January 14th, 2020

S-ss-sh!

И борцам с пенсионной реформой посвещается

Traditionally, Americans could look forward to a comfortable retirement. After four decades in an office or a factory, sometime in their 60s they would lay down their burdens and enjoy a final couple of decades with time to relax, spend time with family and friends, and reflect on their life. But since the financial crisis, older Americans have been increasingly staying in the workplace:
Some see this as a positive trend, because it adds to the economy. But others rightfully view it with trepidation, because there’s the distinct possibility that many of these elderly people just can’t afford to retire. Whether their nest eggs were wiped out in the housing crash, or they just didn’t save enough, or whether their kids don’t make enough money to support them, the decline of retirement seems like an ominous development.
The pressures on older Americans to work will likely only become greater in the coming years. This is because the young, working population needed to support retirees will see slower growth, and possibly outright shrinkage.
Отсюда

Если вы думаете, что злочинный ПутЕн ухохатываясь проводит "пенсионный геноцид" на пользу ОмериГе и олигархам, то вот вам новости и из Америки: все больше стариков в США ВЫНУЖДЕНЫ работать, поскольку в свое время они НЕ РОЖАЛИ достаточного количества будущих рабочих рук и даже иммиграции не хватает, чтобы эту нехватку покрыть. Да и не хотят мигрантов здесь.

As recently as 2009, the U.S. had unusually high fertility rates for a developed nation. The total fertility rate — the number of children a woman can be expected to have over her lifetime — was about 2.1 children per woman, which is the level required for long-term population stability. But since then, the rate has fallen to 1.8 in 2016, implying long-term population shrinkage
Much of this is due to a fall in fertility among Hispanics, whose birth rates are converging with those of other groups. The Great Recession was undoubtedly a trigger as well; permanently lower expectations of income and wealth made child-rearing seem like a more financially daunting prospect.
Fewer kids means, eventually, fewer young workers to support an increasing population of retirees. This will result in less money being paid into the Social Security and Medicare systems, requiring either cuts in benefits, a higher retirement age or ever-ballooning deficits. Past experience suggests that Americans will be asked to work longer.

То есть, сейчас рождаемость в США сравнялась с таковой в России (в России 1.8 ребенка на женщину). Детей меньше - пенсия позже. Просто как пареная репа. Вот и всё. ECONOMY, STUPID!
S-ss-sh!

Про рождаемость

The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1, enough to renew the population, is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. During the post-World War Two baby boom, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, was 3.77 births— but it’s been much lower in every generation that followed the boomers.
In 2018, it dropped to an all-time low of 1.72. “The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement for the last decade,” the new CDC report, which is based on more than 99 percent of US birth records, reads.
Отсюда

The fertility rate for Russia in 2019 was 1.822 births per woman, a 0.05% increase from 2018. И на мусульман только это не спишешь - в России русскими себя считают 81% населения, их вклад в рождаемость - четыре пятых.

Сказать, что я удивлен - ничего не сказать. Я не мог себе такое представить даже как фантазию году в 1999.
S-ss-sh!

Как иакое вообще возможно?

Two years ago Gretchen Liu, 78, had a transient ischemic attack — which experts sometimes call a “mini stroke” — while on a trip to China. After she recovered and returned home to San Francisco, her doctor prescribed a generic medication called telmisartan to help manage her blood pressure.
Liu and her husband Z. Ming Ma, a retired physicist, are insured through an Anthem Medicare plan. Ma ordered the telmisartan through Express Scripts, the company that manages pharmacy benefits for Anthem and also provides a mail-order service.
The copay for a 90-day supply was $285, which seemed high to Ma.
“I couldn’t understand it — it’s a generic,” said Ma. “But it was a serious situation, so I just got it.”
A month later, Ma and his wife were about to leave on another trip, and Ma needed to stock up on her medication. Because 90 days hadn’t yet passed, Anthem wouldn’t cover it. So during a trip to his local Costco, Ma asked the pharmacist how much it would cost if he got the prescription there and paid out of pocket.
The pharmacist told him it would cost about $40.
“I was very shocked,” said Ma. “I had no idea if I asked to pay cash, they’d give me a different price.”
Insurance copays are higher than the cost of the drug about 25 percent of the time, according to a study published in March by the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.
Ma’s experience of finding a copay higher than the cost of the drug wasn’t that unusual. Insurance copays are higher than the cost of the drug about 25 percent of the time, according to a study published in March by the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.
Отсюда

Лекарство по страховки требует ко-пей (часть цены оплачивает пациент) и в 25% случаев этот гребаный ко-пей (со страховкой!!) выше цены, если покупать наличностью. И речь идет о дешевых (относительно) дженериках