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.