|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Remarkably clear, August 7, 2005
Usually, I cannot get through books on the social sciences. They are too long for me, and their repetitive, unfocused writing style makes it hard to me to see how the author is structuring his or her arguments. This book, assigned by my political science professor as the best book on Medicare, is a welcome counterexample to that generalization. Jonathan Oberlander covers the political history of Medicare with clarity, gusto, and (most importantly for me) concision. The body of the text takes a mere 196 pages. The book is extensively annotated with 48 pages of notes. It is printed on good paper, has an attractive cover, and is well proofread and typeset.
The bulk of the book covers the history of Medicare from its inception in 1965 to the present. Oberlander's thesis throughout the book is that, after much political debate prior to its enactment, Medicare was ruled by a bipartisan legislative consensus from 1965-1995 which subsequently unraveled in Gingrich's Republican Congress. He analyzes the consensus by breaking it into three aspects - benefits, financing, and regulation - and showing how each aspect involved large changes in the program with little controversy over this thirty-year period. (Oberlander tends to dissect ideas into lists like this at every scale, so much of the book reads like a huge outline. While those accustomed to more fluid prose may find this style pedantic, it leaves no doubt as to how Oberlander's analysis is structured and contributes greatly to the book's clarity in my opinion.) After the three chapters on benefits, financing, and regulation, Oberlander has a short but terrific chapter debunking the application of various monolithic political theories to Medicare. He argues that American national government, contrary to prevailing scholarly thought, is capable of great independence from external forces in its creation of policy. While Oberlander warns that "this chapter is intended for political scientists," its extraordinary logical clarity made it easy to follow, even for a chemist like me.
Unfortunately, the book gets more uneven in the last chapter, which covers the politics of Medicare since 1995. This 40-page chapter sapped enough of my motivation that it took me two months to finish. Oberlander's didactic analysis verges on murky and disorganized in places, and his liberal political outlook, which merely peppers his excellent writing with a bit of personal color in the first four chapters, starts to get distracting. He repeats the notion that "1995 changed everything about Medicare" so many times that I began to wonder whether he believes his own thesis. It was a disappointing end to an otherwise fine book.
But overall, it's impressive how well Oberlander brings a potentially dull subject to life. For anyone interested in Medicare (or American politics in general), this book is worth reading.
|