Haha, that's true. And actually I don't care to even think about Michelle wearing such outfits. Unless she's wearing spandex bike shorts on the exercise bike in the WH.

I'll just say this. To the extent we believe “everyone has insurance, they can just go to the emergency room” we lack the information to understand the health resources available to the uninsured and participate effectively in the healthcare/insurance debate. I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the resources available to the uninsured, having never been uninsured myself.

Neighborhood clinics can only do so much for common ailments and “general” hospitals such as Mercy offer comprehensive treatments for more serious and critical problems such as surgery. Of course these services for the uninsured are more readily available in some neighborhoods / areas of the country than in other places, such as rural areas.

Despite the available resources I think the one critically important element missing from the uninsured is preventative care, i.e. regular check-ups.

Also he is a piece from the Chicago Sun times about her and David Axlerod steering away poor patients from the University of Chicago Medical Center, to improve profits…blah blah blah”

What in the hell does this have anything to do with the First Lady wearing shorts when getting off an aircraft on vacation?

However, you said:
[T]hese patients have no primary physician they don't know which medical facilities are in the area. They end up at U of C because they know it's a world class institution. They do not know that there may be a clinic just a couple blocks from their house that they can go to to treat that sore throat (or whatever) they have. U of C never turned anyone away. [...]

All your link does is prove the need for universal healthcare. The reason medical costs are so expensive is because the uninsured need to be treated just like everyone else. The costs of going to an emergency room to treat a sore throat is so much more then a neighborhood clinic.
Actually, you've brought up something that we really do need to talk about (although maybe not in this thread). The problem in MANY cases is not that there's nothing there for the poor or uninsured; there are already programs in place. The actuality is that they don't know where to get care — and that's a problem on a much different (and smaller) scale.

As far as the article you linked to… I've seen that in the comments section on other postings on here. I don't remember who put it up in the past, but since it is appearing again I'll make a brief comment on it:

Apparently the people without health insurance were flooding the emergency rooms for basic treatment preventing U of C from focusing on more seriously ill patients.

Because there are other medical facilities in the area designed to provide these services U of C felt is was more appropriate to send these people to those centers better equipped to handle their specific problems. From the article:

“They say that, rather than having to wait hours at U. of C.'s emergency room, those patients get seen sooner and at less expense at neighborhood clinics and other hospitals. U. of C. even offers them a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers and sometimes provides the doctors at those facilities.”

The very first comment under that linked article was written by a woman who worked there. She said that many of the patients would come in with a sore throat and have to wait, just like everyone else for 24 hours or more just to be seen. She went on to explain that it was the patient's choice to go to another facility. I think the most important point she made is that because these patients have no primary physician they don't know which medical facilities are in the area. They end up at U of C because they know it's a world class institution. They do not know that there may be a clinic just a couple blocks from their house that they can go to to treat that sore throat (or whatever) they have. U of C never turned anyone away.

U of C can only treat so many people and Mercy hospital, which in Chicago is actually really good is set-up to see those patients without insurance.

In fact U of C is cutting up to 1,000 positions (mostly through attrition) in an effort to deal with mounting costs and not being able to collect from uninsured patients. The uninsured are better treated at places like Mercy and neighborhood clinics which are funded and staffed to see many uninsured patients with more common problems.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?…

All your link does is prove the need for universal healthcare. The reason medical costs are so expensive is because the uninsured need to be treated just like everyone else. The costs of going to an emergency room to treat a sore throat is so much more then a neighborhood clinic. And when those uninsured people don't pay then other people do pay in one for or another. In the case of U of C they are cutting back their staff by up to !,000 people.

If we had universal healthcare then more people would see their doctors regularly and take better care of themselves. Potential problems could be avoided if detected early through blood work.

Your linked article is under Politics on the Sun Time. So it must be read with the understanding that there is a political agenda behind it. If one leaves out enough information on any situation one can “fit” that situation to their needs. I remember just a couple months ago when the pirates off the African coast was holding an American hostage. When that turned out well for us, the GOP was quick to attack Obama for not being more involved. When it came out that Obama was very involved the GOP then said that Obama ordered the killing of teens who wanted nothing more than to go home. This from a party that advocates capital punishment, even in cases where there is a doubt that the person was wrongly convicted.

But from what I can tell the U of C gave the uninsured patients a choice of being treated at the U of C or at a facility set up nearer to their homes, and often faster.

And frankly, I have an old pair of OP shorts that make those she was wearing look like a tuxedo. And if my legs looked as good as hers I wouldn't feel as embarrassed as I do when the laundry gets low and I have to wear them.

That being said I think the First Lady has the right to Bare Arms if she so wishes, its noone else's business unless she is meeting with some group in an official capacity.

Where did that come from? You've come across someone saying that???

It's time America had a leader and First Lady who understand Americans. I remember when Bush 41 was president and was heavily criticized for not know how much groceries cost. I would much rather have a president who will lead America for all Americans, and not an elitist president who places the interests of his circle above those of everyone else.

To me Michelle wearing these shorts is a symbol that the First Family is part of America, and not above us.