swallowed up by additional outlays on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Spending on many federal programs that provide benefits to children are financed out of discretionary programs. In contrast, big public programs for the aged seem to run on automatic pilot, with spending linked to changes in the cost of living and the size of the population past 65. Spending on most domestic discretionary programs is expected to be severely constrained as a result of Congressionally imposed budget caps. This is bad news for many federal programs targeted on children.Focusing solely on federal government spending gives a misleading picture, however. While federal spending is heavily concentrated on the elderly, state and local spending tilts toward programs that help children, notably, through public school budgets. Whereas aged Americans receive $5.72 in federal spending for each $1.00 received by someone under 19, those under 19 receive $10.11 in state and local spending for each $1.00 received by someone who is 65 or older. To be sure, total federal spending is considerably greater than that of state and local governments, but the imbalance of public spending on the young and the old is less extreme than federal budget statistics suggest.Government spending on the aged is high because legislators (and voters) decided to establish government-backed pensions—through Social Security—in the 1930s and government-guaranteed health insurance for the elderly—through Medicare—in the 1960s. In view of the overwhelming and enduring popularity of these two programs, most voters appear to think this was a sensible choice. One implication of the policies is that Americans past 65 derive a sizable percentage of their retirement income, and an even bigger share of their health care, from public budgets.The nation has not made an equivalent commitment to support the incomes or guarantee the health insurance of Americans under 65, except in special circumstances. Those circumstances include temporary unemployment, a permanent work disability, and low household income. Families headed by someone under 65 are expected to derive their support mainly from their jobs and from their own savings. If non-aged families prosper, government spending on them falls. If instead breadwinners become disabled or lose their jobs, government spending will increase as a result of higher disability payments, unemployment and food stamp benefits, and public assistance rolls.Nearly all children are raised in families headed by someone under 65. The government benefits they receive, except for free public schooling, increase in bad times and should decline when the unemployment rate falls. The Urban Institute’s numbers are instructive. Between 2007 and 2011, real federal spending on children increased 27 percent, or more than 6 percent a year, as the unemployment rate soared in the Great Recession. Federal spending on children then fell as unemployment—and outlays on government transfer payments—shrank. For many categories of public spending on children, we cannot assume that lower spending signals a weaker commitment to children’s well-being. Instead it may signal a healthier private economy, a lower unemployment rate, and faster improvement in breadwinner incomes.Of course, some components of government spending on children do not automatically rise in a slumping economy or shrink when breadwinners’ earnings improve. Public investments in children’s preschool and K-12 education should be adjusted to reflect the needs of children for compensatory instruction and the expected payoff of added investment in schooling. Statistics on public school budgets show that spending per pupil has increased considerably faster than inflation and faster than GDP per person over the past seven decades (see Chart 1). Whether spending has increased as fast as warranted is debatable, but rising government spending on the aged has not caused per-pupil spending on K-12 schools to shrink.Government spending on children’s health has also increased over time as public insurance for children has been expanded. In 2014 just 6 percent of Americans under age 19 lacked health insurance for the entire year. The only age group with higher health insurance coverage was the population past 65, which is covered by Medicare (see Chart 2). The main explanation for rising insurance coverage among children is that federal and state health insurance programs have been expanded to cover most low-income children. Insurance coverage of children can and should be improved, but a sizeable expansion of public insurance has occurred despite the increase in public spending on the elderly.The presumption that rising outlays on programs for Americans past 65 must come at the expense of spending on children rests on the unstated assumption that voters will zealously defend programs for the aged while tolerating cuts in programs that fund education, income protection, and health coverage for the young. The trend toward higher public spending on the elderly has been underway for at least five decades, but the predicted cuts in spending on the young have yet to materialize.Editor's Note: this op-ed first appeared in Real Clear Markets.AuthorsGary BurtlessPublication: Real Clear Markets
Heartworm disease is fatal to pets. The good news: You can protect your pet from this disease. Learn more about the dangers of heartworm disease and the importance of year-round prevention.
There is practically no one who does not like to earn money from home. These days, trading online has become one of the most convenient ways of earning money directly from your home or office. What is online trading? Online trading is basically a financial trading system on internet where the traders trade assets through … Continue reading The Basics Of Trading Online Through A Forex BrokerThe post The Basics Of Trading Online Through A Forex Broker appeared first on Christian Finance Blog.
Halo, Purely for Pets has initiated a limited, voluntary recall of its Spot’s Stew Sensitive Cat Turkey kibble with a Best By date of 09/04/2016 due to reports of mold. No other Halo products are affected. Consumers who have Spot’s Stew Sensitive Cat Turkey stamped “Best By 09/04/2016” should discontinue feeding, and return the remaining portion to any Halo retailer for a full refund or replacement.
FDA uses innovative public education campaigns to educate youth about the dangers of smoking.
The rich-poor life expectancy gapGary Burtless, a senior fellow in Economic Studies, explains new research on the growing longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans, especially among the aged.“Life expectancy difference of low income workers, middle income workers, and high income workers has been increasing over time,” Burtless says. “For people born in 1920 their life expectancy was not as long typically as the life expectancy of people who were born in 1940. But those gains between those two birth years were very unequally distributed if we compare people with low mid-career earnings and people with high mid-career earnings.” Burtless also discusses retirement trends among the educated and non-educated, income inequality among different age groups, and how these trends affect early or late retirement rates.Also stay tuned for our regular economic update with David Wessel, who also looks at the new research and offers his thoughts on what it means for Social Security.Show NotesLater retirement, inequality and old age, and the growing gap in longevity between rich and poorDisparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is GrowingSubscribe to the Brookings Cafeteria on iTunes, listen on Stitcher, and send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu.AuthorsFred DewsImage Source: Scott Morgan / Reuters
Nếu bạn mua cc sản phẩm nhập khẩu được tiếp thị l "thực phẩm chức năng" v dược phẩm khng theo toa, hy cẩn thận. C những kẻ lừa đảo, nhất l tại cc cửa hng của người dn tộc hoặc cc cửa hng quốc tế, chợ trời, chợ trao đổi hng ha v trực tuyến.
An American flag flutters in the wind next to signage for a United States Social Security Administration office in Burbank, California (REUTERS/Fred Prouser). The long-term finances of Social Security are in bad shape. Its reserves are expected to run out in less than 20 years, and under current law that will force cuts in benefits. Some experts argue that the best way to get the system’s finances back in shape would be to raise the full retirement age above the scheduled 67. That would bolster the program’s finances in two ways. First, by increasing payroll tax revenues, because people would work longer. And second, by reducing the period each American would collect benefits. That approach might seem fair, since on average Americans are living longer. Life expectancy is more than 15 years higher than when Social Security began in 1937. But we are not all average. Lower-income Americans have not seen much increase in life expectancy, while more affluent people have. Thus raising the retirement age would cut total lifetime benefits proportionately more for those on the bottom rungs of the income ladder.But let’s think differently about Social Security. Right now, monthly checks are linked to a person’s earnings during their working years. So, better-paid workers get bigger checks. True, lower-paid workers pay much less in Social Security payroll taxes and usually get back much more than they paid in taxes – even counting in interest on their tax contributions. Upper-income workers typically get back a lot less than they paid in, despite larger checks.But low-wage workers still get smaller Social Security checks to try to meet their monthly needs in retirement. Many end up falling below the poverty line and have to apply for means-tested assistance from Supplementary Security Income (SSI), another part of the Social Security system. What if we were to recast regular Social Security as true insurance? Insurance is something that pays out only when things go wrong. If you don’t have a car crash, or your house doesn’t burn down, you don’t get your premiums back later in life. What you do get is protection and peace of mind.So imagine Social Security as insurance protection against being financially insecure in retirement. If it were that, it would be very different from today.For one thing, we would want the lowest-income retirees to get the largest regular check – assuming they had dutifully paid their payroll tax “premiums” when working – and also enough to keep them comfortably out of poverty without having to rely on SSI. Some retirees with a modest income from, say, an IRA, might still need a small Social Security “insurance payout” to maintain a reasonable standard of living.In a true insurance model like this, retired Americans with healthy income from assets would get no Social Security check at all, rather than getting the largest checks as they do today. If Social Security is seen as insurance against financial insecurity then Warren Buffet clearly doesn’t need a check. Nor do other older Americans for whom a monthly Social Security check is just a little bit more icing on an already rich cake. If we reformed Social Security to make it more like real insurance, we’d need to do it gradually so people could plan, with the changes only fully affecting workers who are perhaps in their early 40s today. There would be a significantly higher basic benefit check for the least well-off. For retired singles with retiree income over, say, $25,000 in today’s dollars, the check would be reduced according to income until for a retiree with, say, $100,000 in other income there would be no check at all.With this reform, regular Social Security would more efficiently protect the elderly against economic insecurity and from poverty without the stigma of applying for SSI “welfare.” And it would help put the program on a more secure footing. To be sure, some would say it’s not fair that many Americans would pay Social Security taxes and get nothing in return. But that misses the point that Social Security should be insurance. And what’s really not fair is that many today pay high payroll taxes for a check that doesn’t keep them out of poverty.Some other critics might argue that without checks for all, the coalition needed to preserve Social Security would unravel. I doubt that very much. Social Security has an iconic status in America and there is no public support for ending it. So let’s not allow Social Security’s deteriorating finances to make it a steadily worse deal for those who need it most. It’s time instead to look at a reform that refocuses its mission on insuring financial security for seniors.Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets.AuthorsStuart M. ButlerPublication: Real Clear MarketsImage Source: Fred Prouser / Reuters
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is giving notice that the conditional approval for Kinavet-CA1 (masitinib mesylate) to treat mast cell tumors (a type of cancer) in dogs is no longer in effect as of December 15, 2015.
 
Family Topsites Top Independent Baptist Sites The Baptist Top 1000
Top Sites Lists

Powered by Ekklesia-Online