http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12medicaid.html?pagewanted=1&ref=nyregion&src=me
The story is about the practice of spousal refusal, a way for people to escape health care costs of their sick spouses. The interesting aspect of the story is that the journalist didn't introduce the concept the way someone would ordinarily expect. She introduced a person, attaching a human face to the idea of "spousal refusal". A hard-working immigrant couple is the face of spousal refusal. What would originally seem like a story reporting how people are abusing and scamming the government, the piece is a little more complex. Turns out that rich people don't use spousal refusal to cheat the system as much as regular hard-working people. Now caught in having to pay back the state, many people are in a predicament.
The paradox created by the journalist is most striking in transitioning from the title of the article to the first sentence of the story. From the title, its seems as though the story is going to be about awful and unethical people scamming the government and usurping taxpayer dollars. But the first sentence starts with a completely different story...
Full Wallets, but using Health Option for Poor
AFTER immigrating to New York City from China in the 1970s, Z. Y. Tung and his wife worked hard — he as a bank manager, she as a public school secretary — lived frugally and saved every penny they could for the next generation.
I agree. The title doesn't quite well represent the story. The story is very well done though with relevant facts and figures. It effectively shows the loopholes in the "spousal refusal" implementation, especially when Mr. Tung (in his broken English which by the way is unchanged in the quote)says that if he knew, he would have spent the surplus to not qualify for payment. A hooking anecdotal lede, nutgraf in place and plethora of facts and figures make this a good story. I would have liked the story to come full-circle in the end with Tung though.
ReplyDelete