1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
By far, one of my favorite books, June 5, 2011
This review is from: Health Politics and Policy (Hardcover)
This book does a great job explaining how American health policies developed throughout history, but without infesting it with much of the bias many current textbooks use.It's concise, tells you what you need to know, and does it in interesting ways. I read this book in my Master's in Public Health program and reference it now, in my doctorate, more than any other book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Less a textbook than a series of opinionated essays, September 18, 2011
This review is from: Health Politics and Policy (Hardcover)
I am, of course, reading this for a class, and I am no stranger to books that advance a particular point of view. I have read numerous books, essays, and journal articles in which the author(s) have a particular policy prescription or a particular point of view to advance, and want to convince you to agree.
However, I am always annoyed when someone's personal opinion is foisted off on me in the guise of a TEXTBOOK. A TEXTBOOK should present FACTS, not OPINIONS. This "textbook" is rife with opinions, and some of them aren't even disguised.
I actually agree with many of the opinions presented! This doesn't make me any less irritated to run across them. I am assigned to read this as a TEXTBOOK, and it is only pretending to be one. This is not the first "textbook" that I have been assigned which has this quality of trying to push a particular point of view onto me, and it seems like they are always sociology books. Sociologists, stop writing your "textbooks" like this. It just puts people off. I agree with the opinions presented but this is so annoying that I want to disavow them. It's a matter of "stop agreeing with me, you make my side look bad."
It also has a problem with just being very poorly written. It is very hard to follow at times. Each chapter is written by a separate author, and they obviously did not collaborate because they occasionally contradict each other. In other places, the same info will be presented multiple times in varying contexts, and occasionally even the same idea under different names.
A typical example of both issues (opinionated, poorly written) can be found on pages 189 through 191 in the section entitled, "The Case for the States." It begins with, "There is an equally convincing case, at least in the minds of some, to be made for state leadership in health care reform." The previous section, making the case for the federal government, was not presented as being valid "at least in the minds of some"!!! This is a poorly-disguised OPINION.
Then it starts listing reasons, and the list goes "First," "Second," "Finally," "Lastly," "Fourth," and "In sum," in that order. I spent a good 15 minutes searching this 2 1/2 page section in vain for what the "third" point was, and I'm not sure what "finally" and "lastly" are supposed to end. I hope this list is not on the test, because I don't understand it. It is just a rambling stream of consciousness.
Instructors, please do not assign this book. You may agree with its point of view, but pushing a point of view on helpless students this way is wrong. Plus, it's just difficult to learn from this text. It does contain a lot of good info, but I'm having to squeeze that info out from in between the poor prose and fat opinions.
EDITED TO ADD: Did I mention before that this book is extremely poorly edited? I see that I didn't. Well, it is. Usually this is a cosmetic issue, such as poor formatting, and if the book contained useful info it would be nitpicky to point this out. However, on page 339, there is the word (citation) where an actual citation is obviously meant to be. Who edited this? The cover lists 3 separate people, but did 3 people actually read page 339 and all of them overlooked this (citation) placeholder?
Is this nitpicky? Maybe. But the book also goes over the history of health care reform efforts from FDR (or sometimes from Truman) through to Clinton about 5 times. Just one time, comprehensively, would have been far more effective than doing it haphazardly a half-dozen times. Any decent editor should have been able to see this and adjust the format of the book accordingly. Just as any decent editor should have caught this (citation) mistake.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No