Monday, February 7, 2022

Inventing Anna to Love is Blind: the seven Best shows

 Inventing Anna to Love is Blind: the seven best shows


Shonda Rhimes serves up the startling story of Anna Delvey, who defrauded New York high society by posing as a wealthy heiress. Plus: the wildly addictive dating show is back

“This whole story is completely true. Apart from the parts that are totally made up.” In terms of constructing a narrative about a con woman, this is a good place to start. Until her arrest in 2017, Anna Sorokin (AKA Delvey) posed as a wealthy German heiress in order to infiltrate and defraud New York high society. This new serial drama from Shonda Rhimes tells her startling story – through the eyes of Vivian Kent (Anna Chlumsky), a journalist struggling to write a feature about her. Julia Garner plays Sorokin as an odd, unsettling enigma – pivoting unpredictably between brittle vulnerability and extreme arrogance; defying any attempts to categorise or explain her. PH

For Georgia comedian Ms. Pat, the road to a Netflix special has a been long and bumpy one. She’s a survivor of sexual abuse who was selling crack cocaine on the streets of Atlanta by the age of 15. She was encouraged to attempt standup comedy by a caseworker and, since 2002, has been firmly establishing herself on the scene. This hour-long set turns a turbulent life story into dark humour, even when dealing with poverty, juvenile detention and the drugs game. Not for the faint-hearted but bracing, incredibly funny and eventually redemptive stuff. PH

Unmistakably Matt Groening in every way, the Simpsons and Futurama creator’s satirical medieval fantasy adventure cartoon for adults continues into part four. Fans last saw Luci (Eric Andre) being decapitated, Elfo (Nat Faxon) being taken away by ogres, and Bean (Abbi Jacobson) being dragged to hell (well, taken down in an elevator) by her mother Queen Dagmar (Sharon Horgan) to marry a mysterious man. Plenty of action to dive straight back into, then. The gang races to reunite over the course of 10 episodes.

 


“A whodunnit without an ending? It won’t even be worth the paper that it won’t be printed on.” Susan Ryeland (Lesley Manville) heads to Suffolk to find the ending herself in this adaptation of Anthony Horowitz’s 2016 bestselling murder mystery within a murder mystery. Cue a parallel tale spanning two time periods: 50s and contemporary Britain. With Tim McMullan (Foyle’s War), Daniel Mays (Line of Duty) and Pippa Haywood (Bodyguard, Bridgerton) joining the cast, this six-part series is set to be a satisfying dose of armchair detective fun.

Pages : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, & 87

Thanks

Saturday, February 5, 2022

A Case for Perspective in the Art and Entertainment Industry

The fields of art and entertainment would be barren without freedom of expression.


 

However, when marginalised communities, especially Dalits ‘attempt’ to exercise this freedom, even in form of basic human entitlements (like wearing footwear, riding a horse, or sporting a moustache), they have to face negative comments, abuses and even violent attacks. One may recall in 2015, a Dalit man Sagar Shejwal was beaten to death by eight ‘upper’ caste assailants in Shirdi, Maharashtra, because his mobile’s ringtone praised Ambedkar.

The Dalit-Bahujan quest to participate in the entertainment world has often been neglected or looked down on.

In the recent past, learning from the Black arts movement in Hollywood, there have been promising attempts to democratise the Indian film and entertainment industry. With new bold artistic films by Pa Ranjith, Nagaraj Manjule, Vetrimaran, among others, a dialogue has been initiated claiming new space for the Dalit-Bahujan filmmakers in the industry.

Further, with the arrival of the recent short video app ‘Jai Bheem’, one can see that the quest of the artistes and performers belonging to the socially marginalised groups to become an influential part of the entertainment industry with more visibility. These attempts have introduced the ideas of social justice to the cinema and entertainment industry and can be a step forward towards its greater democratisation.

Ambedkar and freedom of expression

The Dalit-Bahujan masses revere Babasaheb Ambedkar as the crucial source of inspiration, who help us understand how we shall operate in the modern world as free and equal beings, capable enough to take independent and rational decisions for our wellbeing.

Today, if Ambedkar sees that people belonging to Dalit-Bahujan sections are so diversely talented in various spheres of arts, dance, music, acting, performances and wanted to create their own name in these fields, what would be his advice to such creative people?

What will be his views on Dalit’s participation in the domain of mass entertainment? Will he be happy to see films like Fandry, Sairat, Kala, Asuran and Jai Bhim? Do we have an Ambedkarite framework to understand how the film industry, which is a crucial source shapes our cultural politics and impacts the social psyche?

Ambedkar, as a vocal proponent of democratic participation of the deprived sections in public life, would suggest that each sphere of social and economic life shall be diverse, ensuring substantive participation of different segments of society. In this respect, the entertainment industry needs diversity and participation of the Dalit-Bahujan groups.

 

Further, Ambedkar, as the sincere proponent of freedom of expression, would suggest that artistes should be unshackled from social prejudice, dogmas and elite control. According to him, an artiste can perform, with the best of their abilities, only if they have no coercive restrictions to comply with. This is because freedom would be so dear to Ambedkar that he would tell an artiste to create a society that respects individual dreams, cherishes freedom and contests each form of social injustices to build harmonious social environment.

After many historic socio-political struggles, a small but conscious and vocal Dalit middle-class segment is present in the public sphere today. However, a vast Dalit population, anticipating coercive opposition, lives in fear and remains submissive.

Especially, in the entertainment world, there are very few artistes and technicians who can proudly refer to their ‘Shudhra/Bahujan’ or ‘Dalit’ ancestry. For example, the legendary lyricist Shailendra never revealed his ‘Dalit’ identity, whereas actor Raj Kapoor had always worn his Punjabi cultural and social capital on his sleeve. The values of the Brahmanical system hegemonises our social outlook and forces our minds to look down on the Dalit-Bahujan identities with shame and prejudices. Therefore, the Dalit-Bahujan artistes are often prisoners of such stereotypes.

Further, the entertainment business, especially the film-making segment, is one of the most expensive mediums, as it attracts grand fame, money and power. Therefore, the doors of this business are often closed for ‘outsiders’. The sector is dominated by close-knit social networks, nepotism and class associations. Especially, for the Dalit-Bahujan communities, getting a fair and dignified entry in this segment is a difficult task.

There are many gatekeepers who often disallow or discourage talented artistes from having a fair entry into the business. The film industry often promotes the cultural ideas and socio-political concerns of the social elites and relegates the Dalit-Bahujan artistes to be mere insignificant passive spectators. Their art, creativity and cultural symbols find no recognisable space within the mainstream entertainment industry.

The world of entertainment significantly changed with the arrival of many short video mobile applications. Earlier Tiktok had allowed diverse people living in smaller towns and rural areas, especially the artists belonging to the lower social and class strata, to become part of the entertainment world.

The participation of Dalit-Bahujan artistes as the creators and consumers of entertaining content has not only diversified the entertainment segment but also showcased the deep desires of the artistes belonging to the marginalised groups to showcase their talent.

However, after the ban on Tiktok in India, many alternatives emerged in its place but hardly have a similar impact. Other applications like Instagram reels or YouTube shorts, mainly serve the entertainment values of the middle-class elites, disallow the Dalit-Bahujan artistes to take the centerstage.  Though these popular technological innovations in the social media space allow the participation of the Dalit-Bahujan artistes, it has often been observed they restrict and relegate the creative content of the Dalit-Bahujan artistes. They claim such content “violates community standards”, stopping them from taking centre stage either by tagging them as “inappropriate content”, or by trolling them with abuses and casteist slurs.

Watch Spider-Man No Way Home Online
Watch Uncharted Online
Watch Moonfall Online
Watch Scream Online
Watch Sing 2 Online
Watch The Black Phone Online
Watch Morbius Online
Watch Hotel Transylvania 4 Online

Recall the controversy stoked by troll armies when Jack Dorsey, the CEO (chief executive officer) of Twitter held a poster with “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy” written on it.  The traditional entertainment platforms have several times restricted, relegated and erased the creative content of the Dalit-Bahujan artistes, and their attempts to take centre stage on the internet have also been curtailed often. One must also note that the algorithms of these apps often promote so-called ‘good looking faces’, mainstream music and commercialised content. Therefore, the Dalit-Bahujan entries – like songs on Buddha and Ambedkar, dances and skits by Dalit artistes, news content on caste atrocities, among others – are often relegated to the background, and do not show up prominently on these platforms.

Source Link Here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls089130599/

 

 

Friday, February 4, 2022

Which mediclaim policy is best? Best Health Insurance

Which policy is best for health? No money spent on health? So let’s raise taxes to pay for health? Or pay for it without raising taxes? The United States spends about 18% of GDP on health. That’s more than most of the industrialized world. It also costs less than most countries. The three main components of that 18% are spending by the federal government, state and local governments, and individuals.

There are a couple of caveats. First, health spending does not include the costs of spending on education and the provision of goods and services (that includes health insurance). Second, costs are divided into components, the cost of medical care and drugs, plus administrative expenses. The cost of medical care and drugs includes such things as hospital fees, physician fees, pharmaceuticals, ambulance rides, and the like. Administrative expenses include things such as purchasing insurance and payroll taxes.

So, given the logic of this discussion, what would we need to do to move toward a system of universal health insurance that has the following characteristics:

1. Health care is paid for as an inescapable and universally covered benefit with no co-pays, no deductibles, and no annual limits on coverage.

2. There are no overpayments for sick or excessive use of care.

3. There are no patients who have no coverage at all. There are no people who have to go to the emergency room because they cannot afford the bill or who lose their job and can’t keep their job so have no insurance at all. There are no elderly people dying in the streets because they don’t have health insurance.

4. Private insurance companies and the middlemen such as drug manufacturers have a financial interest in providing good quality health care at low prices.

In short, I think we should move toward a system like Medicare that is financed by taxes on all of us. You might think that Medicare is unaffordable and you would be right. But Medicare is financed by taxes, unlike the health care bills we now pay for. Under our current system, health care providers pay directly for every extra dollar we pay for health care. It’s a great deal for them, but it is not a great deal for us.

The big problem with our current system is that we have a wide variety of fee-for-service payment systems. Each provider is paid according to the services rendered. The people who set up these payment systems believe that providers should be paid by the number of services rendered.

But it does not make sense to pay people by the number of services rendered. Providers should be paid by the value of the service they provide. The higher the quality of the services, the higher the payment should be. To determine the value of services, we need a set of objective measurements of those services.

On the other hand, it is very hard to measure value. This is the major problem with the existing fee-for-service payment systems. Until we can measure the value of the services provided, providers cannot be paid a reasonable amount of money. In other words, we cannot determine that services should cost X. We need to move toward a system in which providers are paid a fixed fee per unit of value.

Because there is no single source for deciding how to pay providers, they have little incentive to provide quality care. We need to get away from a system in which a health care provider can be paid a flat fee for his services. We need to move to a system in which health care providers are paid according to the value of the services they provide.

It’s a really tough problem, but we can solve it if we work together. That’s what our current health care system is not. It is a group of stakeholders with different goals and interests that are unable to come together to agree on a single solution to a complicated problem.

Here is an example. The insurance companies and drug companies, which are driving up the cost of medical care, are not really interested in having the public have affordable health insurance. The pharmaceutical companies are happy with high prices because it gives them a profit for their products, but they would not be so happy if the cost of prescription drugs were reduced. The health insurance companies are not very happy because they cannot pass along their rising costs to the consumers, so their income is not growing.

Similarly, doctors and hospitals are not interested in providing quality health care for low prices because they want to make a profit.

If we worked together, we would come up with a solution to this problem. We would establish a set of objective measures of the value of services. We would determine an appropriate price for the services provided. We would then have an entity that is responsible for paying providers according to those values.

This problem is not unique to health care. This is what drives a lot of the expense and inefficiency in other industries, such as car-making and computer manufacturing. Once upon a time, there was a single source of determining a value for these products. It was called the market. The manufacturers and suppliers decided what value their products had. Then they passed that value on to their customers. The customers were happy because they were buying a product that offered them value. The vendors were happy because they were able to earn a reasonable profit.

Eventually, however, this system broke down. There were too many businesses competing against each other. The owners of the businesses decided to consolidate their business interests into just a few large companies. The prices of the products were set in a different way. Now the buyers were the shareholders in the companies, not the customers. They were willing to pay higher prices to get the products.

I believe the market in health care is going to break down as well. Once we are able to have an objective system for determining value, then the market will work again. It will be able to determine the value of health care services so that they will be affordable. Once this is accomplished, the doctors and hospitals will once again be able to set the prices of their services. They will earn a reasonable profit, and consumers will once again have access to services at affordable prices.

More and more people in the United States are becoming aware of the fact that the current system is not working for them.

I have received many letters and phone calls from people who say that they are currently on Medicare and want to know how they can stop paying. They know that Medicare does not cover a sufficient portion of their medical expenses. They know that Medicare does not pay enough to provide a high quality of care. They also know that Medicare does not pay enough for their medications.

The government is looking into ways to reform our health care system, but their reform plans do not have the right solution to the current problems. It is important for you to know the right solution. I am telling you the right solution to this problem now.

How do we change the current system so that we can get out of the health care trap?

I believe that we need a single-payer health care system. Let me explain.

I used to work for my father-in-law who was a physician. He was also a businessman. He owned a small business. He and his wife owned a small restaurant. He provided his services to many patients. The food was good and the portions were big. The portions were big because the patient was paying for all the services, not just the payment for the medical services. The physician did not bill Medicare and Medicaid for the food that he provided for his patients. The patient was paying for the food that he consumed as well as for the medical services provided. The physician billed his patients directly. His patient was making the payment for the services that he provided, not the government.

I worked for my father-in-law when I was a young man. I liked the business. I always made a good profit. I would have earned even more if I did not have to pay my share of the health care expenses for the people who were insured by my father-in-law. My father-in-law paid these costs for his patients because his patients were paying for the services that he provided them. Patients are paying for their own medical services. Doctors are making a profit by charging more for the services they provide. They are not paying for the costs of treating the patients. Medicare and Medicaid are paying for the costs. Doctors do not bill Medicare and Medicaid for the cost of treating patients.

If you are an employer, you have paid this expense for years. As an employer, you have paid your share for years. Your workers are paying their share. Your customers are paying their share. The people who have insurance are paying their share of the costs. Everyone is paying their share.

It should not be so complicated to provide a medical insurance system in the United States. All we need is to have a single-payer health care system. It should be an insurance system that operates on a not-for-profit basis. It should be a system that operates like your automobile insurance. Your insurance company does not need to make a profit on the policies they issue. The insurance companies have an interest in preventing you from having a wreck. Their interest is not in making money on your wreck. Their interest is to make sure that you are safe when you are driving.

All the people who are insured by the insurance companies are paying their share of the costs. There is no profit to be made by the insurance company.

The insurance companies and the people who are insured have the same interest in preventing accidents. The people who have cars are paying their share of the costs. The insurance companies are not making money for the people who have cars. The insurance companies have no profit motive. There is no profit to be made by the people who ensure the cars. There is no profit to be made by the people who make the cars. There is no profit to be made by the people who insure you when you are driving your car.

The insurance companies and the people who are insured have the same interest in providing you with safe driving.

Spider-Man: No Way Home Movie

Source: http://www.4mark.net/story/5654615/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-policy

https://shoutmeloud01.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-policy/

https://webhitlist.com/photo/albums/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-insurance

https://www.onfeetnation.com/photo/albums/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-insurance

https://caribbeanfever.com/photo/albums/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-insurance

http://msnho.com/suppliers/which-mediclaim-policy-best-best-health-insurance

http://funkelixo.com.br/blogs/post/23245

https://www.exoltech.ps/wall/forum/topic/10633

https://www.exoltech.us/wall/forum/topic/6170

https://m.mydigoo.com/forums-topicdetail-407822.html

https://youhaveocd.com/web-forum/topic/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-insurance/

https://www.click4r.com/posts/g/3596202/which-mediclaim-policy-is-best-best-health-insurance

 

Disqus for revathskumar