For this week’s post I found the slides regarding birth, birth options, and maternal-child consumer issues most significant to myself. Being a first time mom and moving into our third trimester the reality of giving birth and my options are beginning to cross my mind more often than not. On top of the highlighted concepts in our slides I have also received notifications of what to expect throughout pregnancy from my applications. Concepts like induction, episiotomy, and cesarean section are constant procedures I have to consider now that I’ll be giving birth in 2 months. For myself, I hope to have a very natural birth that does not require me to be induced. This however requires me to maintain my health as much as I can to prevent early labor and a much easier labor. An induction pushes consumers to find alternatives to having their baby in a much more natural way or even in a different setting than that of a hospital. Today there are many more options to having a baby. This includes where you can have your baby and how you can have your baby. Many women today create something called a birth plan, which outlines the way in which they hope to give birth. This birth plan also includes episiotomy and cesarean section if it is applicable. Women cannot determine whether or not they will tear and whether or not they will need to have a c-section. Often time’s episiotomy is not medically necessary, but a cesarean section is. These concepts are very relevant to my life as a consumer and to any mother, father and their unborn child as consumers because choosing how we bring a child into this world is not a simple decision to make.
These questions are both asking the same thing, but the wording is chosen to be different. The first question is represented with vocabulary that seems to be less demanding of people and give everyone the self satisfaction of they could be the ones helping to cover health insurance. Including to themselves. The second question is worded in a more explanative sense, so I don’t know about most people on here, but I know if I see the words ‘financed by taxes’ I automatically think I am going to be paying more for something that isn’t just for me. I believe the second one draws to find more what people believe in. Only because it gives them a hint of something they may not want.
Language in consumer health now seems very important to me. It will guide people who don’t know what they’re rooting for. Or it could drown out something that could be the most important, just because it wasn’t voiced correctly. Language is a dangerous thing.
Market justice and social justice both have their fair points to argue. The difference lies within whether someone needs to (or wants to) take care of themselves or others. But in the Market, even if you make some decision it always is the right one. It is regulated by itself and represents that everything everyone has is deserved and earned by them and their actions. In society this is viewed as our default. And leads social justice onto being an alternative.
Social justice does focus on equality the same as the market, but does so by putting everyone on the same level. Everyone acquires their basic needs through which government action is necessary. Since society has an obligation to it. It shows in the community.
I learned from this post that the idea of ‘fair’ and equal are not entirely subjective, but have different angles that you can work with them from. From these ideas different ones can be formed. So the right of fairness I feel can be judged by us each time a new idea comes up.
I chose the overview of consumer health set of slides. One concept that I think is very important is understanding what consumer health really is. It includes anything that is related to and costs money. It’s about making decisions that will benefit or not benefit you. It’s about avoiding incorrect information or deception. And it’s about choosing to be able to understand what you are doing and to not be blind and alliterate.
Money is a very important concept in this field I believe. From what I understood from these slides, if people keep making money they are going to keep on wanting to do what it is to make money. Even if it poor for their health. Money keeps society on it’s feet in this day and age.
The last concept I would like to talk about is this idea of hegemony. Spontaneous consent is something in my eyes that can help or hurt someone. But generally I feel like it shouldn’t be someone’s top choice because you aren’t truly thinking of your decision. Hence the word spontaneous. But this kind of thing can lead to poor purchases and poor ideas.
Thinking and Discourse Prompt 2:
Market Justice assumes that the market will regulate itself: if a company makes bad products or conducts itself deemed unacceptable it will lose business. With the levels of dishonesty in health marketing, how can the consumer change the market, if they do not even know they need to demand it?
For example (I talked a bit about this in my introduction) there is a brand called Stevia in the Raw which does not even contain stevia as the main ingredient. A consumer would assume that with a name insinuating that it is pure stevia, that it would actually be made of stevia.
The seafood market is often mislabeled, many labels claim to be wild when they are not. Oceana is a non-profit which has conducted the most sweeping tests nationally found that 58% of stores had mislabeled or fraudulent seafood labels (https://tinyurl.com/y6vp2maf).
We have a bunch of names for different egg products. When people buy free-range, they most likely envision chickens in large open spaces where the can roam around. This is not the case; free-range does not mean they get to run around, it only means they have exposure to the outdoors. The product people want when buying free-range is actually pasture-raised; maybe due to demand, pasture raised has started to show up in more stores.
One thing the consumer can do is to boycott brands when they do things the customer disagrees with. But this method does not work for big cooperation’s, a company like Nestle (who was the most advertised food brand worldwide in 20l5) has over 8,500 companies over 80 countries. How do you boycott that?
It’s hard to make informed choices in our market and looking at information like this, it is hard to imagine that my choices as a consumer make an impact. But people are becoming more vigilant, social media can be used to spread the word, call out large corporations and the internet has made information easier to locate (or fact check) if you know what to look for.
I have a recent example of this ‘in-action’. I saw a post on social media talking about animal testing in makeup. I do not want to support animal testing, so I googled cruelty free brands. Social media reminded me of this issue making me become an informed consumer. Boycotting is important, but I also think that what you choose to support is just as (or even more) important. If companies see interest in a market, they will try to make a product. The initial product might not be ideal but it would be a step in the right direction, what the consumer supports can keep driving things closer to the goal.
Q1: Do you favor or oppose expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American?
- 60% Favor strongly or favor somewhat
- 23% Oppose strongly or oppose somewhat
Q2:. Do you favor or oppose creating a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?
- 44% Favor strongly or favor somewhat
- 31% Oppose strongly or oppose somewhat
Thinking and Disclosure prompt one asks us to compare the two above polls. This prompt is very interesting in that the questions are essentially asking the same thing, only with different wording. Both questions are in regards to providing healthcare for all Americans, question one phrases itself in a simplified way. It almost seems like a morality questions. Do you think all Americans should healthcare? Of course more people would approve of everyone having health coverage, but that question does not provide a clear scope of what is being asked of the voters. When we look at question two we receive a clearer picture of what is being asked. If you look at the verbiage of question two in comparison to question of you can immediately see that more detail is stated and that it states, in a basic form, what exactly would happen with the expansion of Medicare. When the basic details are revealed you can see a definite shifting in the voters responses, the favorable votes fell by almost 20% and the oppositional votes had an increase of almost 10%. What is interesting is when I read the questions the first questions is an automatic yes for me, but the second question made me pause and think for a moment, specifically the financed by taxes part. Language and phrasing are really important and can actually influence decisions and beliefs of consumers. I think that phrase is mainly what influenced the shift in the polls. Money is a huge influence in decision making and will generally make people think twice before jumping into a decision. I would say that the second question is a better source for gauging what consumers actually believe in regards to the national healthcare issue.
The piece of Social Justice vs. Market Justice explores how these two concepts influence ideas which then influence language and actions. As stated in the article, Market Justice has become somewhat of a “default” for the American society. Market Justice is the belief that people earn what they have received in life; for example, if someone were to choose to not attend college, they deserve a lower paying job as they did not put in the effort to obtain a higher paying job. Therefore, those who believe in Market Justice believe that what happens in a person’s life is directly related to the choices that that person has made. Social Justice is the belief that not everyone had the same starting point when they were born, therefore, basic benefits should be assured to level the playing field. For example, if someone could not afford to attend college due to their socioeconomic status growing up, why should they have to live with a lower paying job? They were never even given a chance to go to college without falling in major debt. Social Justice would put community wellbeing before personal wellbeing to bridge the ever-growing economic gap.
A large health area of concern for me is nutrition. I am fully aware that not everyone is able to afford healthy food all the time, nor does everyone have the time to make healthy food. For instance, a prepackaged salad at Fred Meyer costs $3 to $4 for one serving, whereas a frozen pizza costs about the same, but contains two to four servings. In Market Justice, it would be argued that those who choose the salad are opting for a healthy lifestyle and therefore are choosing the health benefits that come along with that. If someone is unable to afford the salad due to their economic status, that is also on them as they have chosen their career and how much they are paid. Those who are choosing the pizza are opting for an unhealthy lifestyle and deserve the health problems that come with that.
In contrast, in Social Justice, it is recognized that for some, this is not a choice. For some, it is not possible to spend $4 on one person’s meal, so they must choose the pizza for economic reasons only. If this leads to health problems, then so be it, there was no choice to be made. Social Justice would argue that economic status cannot always be determined by an individual. Based on the earnings of the parents, some people may have to start working at an early age to help their parents afford basic necessities, therefore they may neglect school, and may not be able to attend college. This can be traced back several generations. In 1865 to 1867 when slavery was abolished, former slaves were not given much, if anything, to live on, so they had to work and were only able to afford basic necessities, therefore, their children had to work and were also poor, and so on and so forth. So, according to Social Justice, why should people now have to live with the choices, or forced choices, of their ancestors?
I will be able to use this knowledge of Market Justice vs. Social Justice in my future career as a Registered Dietitian from an economic standpoint. If a client is unable to afford healthier foods, I should be able to make suggestions of foods that are commonly carried at a food bank, and point them in that direction so that they are able to make healthier choices without too much strain on their income. In nutrition it is very easy to get in the mindset of “you have chosen to eat poorly and now you have poor health.” However, it must be recognized that health is a combination of factors, one of which being genetics. So again, why should someone have to live with the choice, or forced choices, or their ancestors? In Market Justice terms, the answer would be that it is the individual’s problem to fix any health issues afflicting them; in Social Justice terms, the individual does not always get the opportunity to fix their health issues, but they should be given one.
As I am looking at the two questions, I saw that these two questions are very similar in what they are asking. What I noticed about the first question is that is it very simple and plain. The question asked, “Do you favor or oppose expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American?” This question, I feel, that is very general. It does not go into details as to what exactly they’re asking the people answering the question. On the other hand, the second question was more detailed. For instance, it was clear what exactly they were asking the people answering the question. I think that this second question, “Do you favor or oppose creating a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?” is clearer because it goes into the details. It is directly asking the people taking the survey what exactly they mean with the question.
I think that when people ask a general question, it is hard to actually know what they are really asking or referring to. When people ask detail questions, it is much better for someone to understand the question so that way they are aware of what they are answering. For example, these two questions are asking about the same topic and the answers were so different. One might wonder why. Maybe the reason why people voted more for the first question, which was simple, was because they did not think of what exactly they’re being asked. As for the second question, the question was clear and detailed, many more people did not favor it because they knew exactly what they were being asked to answer. The question was clearer by going more into details and I think it was more understandable. Many more people opposed to the second question than the first. Why? Probably because they understood more of what they’re being asked. These people answering the questions understood and decided where they stood about healthcare. Finally, when asking questions, clearer and more detailed question is better than a simple, general, or plain question because people need to know exactly what they are answering.
After looking at these two questions, it is clear to me that they are stating the same idea. When looking closer, you can tell that the wording of both are extremely strategic. In the first question, which is: “Do you favor or oppose expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American?” 60% favored this strongly or somewhat while 23% opposed this strongly or somewhat. The second question states: “Do you favor or oppose creating a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?” 44% favored this strongly or somewhat while 31% opposed this strongly or somewhat.
The first question provides very little information. In theory, it would be brilliant to expand Medicare to where health insurance would be provided to all Americans. However, there is much more to it than that. Health care costs a lot of money and a lot of Americans are high risk customers. The question states nothing about how Medicare would be expanded or where the money would come from. This lack of information could create a response bias in some. The idea is perfect but the evidence and data is limited.
In the second poll, a far less amount of people favored the question strongly or somewhat. The question is much longer and contains a greater amount of information. In this one it states exactly how the health care would be paid for so that each person would be provided with it. Money is very important to many Americans. When they are told that they may have to pay taxes to provide something important for someone else, their approval suddenly declines. Not many people willingly pay to help one another, a lot of American’s are extremely selfish with their cash. The wording of this questions clearly demonstrates that.
The language in these polls is particularly important. That is easy to see based on the results. Both questions are regarding the same topic however, extremely different. The polls demonstrate that you can get exceptionally different results with simply the words placed into the question. I think this is important to acknowledge and take note of. Giving a good amount of information away in the question will likely give you a more accurate result in the poll. If you are looking for certain answers of yes and no or favor and oppose, it may be very pertinent to be meticulous in the wording of your questions.