6 ms·

I must say, the lack of ... rage ... on this article surprising. I would expect there to be a leaked list of names of the executives responsible for this, with

• SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  From what I understand, the US culture is one in which it is generally considered the fault of someone for being unable to pay for their own healthcare and living circumstances. Because there is the sentiment that it is possible to not be oppressed through one's personal power, cleverness, and considerate behavior, the people who claim to be oppressed are actually lazy, stupid, and inconsiderate. You can see this whenever someone claims that they individually were able to climb out of poverty but know other people who, through their own stupidity or ignorance or bad luck, were not able to- and therefore less sympathy should be garnered to the whole of impoverished americans as there exists a subset that is comfortable leeching off the extremely poor social safety net that exists. In short, a poor person egging a rich person's car would be seen as an aggressive, unprovoked action on the poor person, and the poor person should focus their efforts on being less poor instead. That the egger is focusing instead on protesting is an evidence of their screwed up priorities.
  • chadcmulligan 7y ago
    indeed there are the stories of people who have managed to raise themselves from poverty and gone on to be CEO, and it is possible if all the dominoes line up, there will always be the exception where this occurs, in general the odds are not in your favour. I can't help but think if the line from the hunger games - may the odds be ever in your favor.
  • Frondo 7y ago
    This is absolutely the story of the American ideal. We're a nation of Horatio Algers -- the quintessential "rags to riches" story. Poverty, in the US, is a personal shame, not a systemic failure. The successful end result of centuries of propagandizing in favor of the Individual, and against organizing. We're a fractured people, to our detriment.
  • crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Exactly. Capitalist societies take what was considered a public good, and attempt to forcefully privatize it to every individual. And then, when the individual is bad at doing it because of institutional forces against them, they are blamed individually for the failing. > You can see this whenever someone claims that they individually were able to climb out of poverty Oh yes. Horatio Alger (0) stories are commonplace within capitalist societies. It's one of the bedtime stories we tell each other, that with enough hard work, and some luck, you will succeed... Except for that mound of people whom worked till they died. We'll just ignore them. They were, uhh, lazy, and didn't deserve to live with the fruits of their labor. > ...but know other people who, through their own stupidity or ignorance or bad luck, were not able to- and therefore less sympathy should be garnered to the whole of impoverished americans Yep. Nailed it. Because there's a person who with combination of hard work, community/friendship networks, and luck, was able to climb out. So everybody who isn't, is just lazy and dumb and doesn't deserve to be helped. > as there exists a subset that is comfortable leeching off the extremely poor social safety net that exists. I'd also argue that the very "poor social safety net" doesn't even accomplish helping people. It only maintains a very sad, horrible, brutish life. And given its tremendously regressive practices, also enforces either illegal actions OR keeps people down in poverty. (0) https://owlcation.com/humanities/horatio-alger https://owlcation.com/humanities/horatio-alger
  • ptah 7y ago
    exactly: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck
  • vonmoltke 7y ago
    > From what I understand, the US culture is one in which it is generally considered the fault of someone for being unable to pay for their own healthcare and living circumstances. Because there is the sentiment that it is possible to not be oppressed through one's personal power, cleverness, and considerate behavior, the people who claim to be oppressed are actually lazy, stupid, and inconsiderate. That is not "US culture". Those are the beliefs of an unfortunately sizeable minority. Even then, it is generally only directed at "the other" and is really veiled racism. Do not take the rhetoric of certain political factions at face value or as a representation of "US culture".
    • TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      Then let's call it US corporate culture.
    • skohan 7y ago
      I agree it's probably a minority who would put it in such harsh terms as the comment you're responding to, but the underlying sentiment is more a part of American culture than many other places. For instance, the values of meritocracy and self-determination are deeply ingrained in the US mythos, beginning from "All men are created equal" and "the pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence. Since moving to Europe, the difference in the concept of individual credit/responsibility is one of the largest cultural differences I have felt.
    • slips 7y ago
      How is this suddenly about racism? Every race can be poor (which many in America are).
      • vinceguidry 7y ago
        Because in the United States, you cannot have a conversation about inequality without at least someone mentioning the 5-ton elephant in that room.
  • tacon 7y ago
    A few hundred years ago, we used to call poor people "unfortunates". Now we call them "losers". Shades of Meritocracy, by Alain de Botton https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3200029 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=320002...
• ajmurmann 7y ago
  The story Radicalized in the recent Cory Doctorow collection of the same name is about a forum on which victims of insurance shenanigans get radicalized. When I read it the biggest surprise to me was that it hasn't happened yet. I've never had any issues with health care or insurance, but can easily imagine the impact it must have on someone.
• lm28469 7y ago
  > I would expect there to be a leaked list of names of the executives responsible for this, with pictures and home addresses. I would expect people protesting in front of their homes 24 hours per day. That's how you end up with dead people. It's the difference between journalism/civilised discussion and cesspools like twitter/fb threads, we should present facts, not opinions or call for violence. No matter how fucked up these things are you don't want to lower yourself to their standards, you'll lose all grounds for discussion.
  • qwsxyh 7y ago
    We must secure the existence of civil argument and a future for healthy discourse
    • inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Ouch. I thought I was being cutting, but you win hands down.
  • TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    That's not the most convincing of all possible arguments when the problem is dead people - who really didn't need to die.
  • kadoban 7y ago
    What does "losing all grounds for discussion" mean? Discussion with who? The decision makers responsible? How are we discussing anything with them now? Nobody knows their names, or at least not enough people do. What is the value of discussion with them anyway? Are we going to talk them out of being absolute bottom-feeding assholes? To be clear I am not advocating vigilante mobs of any sort. I would like to see these people's homes with protesters in front though.
    • lm28469 7y ago
      I think we agree on the goal, not on the methods. It took decades for these companies to become what they are. If you listen to some people you should just burn them to the ground and go personal vendetta mod on their executives. What I'm saying is that we should be careful about how we do it, because in fine the "how" is as import as the "why". Things don't happen in a vacuum, you have to deconstruct them and get to the root causes, otherwise you're just rushing to another failed system. Let's say you manage to get the execs out, what do you think will happen ? The new ones will turn everything 180 degrees and sell drugs at loss ? No, why ? Because the whole system is tweaked for profit. Every time health pops up on HN, the majority of Americans defend their system and criticise the European way. There is a bit of a cognitive dissonance here, people can't expect a private/for profit company to do the right thing when it comes to public health. On top of that the demographic of people who voted Trump very much intersects with the one needing cheap health care, it clearly indicates that people are voting against their own interests in term of health, that alone would hint that there is a much bigger thing going on than "greedy execs control everything". https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/11/19/illness-as-indicator https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/11/19/illness-a...
• Spooky23 7y ago
  This is the wrong forum for that. Budding entrepreneurs are upset that medicine is regulated, and the free market isn’t able to peddle snake oil.
• baud147258 7y ago
  Not exactly the same situation, but in any of last story of factory closure in France I've seen any execs get doxxed that way
• nanoservices 7y ago
  "I would expect people protesting in front of their homes 24 hours per day. And covering their cars with rotten eggs when they went out." Honestly that would be letting them off too easy, they need to be dragged in front of a court and be made to explain their behavior to the loved ones of victims that had died from this. They also need to be sentenced to a few thousand hours of first hand volunteer work that directly deals with people impacted by this. Seeing first hand the cost of their greed might knock some sense in to these people, if that won't I'm not sure what will.