Review: ‘Tuesday’ is a dark fairy tale led by a staggeringly good Julia Louis-Dreyfus

posted in: Society | 0

Those of us movie critics fortunate enough to be in this line of work are always trying to squeeze another two hours or so out of the week to catch one more new film. Because you never know. Which is to say: I’m extremely happy to have seen “Tuesday,” which demands and receives new and challenging things from Julia Louis-Dreyfus while announcing a formidable new filmmaker, the Croatian writer-director Daina O. Pusić. She has created an imperfect but singular fairy tale for adults, but not just adults, really. There’s real magic and deep feeling behind it.

Allow me to describe it deceptively. “Tuesday” is the name of the 15-year-old girl using a wheelchair, hooked up to IVs, in the care of a home nurse while the girl’s mother works. Even when she’s not working, the mother, Zora, played by Louis-Dreyfus, doesn’t spend much meaningful time with her girl. Tuesday is dying. Zora isn’t coping well. Grief has a way of arriving before a loved one dies, and Zora’s grief has thrown her into a nervous whirlwind of busyness and chatter.

Now for the fantastical aspect of “Tuesday.” The first character we meet in Pusić’s story is a macaw, in fact a Macaw of Death. (The bird, which can radically size-shift from teeny-tiny to halfway-to-Kong size, is billed in the credits simply as “Death.”) With a brief, calm wave of its wing, Death brings the end to humans whose laments Death has heard, and will heed. This grubby but remarkable bird, badly in need of a bath and some peace, has a difficult time tuning out Earth’s perpetual chorus of lamentation.

Now it’s Tuesday’s time, her breathing having grown increasingly labored. The macaw arrives in Zora’s London townhouse at the appropriate time. (Death can speak, by the way; Nigerian born actor Arinzé Kene provides the unearthly-deep but surprisingly companionable voice characterization.)

For a time, Tuesday and Death find solace in each other’s temporary company. Shrinking down, the macaw enjoys a badly needed bath in Tuesday’s bathroom sink. Tuesday plays one of her favorite songs, Ice Cube’s “It Was a Good Day,” which turns out to be a favorite of Death’s, too. They get high, in a scene not played for the kind of laugh you might expect, even from an off-center, A24-distributed picture.

Early on we see Zora bartering with a taxidermist, trying to sell a couple of stuffed rats, so we know money is tight for this woman, because dying is expensive. “Tuesday” phases into a darker, wilder hue once Zora meets the macaw, and does everything she can — including swallowing the bird whole! — to prolong her daughter’s life a bit longer, even if Zora hasn’t yet used the time they have especially wisely. Meantime an apocalypse, glimpsed in a few brief images, rages all over London, and presumably elsewhere.

Related Articles


She’s 94 years old. But June Squibb is scooter-driving action hero in ‘Thelma’


‘Fancy Dance’ director Erica Tremblay talks about creating complex Native stories


Talking to Kevin Costner about ‘Horizon’: He’s bet everything, will it pay off?


‘Purple Rain’ at 40: Here are all the ways to celebrate Prince’s once-in-a-lifetime masterpiece


‘The Hangover’ at 15: Here are 15 things you may not know about the comedy

The movie scatters and, here and there, stumbles a bit in its second half. And yet the spell never broke for me. The everyday heartbreak, such as Louis-Dreyfus’s startled, shaken non-verbal reaction to the taxidermist’s casual question about the age of her daughter, makes “Tuesday” a very full experience. Louis-Dreyfus is wonderful in this, ready for anything, never soft-pedaling her character’s flaws or panic or fear. Lola Petticrew makes Tuesday both compelling and admirable in her directness. As Tuesday’s caregiver, Leah Harvey is equally fine.

None of their work would be half as effective without the marvelously matter-of-fact digital realization of Death, thanks to visual effects supervisors Mike Stillwell and Andrew Simmonds. There scarcely a moment in “Tuesday” wasted on a shock cut or a jump scare or anything at odds with the atmosphere of quiet astonishment. Sound designer Gunnar Óskarsson’s avian shudders and human lamentations fill the soundtrack when needed, but sparingly. And when Death speaks, we see and hear the hesitancy, even if it’s something as simple as his appreciation of sarcasm. (Jesus was really into it, he notes.) This is, after all, a creature that hasn’t spoken in roughly 200 years.

Magical talking birds have flown in and out of plenty of timeworn fairy tales and folktales, from Gozzi’s play “The Green Bird” to Sicilian folklore and beyond. This one’s really something. I can’t wait to see what this filmmaker does next. Same with Louis-Dreyfus, although “Tuesday” reminds us she can do just about anything.

“Tuesday” — 3.5 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for language)

Running time: 1:51

How to watch: Premieres in theaters June 14

Michael Phillips is a Tribune critic.

New businesses surge but may be tested this year

posted in: News | 0

By Elizabeth Renter | NerdWallet

The American entrepreneurial spirit seems to be doing well despite high borrowing costs and consumers burdened by high prices.

New business applications are rolling in at a monthly rate 48% higher than the 2019 average. This surge began in the immediate wake of 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, and it continues now in both total applications and those considered “high propensity,” which are businesses most likely to result in job creation.

A flood of government funding during the pandemic, favorable programs and strong consumer demand are just a few reasons for the sustained increase in new businesses. The growth of new businesses has likely played a role in continued labor market strength, where job creation remains robust in the face of the Federal Reserve’s campaign to slow inflation through higher interest rates. However, those new businesses should craft contingency plans to weather continued high borrowing costs and softening consumer spending as 2024 wears on.

Applications surge, then remain high

In 2019, 293,000 new business applications — as measured by requests for employer identification numbers (EIN) from the IRS — were processed each month on average. This monthly measure peaked in July 2020 at 546,000. It slowed slightly before peaking again at 503,000 in May 2021 and settling to the most recent 12-month average of 455,000.

These applications weren’t solely driven by lofty fantasies conjured during lockdowns — high-propensity applications, or those deemed most likely to result in having workers on payroll, have risen and remain aloft as well.

The increases have likely been due to a combination of factors: some new entrepreneurs being among the layoffs and business closures of spring 2020; Economic Impact Payments to households helping to seed some of the startup funding; pro-small business policies; and that difficult-to-articulate shift in life priorities that occurred because of the pandemic.

Increased filings translate to increased openings

Early on, there was some debate as to whether these applications would actually result in successful business creation, i.e., would the ambitions of entrepreneurs translate to measures of success such as the hiring of employees? Thus far, the answer seems to be yes.

There is a lag between when a business files for an EIN and when it is measured as a new business or one where employees are on the payroll. In 2018-2019, these establishment “births” accounted for 3.1% of all establishments, each quarter, on average. That share grew to 4.3% in late 2021, and currently averages 3.6% over the past year.

You can also see the increased presence of new businesses when looking at business age data — the share of establishments younger than 2 years grew modestly from 15.5% in 2013 to 16.7% in 2019, before rising rapidly over the next several years. In 2023, the share of young businesses stood at 20.6%, according to Business Employment Dynamics data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Funding is costly and harder to come by

These young businesses are coming of age when funding is expensive. Interest rates on new loans have roughly doubled over the past three years, according to data from the Kansas City Fed. On a loan of $100,000, for example, this difference can mean hundreds of additional dollars on a monthly payment, and tens of thousands in interest over the life of the loan.

New small business lending remained robust in the fourth quarter of 2023, according to the Kansas City Fed, but banks report lower demand for business loans in the first quarter of this year, according to the Federal Reserve. Further, in that most recent quarterly Fed survey of lenders, a moderate share of banks report tightening standards on those loans, making it more difficult for businesses to get approved for the costly funding.

What new businesses can expect in coming months

The remainder of 2024 could prove tough for new businesses. Borrowing costs will likely remain high, and consumer spending could cool.

The Federal Reserve is unlikely to begin cutting interest rates until the third or fourth quarter of the year, and it will probably begin cautiously. So new businesses shouldn’t expect any significant relief from high interest rates on loans through the end of the year.

In addition, the Fed’s efforts to quell demand-driven inflation with higher rates is likely to begin weighing more heavily on household finances in coming months. This means consumer demand for goods and services may not be as robust as it’s been for the previous few years. In fact, it’s already begun slowing, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

New businesses are more likely to feel a negative impact from swings in consumer spending. In contrast, older businesses may have long-standing relationships with clientele — potentially greater customer loyalty — which can help buffer short-term changes in those customers’ household finances. Further, more-established businesses are likely to have more resources and greater insulation to cover periods of slower business.

Owners of new businesses can prepare for the coming months by having a game plan. Businesses that depend on discretionary spending, in particular, should plan for lean times. It’s better to be prepared and not need it than to be caught off guard. Think about where you might be able to cut expenses, consider a line of credit as an emergency fund and know where to go for help when you’re a new business owner navigating new economic experiences.

Elizabeth Renter writes for NerdWallet. Email: elizabeth@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @elizabethrenter.

Health worker for a nonprofit? The new ban on noncompete contracts may not help you

posted in: News | 0

Harris Meyer | (TNS) KFF Health News

Many physicians and nurses are happy about the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule banning the use of noncompete agreements in employment contracts. But they are disappointed that it may not protect those who work for nonprofit hospitals and health care facilities, which provide most of the nation’s care and employ the largest number of medical professionals.

In April, in a 3-2 vote, the FTC approved a final rule prohibiting contracts that prevent an employee from taking a job with a competitor. Calling the noncompete agreements “a widespread and often exploitative practice,” an agency announcement described them as an unfair method of competition that depresses wages and hinders new business formation.

The rule bars employers in most industries, including health care, from using contract clauses that block employees from leaving for other jobs or starting a competing business in the same geographic area for a fixed period of time.

But that doesn’t help many health professionals, because the FTC Act gives the agency authority over companies organized to operate for profit but not over nonprofit, charitable organizations, which are also tax-exempt.

Still, the agency noted some nonprofits could be bound by the rule if they do not operate as true charities. The rule establishes a two-part test to determine if the FTC has jurisdiction over a nonprofit — whether the organization is carrying on business for only charitable purposes, and whether its income goes to public rather than private interests.

“Our rulemaking record includes powerful stories from health care workers who are employed by nonprofits about how noncompetes hurt patients and providers,” said FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, one of three Democratic commissioners, in comments before the April 23 vote. “I do not think there is a good justification for them to be excluded from this rule.”

Noncompete contract terms have become increasingly common for physicians, nurse practitioners, and other medical professionals in hospitals and various health care facilities. Some providers say these agreements have forced them to leave their communities and patients behind if they wanted to exit unethical or unsafe workplace conditions.

Nearly 64% of U.S. community hospitals are nonprofits or government-owned, and they employ many of the nation’s medical professionals. As of 2022, nearly three-quarters of U.S. physicians were employed by hospital systems or other companies, both nonprofit and for-profit.

Based on their designation as charities that don’t have to pay income or property taxes, U.S. nonprofit hospitals received a total estimated tax exemption of $28 billion in 2020, according to KFF, a nonpartisan research organization.

That exceeded the estimated $16 billion they spent on charity care for patients unable to afford their medical bills, KFF said.

Physician and nursing groups say it makes no sense to treat nonprofit hospitals differently because they are just as money-driven as for-profit hospitals. Patients, they say, will benefit if providers are free to call out unsafe conditions and change jobs. “Giving physicians freedom of movement will force hospitals to compete to improve working conditions,” said Jonathan Jones, immediate past president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine.

Chad Golder, general counsel and secretary of the American Hospital Association, which represents mostly nonprofit hospitals, said the rule would increase health care costs and reduce patient access by triggering hospital bidding wars for physicians. He predicted the FTC would try to apply the rule to both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals.

“They aren’t saying exactly what they’ll do, but it’s a pretty significant move for them to say we’ll apply our own test to determine if we can regulate a nonprofit,” Golder said. “Nonprofit entities now will need to be extra careful.”

In addition, some nonprofit hospitals have joint ventures with for-profit hospitals and medical groups. That could create complicated questions about whether their employee contracts come under the rule, said Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents for-profits.

The new rule arose from President Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order instructing the FTC to curb the unfair use of noncompete agreements, part of his broader mandate to boost U.S. economic competition and worker mobility.

The FTC argued that banning noncompetes, which it said cover 1 in 5 American workers, would lower health care costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade. It will ensure Americans “freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said.

The rule also prohibits contract terms that function like noncompetes to stop employees from leaving to work for competing companies or start their own businesses. These might include overbroad nondisclosure agreements, training repayment provisions, and nonsolicitation clauses.

“No one should be trapped in an unsafe job by onerous contracts that prevent them from taking another job,” said Brynne O’Neal, a regulatory policy specialist at National Nurses United, the profession’s largest dedicated labor union in the U.S. Hospitals, she said, use training repayment agreement provisions that require nurses to pay as much as $30,000 in training costs if they leave, essentially locking them in their jobs.

California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma already ban enforcement of noncompete clauses for all employees of both nonprofits and for-profits, while about nine other states prohibit noncompetes for physicians. Even in states without bans, judges have invalidated noncompetes when they have found them to be overbroad or unreasonable.

Hospital executives argue that the noncompete rule will force them to compete against each other to hire physicians and other providers and ultimately cost them more, and that it advantages nonprofits over for-profits. “All it would do is increase the price of labor in a field that already has labor shortages and thin margins,” Golder said.

“The nonprofit hospital across the street could pursue our employees, while their employees would be protected, and that’s a basic fairness issue,” Kahn said.

But Clifford Atlas, an employment attorney with Jackson Lewis in New York, said that argument against the noncompete rule “won’t fly” in court because preventing competition for the services of physicians or other workers is not a business interest that’s protected by law or public policy.

The rule is set to take effect in September, though business groups have filed two federal lawsuits against it in Texas and one in Pennsylvania. Many legal experts predict that conservative judges will strike down the rule on the grounds that it exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority.

Physician and nurses’ groups hope the FTC rule, whatever its fate in the courts, helps persuade hospitals and other health care employers to stop using noncompetes and spurs more states to prohibit them.

“We’re telling our members it could be struck down, but we’re asking them to renegotiate their contracts,” said Jones of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “They should be asking their employers, ‘Wouldn’t you like to be on the right side and not to be seen as fighting against physicians and patients?’”

___

(KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Fact check: Biden’s on target about what repealing ACA would mean for preexisting condition protections

posted in: Politics | 0

Jacob Gardenswartz | (TNS) KFF Health News

If the Affordable Care Act were terminated, “that would mean over a hundred million Americans will lose protections for preexisting conditions.”

President Joe Biden in a campaign advertisement, May 8

____

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign wants voters to contrast his record on health care policy with his predecessor’s. In May, Biden’s campaign began airing a monthlong, $14 million ad campaign targeting swing-state voters and minority groups with spots on TV, digital and radio.

In the ad, titled “Terminate,” Biden assails former President Donald Trump for his past promises to overturn the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Biden also warns of the potential effect if Trump is returned to office and again pursues repeal.

“That would mean over a hundred million Americans will lose protections for preexisting conditions,” Biden said in the ad.

Less than six months from Election Day, polls show Trump narrowly leading Biden in a head-to-head race in most swing states. And voters trust Trump to better handle issues such as inflation, crime and the economy by significant margins.

An ABC News/Ipsos poll of about 2,200 adults, released in early May, shows the only major policy issues on which Biden received higher marks than Trump were health care and abortion access. It’s no surprise, then, that the campaign is making those topics central to Biden’s pitch to voters.

As such, we dug into the facts surrounding Biden’s claim.

Preexisting Condition Calculations

The idea that 100 million Americans are living with one or more preexisting conditions is not new. It was the subject of a back-and-forth between then-candidate Biden and then-President Trump during their previous race, in 2020. After Biden cited that statistic in a presidential debate, Trump responded, “There aren’t a hundred million people with preexisting conditions.”

A KFF Health News/PolitiFact HealthCheck at the time rated Biden’s claim to be “mostly true,” finding a fairly large range of estimates — from 54 million to 135 million — of the number of Americans with preexisting conditions. Estimates on the lower end tend to consider “preexisting conditions” to be more severe chronic conditions such as cancer or cystic fibrosis. Estimates at the spectrum’s higher end include people with more common health problems such as asthma and obesity, and behavioral health disorders such as substance use disorder or depression.

Biden’s May ad focuses on how many people would be vulnerable if protections for people with preexisting conditions were lost. This is a matter of some debate. To understand it, we need to break down the protections put in place by the ACA, and those that exist separately.

Before and After

Before the ACA’s preexisting condition protections took effect in 2014, insurers in the individual market— people buying coverage for themselves or their families — could charge higher premiums to people with particular conditions, restrict coverage of specific procedures or medications, set annual and lifetime coverage limits on benefits, or deny people coverage.

“There were a number of practices used by insurance companies to essentially protect themselves from the costs associated with people who have preexisting conditions,” said Sabrina Corlette, a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and an expert on the health insurance marketplace.

Insurers providing coverage to large employers could impose long waiting periods before employees’ benefits kicked in. And though employer-sponsored plans couldn’t discriminate against individual employees based on their health conditions, small-group plans for businesses with fewer than 50 employees could raise costs across the board if large numbers of employees in a given company had such conditions. That could prompt some employers to stop offering coverage.

“The insurer would say, ‘Well, because you have three people with cancer, we are going to raise your premium dramatically,’ and therefore make it hard for the small employer to continue to offer coverage to its workers because the coverage is simply unaffordable,” recalled Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy who researches public health insurance markets.

As a result, many people with preexisting conditions experienced what some researchers dubbed “job lock.” People felt trapped in their jobs because they feared they wouldn’t be able to get health insurance anywhere else.

Some basic preexisting condition protections exist independent of the ACA. The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for example, restricted how insurers could limit coverage and mandated that employer-sponsored group plans can’t refuse to cover someone because of a health condition. Medicare and Medicaid similarly can’t deny coverage based on health background, though age and income-based eligibility requirements mean many Americans don’t qualify for that coverage.

Once the ACA’s preexisting condition protections kicked in, plans sold on the individual market had to provide a comprehensive package of benefits to all purchasers, no matter their health status.

Still, some conservatives say Biden’s claim overstates how many people are affected by Obamacare protections.

Even if you consider the broadest definition of the number of Americans living with such conditions, “there is zero way you could justify that 100 million people would lose coverage” without ACA protections, said Theo Merkel, who was a Trump administration health policy adviser and is now a senior research fellow with the Paragon Health Institute and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, called the ad’s preexisting conditions claim “the usual bluster.” To reach 100 million people affected, he said, “you have to assume that a large number of people would lose coverage.” And that’s unlikely to happen, he said.

That’s because most people — about 55% of Americans, according to the most recent government data— receive health insurance through their employers. As such, they’re protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules, and their plans likely wouldn’t change, at least in the short term, if the ACA went away.

Antos said major insurance companies, which have operated under the ACA for more than a decade, would likely maintain the status quo even without such protections. “The negative publicity would be amazing,” he said.

People who lose their jobs, he said, would be vulnerable.

But Corlette argued that losing ACA protections could lead to Americans being priced out of their plans, as health insurers again begin medical underwriting in the individual market.

Park predicted that many businesses could also gradually find themselves priced out of their policies.

“For those firms with older, less healthy workers than other small employers, they would see their premiums rise,” he told KFF Health News.

Moreover, Park said, anytime people lost work or switched jobs, they’d risk losing their insurance, reverting to the old days of job lock.

“In any given year, the number [of people affected] will be much smaller than the 100 million, but all of those 100 million would be at risk of being discriminated against because of their preexisting condition,” Park said.

Our Ruling

We previously ruled Biden’s claim that 100 million Americans have preexisting conditions as in the ballpark, and nothing suggests that’s changed. Depending on the definition, the number could be smaller, but it also could be even greater and is likely to have increased since 2014.

Though Biden’s claim about the number of people who would be affected if those protections went away seems accurate, it is unclear how a return to the pre-ACA situation would manifest.

On the campaign trail this year, Trump has promised — as he did many times in the past — to replace the health law with something better. But he’s never produced a replacement plan. Biden’s claim shouldn’t be judged based on his lack of specificity.

We rate Biden’s claim Mostly True.

(KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.