Reader's Digest, a barometer of older, middle-brow Americans, gives a glowing portrayal of the Massachusetts health care experiment in its November issue. 'The Diagnosis" follows the story of Stephen Gore, a man who is afflicted with kidney cancer.

Gore enters remission but loses his job--and his insurance. At that point, government health care looks pretty good:

"Gore knew that Massachusetts had passed a statewide health care plan, and maybe he'd be eligible, but it felt like a handout and he didn't think of himself as the kind of person who took government handouts."

So far it sounds like the kind of self-reliant article I have long expected from RD. But read on.

"He could continue on his employer's health plan for 18 months, at $1,175 a month ..."

Unfortunately, the article repeats several exaggerations and myths, such as "close to 50 million" uninsured (see a rebuttal here), lets the claim that 28% of Americans find health care unaffordable go without further comment (see here and here) ... and gives no indication that Massachusetts law makes individual policies prohibitively expensive--contributing to the possibility of the "death spiral" that the individual mandate is supposed to do forestall.

To be sure, the article does acknowledge "opponents," but mentions few of the key arguments presented by, say, writers on this site. Nor does it mention that the value of compensation that people receive in health insurance premiums is well over $10,000 a year.

The article by Mark Gimein does acknowledge that Commonwealth Care "imposes some pretty steep costs" (but only "for others," rather than the state as a whole) and that crowding out is a possibility.

In short, Reader's Digest offers a quick but incomplete view of the Massachusetts approach. Given the wide readership of the magazine, that's unfortunate for the health of our debate.