Today Gallup has posted some interesting figures on the percentage of uninsured people in each state, based on survey data they have collected over the first six months of the year. Unsurprisingly Massachusetts, which mandated universal coverage a few years ago, comes out on top. But despite the new system, 5.5 percent of the state's residents remain uninsured. There's not a single red state in the top 10 most insured: Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Delaware, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. But six red states feature in the bottom 10, with Texas taking the cake for the most uninsured with 26.9 percent. The red state performing best was North Dakota, coming in at 15th with 12.9 percent uninsured. Chuck Grassley's home state Iowa follows with 13.5 percent. 

Obviously there are dynamics at play in each state that influencethese numbers─unemployment levels, economic outlook, etc.─but it isinteresting to note that while Republicans resist health-care reformsthat aim to expand insurance coverage, it's their constituents whowould be the most likely beneficiaries. Democrats most vocally supportive of plans to expand coverage─like Barney Frank from Massachusetts and Anthony Weiner from New York─don't have as much to gain.

My colleague Kate Dailey, who writes our Human Condition blog, has an interesting post examining who precisely is outraged by Michelle Obama's decision to wear shorts during a recent sightseeing trip to the Grand Canyon. Kate can't find anyone who's geniunely perturbed by the shorts. She writes:

I searched The National Review and Googled "Ann Coulter Obama Shorts". I've polled co-workers. No one knows, or has read, or can think of any concrete proof that Americans are upset by Obama in shorts. Still, "Michelle Obama shorts" is a leading topic on Google, and there are dozens of other examples of blogs and news organizations citing "some critics" who are upset with the sartorial decision. It's entirely possible that  "some in the media" were a little shocked to see Obama wearing shorts and wanted to report on it. August is a slow news month, and covering people who are actually shocked and outraged about health care can only fill so many minutes in the Twitterfied news cycle. But why hide behind an anonymous attacker? Why not just come out and say, "Michelle Obama wore shorts, which most first ladies haven't done before," (Is this even true? Five dollars says there's a photo of Eleanor Roosevelt in short pants somewhere in the national archive). Because if there's not controversy, it's just the American public gawking at a woman's form. This is something that happens all the time, but needs to be cloaked in social relevance when the woman is not a traditional target for public consumption. Models, actresses, even athletes can be the subject of objectification, but to ogle the first lady on national TV requires a bit of news-related window dressing.

Click here to read Kate's entire post.