CONSTANT hatred and other similar feelings may very well be health problems. Hatred shows itself between and among groups of people. Hatred displays itself as well in the institutions that impact people’s lives. Think about constant hatred in politics, media, education, etc. Think about reasons for hatred, and you will probably see its connection with the environment.

Particular environments are breeding grounds for hatred. For these reasons, to address hatred would require a close look at its environments. And it is reasonable to put forward the view that if hatred is a health problem, then there is a link to the environment that conceives and delivers that hatred. This type of argument could fit other similar feelings as hatred.
This health connection with the social environment today has become a universally-acceptable mantra in public health, the mantra being ‘social determinants of health’.
And looking at social determinants of health may be the answer to making healthcare available, fair and of value to all. There are several examples worldwide where health authorities use huge efforts to begin health reforms like creating new state-of-the-art emergency rooms, specially-equipped hospitals, ultra-modern medical equipment, regional health authority systems, etc.
Nonetheless, these efforts are only worthy if they produce available, fair, and quality healthcare for all.  That is, these reform efforts must speak to social causes of health which, in a general sense, speak to people’s living and working conditions and way of life, health consequences of social and economic policies, and the advantages of putting more money in health policies (Tsouros, 2003).
Perhaps, looking at social causes of health in a specific sense may be an even better way to understand the 10 focus areas: the social classes; stress; early life; social exclusion; work; unemployment; social support; addiction; food; and transport. The essence of this approach, according to Wilkinson and Marmot’s The Solid Facts (WHO publication, 2003), is to find out how governmental policies influence the social environment in these 10 areas to produce improved health.
Using Wilkinson and Marmot’s approach would show how governmental policies speak to social causes of health in these 10 areas, thus: Where life expectancy is short and disease is frequent mainly among the poor; where stress making people become worried, anxious, and incapable of coping, harms people’s health; where supporting mothers and young children have almost a permanent health impact; where economic hardships and hatred result in exclusion leading to loss of life; where less control over the work situation may enhance the risk of disease; where chronic unemployment results in illness and premature death; where friendship and excellent social networks improve health; where people resort to substance abuse that social circumstances shape; where a nutritious diet and ample food supply improve health and well-being; where  healthy transport means less driving and more walking for better health, suggesting that it is important to have satisfactory public transport system. The real question, nonetheless, is whether governments have policies to speak to these 10 concerns that could make for better health for all.
When the WHO set up the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), its mission was to find ways to reduce health imbalance between countries and within countries. As the CSDH set out to complete its mission, it tried to answer three questions: Question 1: From where do health differences originate? Question 2: What paths generate health differences among groups? Question 3: Where and how should interventions target to minimize health inequities?
Solar and Irwin (2007) answered the first question, thus: the social classes, arising from education, occupation, and income, and political conditions are the causes of health inequities. They answered the second question, thus: the economic, psychosocial, behavioral/biologic conditions and the health system are the routes that trigger health inequities. And their answer to the third question is: enable interventions to target the social classes beyond the health area, and to involve civil society in this action.
Huge differences in health status among individuals call for policies that speak to the 10 areas that could improve health for all. And there may be more than these 10 areas of concern.