It seems like the news only wants to show what it wants to show. I was up late the other night watching the The daily show on hulu. They were talking about how the gays were protesting by the white house. None of the news stations showed this huge I mean HUGE protest. Was it because the protest was about gay rights. Now I am thinking...people are going to say how does this pertain to health. Well it pertains to their mental health. I think that we all deserve someone to love us and we all deserve to be treated fairly. That is all that the gay public wants. And who is to say that family is only between men and women and children. Family can mean many different things. http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1W1GGLL_en&q=gay+protests+washington+dc&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=benfSpDmL4H8tAPxsPXrCA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQqwQwAw#
According to this online video president Obama promised to cancelle the don't ask dont tell policy.
There are many individuals who believe if gay people get maried then "true" marriage will not be presereved.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/tell
I personally do not think that the news media should ignore gay protests or even the anti gay protests. I think what we all want though is freedom and equal rights.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
What is going on on the internet
The internet is a meshpot full of some usefull information and some somewhat not usefull information. It is important for us consumers to know what is creditable and what is not creditable information. Sometimes it is so simple just to fall into the category of wanting to believe what we read is true. One of the best things we can do is to become critics. We should even be critics of things like newspapers. We need to watch out for biased articles. Although, it seems as if most information is opinion based in one way or another. As readers we need to look at who is writting the information and we need to wonder...where did they get their information. Are they making this up or are they creditable.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
October 7, 2009
1. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being no problem and 10 being absolute catastrophe), how do you rate the fact that only a handful of corporations dominate production of the bulk of all the newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, books, and movies? Why? I rate it a ten because we have the absolute right to know what is going on around us. How do we ever know what the truth is if it is not available for us. I think it is our rights as Americans to know what is going on around us.
2a) What is the most important issue presented in the first three articles you've read for this class? I think the most important issue is just trying to figure out a plan to where everyone has health insurance of some kind that works. I think if other countries can do it than so can we. I think that it will cost a whole lot at first. But if everyone gets preventative health then there will not be as much of a buildup of medical cotastraphies.
2b) What IS the population health-oriented perspective on this issue (the perspective that will create the most good for the most people) - the "right" side?* I am not sure what the right side is. I think that it is possible that we are going to have to try to different options if one fails, but I do not think that we should give up on medical for American citizeans at all.
2c) What are the chances that health reform legislation will get it "right" on this issue? Why?
I think that if they truely work hard at it then they can get it right. I think there are always a precentage of people that want to see things fail and that would be one reasone that it wont be able to work. We would all need to be patient and work coopertively.
2a) What is the most important issue presented in the first three articles you've read for this class? I think the most important issue is just trying to figure out a plan to where everyone has health insurance of some kind that works. I think if other countries can do it than so can we. I think that it will cost a whole lot at first. But if everyone gets preventative health then there will not be as much of a buildup of medical cotastraphies.
2b) What IS the population health-oriented perspective on this issue (the perspective that will create the most good for the most people) - the "right" side?* I am not sure what the right side is. I think that it is possible that we are going to have to try to different options if one fails, but I do not think that we should give up on medical for American citizeans at all.
2c) What are the chances that health reform legislation will get it "right" on this issue? Why?
I think that if they truely work hard at it then they can get it right. I think there are always a precentage of people that want to see things fail and that would be one reasone that it wont be able to work. We would all need to be patient and work coopertively.
Monday, October 5, 2009
A little insight
QUESTION #1.) What makes an opinion different from a "fact"? Are all opinions equally valid? If so, why? If not, why not? What impact do opinions and "facts" have on individual consumer health and on the health of a whole population of consumers?
An opinion is not generally backed up by empirical evidence. It is more or less ones intuitive thought. I think that all opinions that are clearly thought out are valid. Opinions are the beginnings of hypothesis. It is where one begins to explore their point of view. Opinions should never be hushed and neither should facts. If someone does not truly dig into their own mind and truly try to think things through then that person is not trying to understand their surroundings; instead, they are allowing everyone else to decide what is true information and what is not.
Facts can always be proven and answered. Some facts generate from opinions, but with proper assessment a fact has credentials that can be looked up. However, sometimes there are no right or wrong and both sides can prove their side. It is important for individuals to keep an open mind and to explore all aspects of the information that they are trying to reveal.
QUESTION #2.) In our Public Health Code of Ethics, an underlying value is that "Humans have a right to the resources necessary for health" (Public Health Leadership Society, 2002, p. 2). How does this underlying value add to our basic three ethics to help explain why the majority of public health professionals do not encourage using the free market perspective as a base for health care systems?
In our code of ethics everyone is supposed to get the proper health. There have been many people in the US that had terminal illnesses, and their insurance agency dropped them. If you go to a hospital and you have no insurance you may be turned down or you may not get as much help as you really need. We are not all treated equally. If you have great health insurance that is fabulous, but if you don’t you can expect that you will be treated differently. I personally think that everyone that is a citizen should have health great medical care. Nobody should be in fear of dying because they do not have the means to pay their medical bill.
The majority of health professionals do not encourage using the free market perspective because they think that it is going to cost them and the country more. I think that we should be focused on preventative health. If we focused on preventative health then a lot of the health epidemics would go down in size. There would be less people suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure.
QUESTION #3.) When looking at the "new media" out there - the grassroots groups on the web, Twitters that seem to get a lot of attention, talk radio, 24-hour news channels, etc - do you see more of the market perspective or more that appears to be based on a Public Health ethics perspective? What does the general public need to know? What are the barriers to them knowing it?
I listen to a fair share of talk radio. I hear mostly a perspective that is coming from individuals. I hear a lot about how Obama wants medical for everyone. I hear a lot of people that are weary of that idea. It seems like especially the senior citizens are apprehensive because they think that their medical will not be as good. I defiantly do not think that I hear all sides of the story when I listen. I think it is important to seek out both sides and see what is relevant and what is not.
An opinion is not generally backed up by empirical evidence. It is more or less ones intuitive thought. I think that all opinions that are clearly thought out are valid. Opinions are the beginnings of hypothesis. It is where one begins to explore their point of view. Opinions should never be hushed and neither should facts. If someone does not truly dig into their own mind and truly try to think things through then that person is not trying to understand their surroundings; instead, they are allowing everyone else to decide what is true information and what is not.
Facts can always be proven and answered. Some facts generate from opinions, but with proper assessment a fact has credentials that can be looked up. However, sometimes there are no right or wrong and both sides can prove their side. It is important for individuals to keep an open mind and to explore all aspects of the information that they are trying to reveal.
QUESTION #2.) In our Public Health Code of Ethics, an underlying value is that "Humans have a right to the resources necessary for health" (Public Health Leadership Society, 2002, p. 2). How does this underlying value add to our basic three ethics to help explain why the majority of public health professionals do not encourage using the free market perspective as a base for health care systems?
In our code of ethics everyone is supposed to get the proper health. There have been many people in the US that had terminal illnesses, and their insurance agency dropped them. If you go to a hospital and you have no insurance you may be turned down or you may not get as much help as you really need. We are not all treated equally. If you have great health insurance that is fabulous, but if you don’t you can expect that you will be treated differently. I personally think that everyone that is a citizen should have health great medical care. Nobody should be in fear of dying because they do not have the means to pay their medical bill.
The majority of health professionals do not encourage using the free market perspective because they think that it is going to cost them and the country more. I think that we should be focused on preventative health. If we focused on preventative health then a lot of the health epidemics would go down in size. There would be less people suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure.
QUESTION #3.) When looking at the "new media" out there - the grassroots groups on the web, Twitters that seem to get a lot of attention, talk radio, 24-hour news channels, etc - do you see more of the market perspective or more that appears to be based on a Public Health ethics perspective? What does the general public need to know? What are the barriers to them knowing it?
I listen to a fair share of talk radio. I hear mostly a perspective that is coming from individuals. I hear a lot about how Obama wants medical for everyone. I hear a lot of people that are weary of that idea. It seems like especially the senior citizens are apprehensive because they think that their medical will not be as good. I defiantly do not think that I hear all sides of the story when I listen. I think it is important to seek out both sides and see what is relevant and what is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
