Categories
Entertainment

Watch Normani Shock Jordan Chiles With a Video Message

Jordan Chiles is really living his dream. Just a few weeks after winning the silver medal at the Tokyo Olympics, the 20-year-old gymnast received a warm video message from Normani. At an appearance Access dailyJordan reflected on her stormy life since the Summer Games and mentioned a recent Instagram comment she received from the pop superstar. That then prompted the hosts to pull up the surprise video.

“I’m really trying to keep my composure because I’m actually a superfan and I’m really proud of your trip. Congratulations on winning the silver in Tokyo. I see you girls. Keep up the good work,” said Normani. “Keep working hard, keep emitting black girl magic because you make me very, very proud. I live through you because I used to be a gymnast, but sister, I knew I wouldn’t go to the Olympics. “Jordan held back tears and said,” I wasn’t expecting that at all. ” Check out the sweet surprise at 2:51 in the video above.

Categories
Entertainment

Vladimir Menshov, Shock Russian Oscar Winner, Dies at 81

Vladimir Menshov, a prolific Soviet actor and director whose film “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears” won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 1980 and surprised many American critics, died on July 5 in a Moscow hospital. He was 81.

Mosfilm, the Russian film studio and production company, said the cause was complications from Covid-19.

“Moscow doesn’t believe in tears”, a soapy, melodramatic crowd puller, attracted around 90 million moviegoers in the Soviet Union even after it was broadcast on television shortly after it was released in 1980. His theme song “Alexandra”, written by Sergey Nikitin and Tatyana Nikitina, became one of the most popular film music pieces in the country.

Still, when “Moscow”, only the second film directed by Mr. Menshov, won the Oscar, many moviegoers and critics were amazed at the competition this year. It was voted ahead of François Truffaut’s “The Last Metro” and Akira Kurosawa’s “The Shadow Warrior” as well as Spanish director Jaime de Armiñán’s “The Nest” and Hungarian director Istvan Szabo’s “Confidence”.

“There was more condescending benevolence behind the Oscar for ‘Moscow’ than aesthetic discrimination,” wrote Gary Arnold of the Washington Post when reviewing the film, which was released in the United States after it won an Oscar.

The film follows three girls, who were quartered in a Moscow hotel for young women in the late 1950s, in search of male company and revisits them 20 years later. It played Vera Alentova, the director’s wife and the mother of her daughter Yuliya Menshova, a television personality. Both survive him, along with two grandchildren.

Mr. Arnold noted that Mr. Menshov’s film “revived a genre that Hollywood couldn’t sustain, reliably it seems: the chronicle of provincial girls, usually a trio pursuing careers and / or friends in the big city” – a Genre that at the time ranged from “Bühnentor” (1938) to “Valley of the Puppets” (1967).

Vincent Canby of the New York Times admitted that the film was “played properly” but wrote that after two and a half hours it “appears endless”.

From time to time there are allusions to social satire, “wrote Mr. Canby,” but they are so mild that they could only surprise and interest an extremely prudish, unconstructed Stalinist. “

Although he found it understandable that “Moscow” was one of the most successful films in the Soviet Union, Mr. Canby concluded: “You can also believe that part of Mr. Menshov’s biography (included in the program) that reports that he was in the first three years failed. “at the Cinema Institute in Moscow and was not much more successful as an acting student at the Moscow Art Theater.”

He added sharply, “I assume we are being told these things to underscore the insignificance of these early failures which, however, appear to be summed up in his Oscar-winning actress.”

Vladimir Valentinovich Menshov was born on September 17, 1939 to a Russian family in Baku (now Azerbaijan). His father Valentin was an officer in the secret police. His mother, Antonina Aleksandrovna (Dubovskaya) Menshov, was a housewife.

As a teenager, Vladimir worked as a machine worker, miner and sailor before entering the Moscow Art Theater School. After graduating from school in 1965 and from the Gerasimov Institute for Cinematography in 1970, he worked for the Mosfilm, Lenfilm and Odessa Film studios.

He had more than 100 credits as an actor, including the hit “Night Watch” (2004) and was also a screenwriter. He made his directorial debut in 1976 with the film “Practical Joke”.

Categories
Business

Tribune Publishing Considers New Provide From Shock Bidders

Tribune Publishing, the newspaper chain that owns The Chicago Tribune, The Daily News and The Baltimore Sun, announced Monday that serious discussions had begun about selling the company to two bidders who made an offer almost two months later ready to sell to Alden Global Capital, a New York hedge fund.

The new offer, which is more than the amount offered by Alden, was made Thursday by Stewart W. Bainum Jr., a Maryland hotel magnate, and Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire who made his fortune as a medical device maker.

The two have formed a company called Newslight. Tribune Publishing said Monday it would have “talks and negotiations” with Mr Bainum and Mr Wyss. The company added that for the time being it “will not terminate the Alden merger agreement or enter into a merger agreement with Newslight, Mr. Bainum or Mr. Wyss”.

Until recently, it looked like Alden Global Capital was almost certain to become Tribune’s next owner. Late last month, Mr. Wyss emerged as a surprising new player, telling the New York Times that he would be teaming up with Mr. Bainum to bid for the chain. On Thursday, Mr. Wyss and Mr. Bainum made their offer, which the Tribune valued at $ 18.50 per share, beating Alden’s offer of $ 17.25.

The bid from Mr. Wyss and Mr. Bainum valued the company at approximately $ 680 million. Alden’s offer put the Tribune’s worth at around $ 630 million. News of the offer was previously reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Tribune Publishing said Monday that its select committee had determined that the competing bid from Mr. Wyss and Mr. Bainum would reasonably result in a “superior proposal” than Alden’s offer.

In business today

Updated

April 5, 2021, 4:00 p.m. ET

The Tribune advised caution, however, telling shareholders: “There can be no guarantee that discussions with Newslight and its clients will result in a binding proposal.”

Almost two months ago, Mr. Bainum reached a non-binding agreement to create a nonprofit to buy The Sun and two other Maryland newspapers from Alden for $ 65 million after the Alden Tribune deal approved the Alden Shareholders had received.

However, this agreement ran into trouble soon after its inception. Last month, Mr. Bainum, chairman of Choice Hotels International, one of the world’s largest hotel chains, made a full tribune offer for $ 18.50 per share.

After considering Mr Bainum’s offer last month, Tribune said it remains in favor of the deal with Alden, which has solid funding. At the same time, the board informed Mr. Bainum that he was free to find supporters to make his offer more attractive. He did just that by joining Mr. Wyss.

Journalists in Tribune newsrooms sharply criticized Alden, who already owns around 32 percent of the company, as a potential owner. Owning around 60 daily newspapers across the country through the MediaNews Group, Alden is known for cutting deeply into the publications he controls in order to wrest profit from companies in trouble. Alden says his strategy is preventing newspapers from going out of business.

In an interview last month, 85-year-old Wyss said he was partly supported by a Times opinion piece in which two then-Chicago Tribune reporters, David Jackson and Gary Marx, warned that Alden would “create a ghost” been inspired to join Mr. Bainum’s version of The Chicago Tribune. “Tribune journalists from other newspapers have campaigned to convince local benefactors to buy Tribune Publishing, or at least one of its newspapers.

Mr. Wyss, the former managing director of the Synthes medical device company, has a home in Wyoming. A decade ago, he led the sale of Synthes to Johnson & Johnson for approximately $ 20 billion. Since then, he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve wildlife habitats in Wyoming, Montana, Maine, and elsewhere. He has also been a major donor to liberal groups keen to shape American politics, including the Center for American Progress, where he serves on the board.

Mr Wyss said in an interview with The Times last month that he had joined efforts to buy Tribune because he believed in the need for a robust press. “I don’t want to see any other newspaper that has a chance to increase the amount of truth that is being told to the American people who are going down the drain,” he said.

Categories
World News

Migrant Households at U.S.-Mexico Border Deported by Shock

When 149 migrants were taken to a bridge by US border guards, they had no idea where they were being taken. Many broke down crying when they learned they were back in Mexico.

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico – They arrived in groups of 30, children dangling from adults’ arms, and were escorted across the Paso del Norte bridge by United States border guards on Thursday afternoon until they reached halfway point. Then they were handed over to the Mexican authorities.

“Where are we?” A father asked a journalist at the New York Times.

“Ciudad Juarez” came the answer.

The father, who had not been told where he and the rest of the migrant group were being taken by US officials, looked confused.

“Mexico,” the journalist clarified.

Faces twisted from confusion to fear. Many of the parents began to sob and tears of frustration fell on the children who cradled them.

“You betrayed us!” yelled one parent.

“They promised they would help us!” another moaned.

Most of the 149 migrants brought across the bridge on Thursday had entered the United States from Reynosa, a border town in northern Mexico, where they were arrested by US border guards. They were then flown 600 miles to El Paso, Texas, where they were put on buses, driven to the border, and walked to the bridge.

No one was informed that they were being sent back to Mexico.

As they crossed the bridge that connected El Paso to Ciudad Juarez, they realized that everything they had risked on their journey – their lives, the well-being of their children, the loans they had bankrupted themselves – was for them to take up smuggling the United States – fell apart.

Below, Elvin Bautista Pérez (26) from Honduras and his daughter Mía (5) are trying to text his family after the deportation.

Vilma Iris Peraza, 28, struggled to carry Erick, her 2-year-old, pantless, in a dirty diaper, and her daughter Adriana, 5.

Adriana was standing in a pool of vomit on top of the bridge when Mexican officers surrounded her. The braids that Mrs. Peraza had so diligently woven into her daughter’s hair were a frizzy mess. The mother wanted her daughter to look her best for her new life in America.

Mrs. Peraza tried to comfort Adriana and gave her a sip of water when Erick wiggled in her arms. Eventually she collapsed on the bridge, hugged her children and cried.

“We couldn’t get through my dear,” Ms. Peraza told her husband on the phone when she was finally able to connect. “Here in Mexico we all cry. I don’t know what we’re gonna do. “

The family from Copán, Honduras, had tried days earlier to reunite with Ms. Peraza’s husband in Nashville. They have been a family divided since he left to work in Tennessee two years ago. The smugglers had billed them $ 12,000 to cross – the equivalent of nearly three years’ salary in Honduras – and they no longer minded huddled on the bridge.

“I just want to reconnect with my husband to give our children a better future,” said Ms. Peraza. “There is a lot of poverty in my country, nothing can be done.”

Above, US Customs and Border Protection officers escort migrants back to Mexico at the border crossing in Ciudad Juarez.

It had taken many of the migrants a month or more to complete the dangerous migration from Central America to the United States.

The dangerous journey was worth it, many had argued, as long as they could settle in America. They did not want to leave their homes, but their countries were broken under corrupt governments that neglected them and allowed gangs to rule the streets.

Now they were in Mexico with bad options: give up everything and return home or try to cross illegally again. Both decisions left them at the mercy of the Mexican criminal networks.

Another migrant asked a Times journalist about the situation in Juarez, one of Mexico’s most dangerous border towns.

“How is this town?” he asked. “Is it safe to go out?”

Migrants are loaded into vans to be taken to emergency shelters in Juárez.

Elvin Bautista Pérez, 26, clutched his daughter as he tried to get a reception on his phone to share the disappointing news with family members.

He and Mía, 5, had left their home in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, in January for the United States.

Mr Bautista said he never wanted to be an immigrant, never wanted to leave his family to learn a new language and new customs. He had found a way to live with the poverty and corruption that had plagued Honduras since childhood. But then, within a few weeks, two powerful hurricanes hit Honduras, leaving him unemployed and homeless in November.

“They deceived us because they never told us in the US that they would deport us,” said Bautista.

Mrs. Peraza downstairs with her children.

Mexican officials led the migrants from the bridge to their offices, where they were registered and said they would be taken to emergency shelters pending deportation home.

But the shelters were for those whose limits of despair had been reached. Among the crowd of migrants, there were still the hopeful, those who did not run out of money or who were determined to try again to cross. Instead of filling out the government forms, they slipped out of the chaotic offices onto the streets of Juarez.

A yellow sports car and a family appeared out of nowhere was led to the back seat. They had called their coyote or people smuggler to pick them up at government offices. As soon as everyone was packed into the car – as conspicuous as the coyotes are bold – the family sped off to try the dangerous crossing again.

Categories
Business

Shock Medical Payments Price Individuals Hundreds of thousands. Congress Is Lastly Set to Ban Most of Them.

Hospitals and doctors, who tend to benefit from the current system, struggled to defeat solutions that would lower their pay. Insurance companies and large insurance groups, on the other hand, wanted a stronger way to negotiate lower payments to the types of medical providers that can currently send surprise bills to patients.

The legislation nearly passed last December but was sunk in the eleventh hour after healthcare providers aggressively opposed the deal. Private equity firms, which own many of the medical providers that deliver surprise invoices, have put tens of millions in advertisements opposed to the plan. The committee chairs argued over jurisdictional issues and postponed the matter.

This year, many of the same lawmakers who were behind last year’s failed efforts tried again, mitigating several provisions most uncomfortable for influential lobbies of doctors and hospitals. The current version is unlikely to do as much in reducing healthcare spending as the previous version, but will still protect patients.

After years of defeat, consumer interest groups welcomed the new legislation.

“This was a real win over money for Americans,” said Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA. “The real point here was for Congress to recognize in a bipartisan way the profanity of families who paid insurance and were still firing financial bombs.”

The final compromise would require insurers and medical providers unable to agree on a payment rate to use an outside arbitrator to make a decision. The arbitrator would determine a reasonable amount, depending in part on what other doctors and hospitals typically pay for similar services. Patients could be charged for the type of co-payment they would pay for in-network services, but no more.

This type of policy is generally seen as more beneficial to healthcare providers than the other proposal considered by Congress, which would have minimized the role of arbitrators and instead set benchmark reimbursement rates. Several states have established their own arbitration procedures and have found that most price disputes are negotiated before an arbitrator is involved.

“If this bill forces them to come to the table and negotiate a solution, it will be a clear win for everyone,” said Christopher Garmon, assistant professor of health administration at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who outlines the scope of the problem.

Categories
Health

The Vaccines Are Purported to Be Free. Shock Payments Might Occur Anyway.

Federal regulations say that if Americans get a coronavirus vaccine, they shouldn’t have to pay anything out of their own pocket.

Congress passed law this spring banning insurers from applying cost-sharing such as a co-payment or deductible. It consisted of extra safeguards that prevented pharmacies, doctors, and hospitals from charging patients.

For consumer advocates, the rules seem almost ironic – nonetheless, they fear surprise vaccine bills will find their way to patients, just as coronavirus tests and treatments did earlier this year.

“It’s the American healthcare system, so inevitably there are gaps that we can’t foresee right now,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center for Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

[Have you received a coronavirus vaccine? Tell us about it here.]

Americans vaccinated this year and next typically don’t pay for the vaccine themselves, as the federal government bought hundreds of millions of doses on behalf of patients. It has agreed to buy 100 million doses from Pfizer-BioNTech – and is negotiating for more – and 200 million from Moderna, enough to vaccinate 150 million Americans (the vaccines require two shots). It also has orders to purchase additional vaccines that are still being tested.

The Affordable Care Act provides additional protection as most health insurers are required to fully cover all federally recommended preventative measures. The CARES bill, passed this spring, has tightened these Obamacare rules.

Typically, insurers have around two years to cover a newly approved prevention service. The CARES Act provided coverage for 15 days following a recommendation by the Federal Advisory Board on Immunization Practices.

Some insurers, including Aetna and certain Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, have already announced that they will not charge patients for the vaccine or its administration.

“The health insurance companies pay the administration fees for the administration of the Covid-19 vaccine,” said David Allen, a spokesman for the American health insurance plans. “The administration fee covers doctors who provide the vaccine to patients, report to the public health and answer patient questions.”

The federal government has used other levers to cut the bills for surprise vaccines. When it offered improved Medicaid payment rates this spring, states had to fully cover coronavirus vaccines as a condition of receipt for all of their participants. All 50 states have accepted the additional funding and are now subject to these requirements.

Updated

Dec. 17, 2020, 6:13 p.m. ET

Elsewhere, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention require vaccine providers to sign a contract stating not to bill patients for the vaccine and the cost of giving it. Doctors outside the network who do not have a contract with a patient’s private insurance must accept Medicare’s rate for administering the vaccine – $ 16.94 for the first dose and $ 28.39 for the second, according to those released in October Regulate. For uninsured patients, healthcare providers must send these fees to a provider assistance fund for reimbursement.

This is different from the rules for coronavirus treatment, which governed cost-sharing by insurers but did not take steps to restrict medical and hospitals billing. This meant that some patients were getting bills they weren’t expecting.

“What makes vaccination protection unique is that there are requirements for both insurers and providers,” said Karyn Schwartz, Senior Fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s a belt-and-suspender approach that makes consumer protection a lot stronger.”

Despite this protection, experts see some weak points. It has to do with the type of health insurance Americans have. Millions are still covered by “grandfather’s” health insurances that existed before and are exempt from the rules on Affordable Care. Hence, these plans are not required to fully cover the coronavirus vaccine or any other preventive service.

Experts also worry about uninsured Americans. The United States does not have a national program to cover vaccination costs. For the coronavirus, healthcare providers are instructed to submit vaccination-related costs to a $ 175 billion Provider Relief Fund set up last spring.

The fund had $ 30 billion left as of November 10. There is no substitute source of funding for the uninsured that could be covered when it is used up.

“The question marks for me are the uninsured and the people who are in the unregulated plans,” Ms. Corlette said.

Additional fees can accompany a vaccine. Some providers are used to charging a visit fee for all personal patients. Most emergency rooms charge “set-up fees,” the price of going in the door and finding care, as do some doctors in hospitals. Some patients who received coronavirus tests in emergency rooms faced setup fees in excess of $ 1,000, according to billing records presented to the New York Times. These fees are typically not incurred in retail pharmacies, where many Americans may be vaccinated.

Federal law makes it very clear that patients do not have to pay for the vaccine and its administration. However, there is no language that defines what qualifies as “vaccine administration” and whether the attendance fee causes the reduction.

“The question that I’m still not clear about is what happens if someone walks into an ambulance that charges a facility and receives a vaccine,” said Kao-Ping Chua, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Coronavirus Medical Billing. “Is there any way that they can be charged? I think the answer is yes. “

When patients experience side effects from the vaccine and require medical attention – as a health care worker in Alaska did earlier this week – they have no special protection against those allegations. If a vaccine visit addresses other medical issues – such as having a patient’s blood drawn or pre-existing medical conditions discussed with a provider – this can also mean regular fees for care.

Then there is the prospect of Obamacare repeal. Last month the Supreme Court held an oral argument in a case involving the termination of the Affordable Care Act. If the challenge is successful, Obamacare’s mandate for prevention services like the coronavirus vaccine will be void.

Insurers can still choose to insure the vaccine – and find it inexpensive if it avoids hospitalization – but they could ask for a co-payment, just like they do with doctor visits and prescription drugs.

“All vaccine coverage depends on the Affordable Care Act,” said Ms. Corlette. “If that goes away, that’s another very big problem.”