Greg Laden is a blogger, writer and independent scholar who occassionally teaches. He has a PhD from Harvard in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, as well as a Masters Degree in the same subjects. He is a biological anthropologist, but for many years before going to graduate school to study human evolution, he did archaeology in North America. He thinks of himself as a biologist who focuses on humans (past and present) and who uses archaeology as one of the tools of the trade. Greg blogs regularly on ScienceBlogs at http://www.scienceblogs.com/gregladen/.
Dr. Joseph J. Salvo attended Phillips Andover Academy, received his A.B. degree from Harvard University and his Master and Ph.D. degrees in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry from Yale University. Dr. Salvo joined the GE Global Research Center in 1988. His early work focused on the development of genetically modified bacteria and fungus, for the production of novel high performance polymers. In the mid 1990's he turned his group's efforts towards developing large-scale internet-based sensing arrays to manage and oversee
business systems. Most recently, he and his team have developed a number of complex decision engines that deliver customer value through system transparency and knowledge-based computational algorithms. Commercial business implementations of his work are currently active in Europe, and Asia as well as North and South America.
Dr. Peter Tu received his undergraduate degree in Systems Design Engineering from the University of Waterloo, Canada, and his doctorate from Oxford University England.
In 1997, he joined the Visualization and Computer Vision Group at the GE Global Research Center in Niskayuna, NY. He has developed algorithms for the FBI Automatic Fingerprint Identification System. He is the principle investigator for the ReFace program, which has the goal of automatically computing the appearance of a person’s face from skeletal remains. Dr. Tu has also developed a number of algorithms for the precise measurement of specular and high curvature objects. His current focus is the development of intelligent video algorithms for surveillance applications.
This is the third daily question on the Collective Imagination blog.
Every day, respond to the question (or another commenter's answer) and you will be eligible to win a custom ScienceBlogs USB drive. We'll announce the previous day's winner in each daily question post.
Yesterday, we asked whether you had ever lied to your doctor, and why. And while some of you profess to have been 100 percent truthful, the majority cop to omitting information at times, adjusting self-reported data, or downplaying alcohol and drug consumption. The risk of being dropped or rejected by health insurance providers seemed to be the number one reason to fudge the facts, followed by fear of receiving lesser care or of being negatively judged. There were lots of great answers this time - thank you, everyone!
We randomly selected commenter Keely to win a USB drive - Keely, please email [email protected] sometime today to claim your prize!
We'll be giving out USB drives daily through the end of March, so answer today's question (or comment on someone else's answer) to get your own:
What's more important to you: Getting the best personal healthcare coverage, or adequate universal coverage for everyone?
Tell us below in the comments!
For more information about health care and technology, check out GE's healthymagination.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Adequate universal coverage for everyone, of course!
My answer would likely be opposite if I didn't already have EXCELLENT personal healthcare coverage from my employer . . . .
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2010 11:37 AM | Reply
Adequate health care for everyone, definitely. I mean, assuming 'adequate' means getting all medical conditions treated with effective, proven treatments for a price I can somewhat reasonably afford... what more could I want? What does 'the best' entail, exactly? Lower deductibles? An especially brilliant and/or sympathetic doctor? Coverage for not-strictly-necessary care?
If all I'm giving up is that kind of "extra," then why wouldn't I prefer everyone to have decent health care?
Posted by: Keely | March 3, 2010 11:43 AM | Reply
I guess this Question is directed at citizens of the USA. Here, in UK, we have had universal coverage for everyone for many years
Posted by: Mike Phillips | March 3, 2010 11:50 AM | Reply
As a young adult who has gone without insurance for the past 4 years, universal coverage is certainly more important to me than getting the best personal care possible. Even basic catastrophic coverage, with an annual $10,000 deductible would run me $80/mo and I don't even realize any preventive benefits from it... Even should I have something happen, the $10,000 is equivalent to 1-year of graduate school tuition and currently education is more important to me than the chance that I might get significantly ill or injured.
Posted by: Fisher | March 3, 2010 11:52 AM | Reply
Certainly universal coverage. We all pay when anyone is left without coverage. I've had good coverage, inadequate coverage and no coverage. We need to care for everyone.
Posted by: Lindy Foster | March 3, 2010 12:43 PM | Reply
Universal, the needs of the many...
Posted by: Connie | March 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Reply
Adequate universal coverage for everyone is my choice. This must include disallowing insurance companies from excluding people or conditions. Major illnesses need to be covered and prescription drugs for life saving medicine should be covered enough to make it affordable for all. There is no reason that some have to choose between medicine and food.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | March 3, 2010 1:22 PM | Reply
Universal, adequate (meaning accessible, affordable and quality) health care for everyone! This should be the highest of priorities for this nation!
Posted by: Nancy Hodges | March 3, 2010 1:25 PM | Reply
Why phrase the question like this? Why not the best personal healthcare for everyone, universally?
Posted by: scott | March 3, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply
I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
If everyone has coverage there is little need to spend time and money determining if any one is covered. Gate keeping, entire bureaucracies paid to say 'no', means testing, and the need for many to delaying care until the situation is dire enough to go to the ER are not free.
There is also the advantages of relative mass production and the more favorable outcomes that come from doctors that perform a procedure many times. As opposed to every procedure being a one-off and the doctors who are otherwise competent but haven't done a procedure in many months.
Posted by: Art | March 3, 2010 1:45 PM | Reply
Only backward thinking can justify a free market based health care. Universal (as in fully public health care) health care is the only sane option. I don't see how refusing to cure people just because they're poor can be justified, which is the effect of an insurance or pay-by-use based health care.
Posted by: Nyax | March 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Reply
Universal coverage. As a hospice nurse, I see the battles people go through just to buy their supplies and medications.
Posted by: Kathleen | March 3, 2010 2:16 PM | Reply
Adequate universal coverage is more important to me until we live in a static, perfect society.
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | March 3, 2010 2:50 PM | Reply
Universal coverage. Frankly, I can't imagine my healthcare being so great that it could outweigh my fears of being uncovered; even from a selfish standpoint the safety factor of universal coverage has a lot to be said for it.
Posted by: becca | March 3, 2010 3:30 PM | Reply
Like everyone else on here so far, I would choose adequate universal coverage. Of course, this IS scienceblogs.com, so I think there's a bit of a sampling bias on this one...
Posted by: Erin R | March 3, 2010 3:48 PM | Reply
Universal care, for sure. We are fooling ourselves by thinking that we aren't already paying (in both money and quality) for those who are uninsured, underinsured, and those who cannot pay for care. Health care can be expensive. We all have a body and healthcare needs, some more than others at any given point in time. Why there isn't a universal not-for-profit plan that we all pay into is beyond me.
Posted by: aithne | March 3, 2010 4:02 PM | Reply
Universal coverage.
I am not uninsured. I am fortunate that my employer provides excellent benefits. I am fortunate that I am still employed.
But do I benefit from the despair of others? Do I benefit when fellow citizens are sinking under economic pressures, many of which are caused by health care expenses? In my mind, we all suffer. We none of us live in a vacuum; our society is only as strong as our most marginalized people, and we will sink or swim together, in the end. Someone always has to pay.
Posted by: kittywhumpus | March 3, 2010 4:06 PM | Reply
Without looking at other answers...
I would prefer adequate universal healthcare for everyone. Adequate healthcare for everyone simply makes it less likely that I will need extra-special healthcare for myself. Certainly the system in the US is satisfactory for nobody who needs treatment.
I know I've never had a universally satisfactory medical experience... I've had excellent doctors I couldn't keep because I changed jobs; I've had lousy ones I couldn't change until the next insurance update period came around. I had a terrific surgeon, but I got to him via a comedy of errors by incompetents, and after the surgery, I had a nurse who refused to help me out of bed to pee. I arrived on the day of the surgery that was supposed to save my life, only to find out that they wanted almost a thousand dollars up front that I did not have and was never informed of.
If I could be part of a system that assured all users adequate coverage, I would be willing to pay into it every penny as much as I currently pay for health insurance though my job (a significant amount of money).
Posted by: speedwell | March 3, 2010 4:10 PM | Reply
Good universal coverage for all, worldwide.
Seems like a weighted question, though. Is there anyone who'd admit to being so selfish as to vote the other way?
A side note: universal worldwide health care would solve quite a few of the world's issues, particularly women's rights. Sigh - we can dream... (and vote! and donate money!)
Posted by: GeneQueen | March 3, 2010 4:12 PM | Reply
Based on personal behavior, it is obviously getting the best personal healthcare coverage.
The amount of time I have spent checking options to optimize my own health care given my means far, far, far outweights the amount of time I have spent lobbying for adequate universal coverage.
Given a two-alternative whereby I am dictator and can either allocate ridiculous health-care resources to myself and other elites or allocate adequate health-care resources to the public, I would choose the latter due to ethical considerations.
Posted by: Sam N | March 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Reply
I think that the terms "best" and "adequate" need to be defined. If they are referring to what I think that they mean, which is that best refers to: adequate level care + private hospital room + cosmetic surgery & dermatology & other elective procedures + wider choice of name brand pharmaceuticals [non-generic] + personalized preventive care for low risk individuals + other "frills" - then I would certainly prefer adequate health care for everyone. Seeing that everyone is served with the basics for necessary care is far better. Anything other than that is selfish and undemocratic. This would not preclude someone opting for the best level of care, but they should pay extra for it.
Posted by: natural cynic | March 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Reply
Meh. The healthcare coverage I get is fine.
Adequate universal coverage for everyone has to be defined, though.
Posted by: Katharine | March 3, 2010 4:21 PM | Reply
I would prefer better healthcare for myself, just because the attempt to make adequate healthcare for everyone happens leads to 2 things I do not want to happen: Bureaucracy and nannystatism. Point one does not need clarification, I guess. Nannystatism happens because the government suddenly sees it as their task to lower the costs for everyone via regulating the private lives of everyone. I know that I live a life which is about the antithesis to healthy and I do not want the government to intervene here.
Posted by: NgeliMwenu | March 3, 2010 4:31 PM | Reply
It really depends upon what the definition of adequate is. Does adequate mean that I and my family are assigned the cheapest doctor with no choice of switching and that I can only see after waiting for 6 months? Does adequate mean that I and my family are only given the cheapest pharmaceutical that shows even the slightest benefit for a particular ailment?
For some people, i can see how that could be described as adequate. If that is the case, I make the selfish choice to want to provide the best possible care for my family and myself.
Posted by: Mike | March 3, 2010 4:49 PM | Reply
Adequate universal coverage for everyone is more important to me than getting the best possible health coverage for just myself. My current coverage is adequate. If we had a public option or, gasp, universal coverage, I'd know that I would always have adequate coverage for myself and everyone I care about. Even people I don't care about should get adequate healthcare coverage. It would probably reduce crime and unemployment rates. Poverty and desperation lead to a lot of societies woes. Some of that could be alleviated with universal health care.
Posted by: Jackal | March 3, 2010 5:17 PM | Reply
What does 'the best' entail, exactly? Lower deductibles? An especially brilliant and/or sympathetic doctor? Coverage for not-strictly-necessary care?
If all I'm giving up is that kind of "extra," then why wouldn't I prefer everyone to have decent health care?
I agree completely. I would willingly give up elective care so that everyone would have the care they need.
Posted by: Leofwine | March 3, 2010 5:39 PM | Reply
Universal
Posted by: eNeMeE | March 3, 2010 5:51 PM | Reply
I think the important question is: which one are the politicians moving towards? ;)
Anyway in my country we have adequate (or even good?) universal healthcare.
Posted by: Katherine | March 3, 2010 7:21 PM | Reply
Universal health care for evidence based medicine that benefits the most people whether with respect to herd immunity or most resolvable illness or long standing unavoidable (like diabetes, MS etc) conditions. Palliative care for all who have terminal illnesses. Supplemental insurance for those who want cosmetic surgery not related to services provided by universal health care and alternative health care.
Posted by: cass_m | March 3, 2010 7:26 PM | Reply
Bureaucracy and nannystatism. Point one does not need clarification, I guess.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Spoken by someone who has never dealt with the CURRENT very hihgly bureaucratic health care system.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 3, 2010 7:44 PM | Reply
I know the healthcare systems in 2 countries (UK and Germany), so I can compare 2 specimen of such systems. I am sorry for not being USAmerican, I'll make sure that it won't happen again.
NgeliMwenu replied to comment from Greg Laden | March 4, 2010 10:45 AM | Reply
Universal coverage. I'm a medical doctor and I'm sick of the inefficient non-system we have now.
Posted by: Pascale | March 3, 2010 8:37 PM | Reply
I don't see a difference.
Having a universal health-care system makes EVERYONE better off. Lets list the ways:
1. More effective public health systems -> less disease and chronic illness -> less paid out on preventable diseases
2. Less bankruptcy -> more loans -> better economy
3. Hospitals can save more lives. Fewer "emergencies" that should have been taken care off years ago, except for lack of money, means better emergency care and less costs per person. More incentive to go to hospitals early, due to lack of cost, means quicker and more effective treatment.
4. More funding overall lets poorer areas purchase more effective tools that richer areas take for granted.
etc. et.
Long story short: [b]Universal Coverage[/b]
Posted by: Lyle | March 4, 2010 12:22 AM | Reply
Universal health care. I'd probably work for myself if I didn't have to worry about insurance.
Posted by: Chiral | March 4, 2010 1:42 AM | Reply
No doubt about it - adequate universal coverage. It is a right, not a privilege. We're all in it together.
Posted by: kathequa | March 4, 2010 4:16 AM | Reply
The increases in lifespan of people over the last three centuries are mostly a consequence of public health measures and technology, not mere improvement of technology. Unavailable technology equals no improvement to the population.
Therefore, I choose to make technology available to all, in "adequate" amounts, so that even the wealthy can have reduced exposure to epidemics.
Public health measures improve the health of all individuals. Public sewers. Public water. Inoculation. Antibiotics. Health education. Taxes on cigarettes. Automobile seat belts. Regulation of cancer causing substances. Regulation of foods. Regulation of housing. The discovery of the need for cleanliness in medical activity and operations (learned in the obstetrical delivery practices of both the 19th and 20th century). And so on. These, when spread around among the whole population improve health for everyone, and reduce the burden on society and individuals. If there is an area without sewers, or inoculation, or with collapsing houses, then there is a permanent reservoir for ill health, lack of productivity, that has continuing societal problems that affect the entire population.
As such, there should be "adequate" health care for all.
Posted by: Jim Bob | March 4, 2010 7:57 AM | Reply
No question, adequate coverage for everyone. I know too many people without insurance. Homeless mentally ill teens. My 56 year old BIL with a preexisting condition and who was laid off a year ago.
Posted by: martha | March 4, 2010 1:03 PM | Reply