This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In his review of the second edition of Theodore Marmor's classic book The Politics of Medicare, Dr Kane¹ allows that "[t]his book provides just what its title promises." Who could object? Surprisingly, Kane does, arguing that "for most readers the politics is less interesting than the substance." Serious books, especially influential texts, should be subject to rigorous critical review. But Kane's assertions about Medicare's politics and history, and about the politics of health policy more generally, are doubly misplaced. Besides being only vaguely related to Marmor's book, they are thoroughly contradicted by the growing body of work in the field of health policy and politics.

Kane's main claims—that politics is of little interest to "most readers" and that a program's substantive attributes can be readily separated from its political context—are factually wrong and analytically hazardous. Those who study the politics of health policy care deeply about . . . [Full Text of this Article]