Robert Pear, writing in the New York Times on the 30th of April, 2010 explores the place of the new Health Laws in the state of Minnesota and how the relationship between The Democrats who are in support of the laws and the republicans who are strongly opposed to the new laws has affected the implementation of the laws, seen as likely to change the landscape of health insurance in the state.
The federal healthcare laws were introduced by President Obama as a strategy to improve accessibility to healthcare through a scheme that would see low and middle income Americans have their insurance covers subsidized by the government (New York Times, 2012). In many states, Democrats are facing opposition from their republican counterparts who have vehemently voiced their disdain for the new laws which they argue would be too expensive to implement and Mark Dayton, the Governor of Minnesota is no exception. They are also opposed to the apparent likelihood of Democrats using executive power to see the new laws implemented should they fail to marshal the support of the republicans who, for the first time in many decades, dominate both houses of parliament.
The author, however, appears to be obsessed with exposing the political angle to the new laws as opposed to exploring an informed and meritorious aspect of the laws. He, for instance, traces the root of the ideological difference that has often dictated the relationship between the two political factions with considerable agility but fails to explain what the new laws, referred to as Obamacare in the republican circles, is all about. This effectively denies the readers the much needed information on the said health laws which would enable them to make their own independent assessment of the issue.
The author, therefore, could have dwelled more on the background of the laws as opposed to that of the vitriolic relationship between the two political divides as this is where the real news is to the ordinary reader.