28 ms·

For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

171 points by Thevet 7y ago

neonate 7y ago
https://archive.md/gH9yc https://archive.md/gH9yc
danans 7y ago
As much as it pointed out the serious inequality issues facing South Korea, the movie also highlighted the fact that the poor in South Korea have access to healthcare free at the point of service. It also depicted young people who, despite their poverty, had enough access to schooling that they could serve as English tutors to the wealthy (yes, I'm aware that SK's education system has other issues related to it being a pressure cooker). I'm sure that neither of those systems are perfect, but they do underpin the importance of universal healthcare and high quality education.
- madengr 7y ago
  “ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s cancer bills.” How does that fit into universal health care?
  - refurb 7y ago
    Indeed. "Universal healthcare" in some countries doesn't mean "we'll pay for everything including the latest and greatest cancer drugs."
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      > the latest and greatest cancer drugs. My understanding is that cancer drugs are considered to be experimental, so there's no "latest and greatest" with any guarantee. Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made."
      - sgift 7y ago
        > Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made." I would like to ask for a source please. Maybe they don't want cancer treatment in very special circumstances (e.g. cancer with extreme low survival rates, new experimental drug with very painful side effects), but in general and for most cancers? That sounds rather outlandish.
      - Gatsky 7y ago
        This comment is wrong twice.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provided by everyone having private healthcare insurance, such as what would need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for the average person than not having a universal healthcare system. Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-wage.
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.
      - dba7dba 7y ago
        Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - zpallin 7y ago
        Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
  - muzani 7y ago
    I live in a country with good free* ($0.25) healthcare, but it's not limitless. The waiting lines can be months long, especially common problems like cancer. Sometimes it's not just the medical bills, but a caretaker might have to quit their job and need money for that, or nearby accommodation if they're out of town. My mother got full cancer treatment for free*, but the wards were always full, and she stayed at home so someone from out of town could have a place to stay. The hospitals didn't have the right to force patients to go home though; they just asked nicely if they wouldn't mind staying elsewhere.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    Universal healthcare means that any required medical treatment is free at the point of use but it does not usually pay for every possible quality of life intervention like a part/full time caregiver. Given the side effects from cancer treatment, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kim had to go to work but didn't want to leave his wife at home, weak and helpless, for the duration of his absence. Even if universal healthcare paid for a part time caregiver, they likely would not have been there most of the day, requiring quite a bit of money to pay for a private provider.
    - anonsivalley652 7y ago
      Caregiving, in-home nursing care, rehabilitation and long-term care (assisted living/nursing home/hospice) should be provided by a different social safety net department because of it's specialized and complex nature that also requires licensure and auditing (making sure elderly and disabled aren't abused or neglected). Single-payer, universal healthcare should also include (all but cosmetic and elective procedures): - prescriptions - mental care including therapy, psychiatry, rehab and commitment - dental care - vision care and prescription glasses - hearing aids (avg cost is $3000 USD) - mobility and safety aids for disabled and elderly - gym memberships for people below a certain income level - smoking, drinking and substance abuse intervention, counseling and cessation assistance (medications, tools, relocation assistance) - weight-loss for obesity/significantly overweight with effective, tailored, holistic approaches
      - Hydraulix989 7y ago
        Hearing aids are insanely overpriced for being a glorified microphone and earphone. $30 in parts.
        mschuster91 7y ago
        It's not the parts that are expensive, it's the R&D and the initial and ongoing adjustments that drive up the price.
        lotsofpulp 7y ago
  - moksly 7y ago
    Even in countries like Denmark we’re forced to deny certain cancer treatments because the cost of their medicine is so high it would cripple our entire healthcare system to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. You can debate the morality of such a discussion, or how the private medicine industry is allowed to charge these prices, but the effect is that some cancer treatments are only available through private insurance or personal wealth, even in Scandinavian countries where we are know for our equal access healthcare.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. More like two weeks, and with a lot of painful side effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097
      - alexgmcm 7y ago
        Yeah, my SO is a nurse in paediatric oncology and has seen people from poorer countries sell everything they have in order to bring their child to Western hospitals in the futile hope of treatment. It's really sad and seems almost exploitative. They often get ripped off by private clinics in their home countries as well. At some point we need to say these people aren't in a fit state of mind to make these financial decisions. (Who would be? When the life of their own child seems to be at stake?) It's such a sad situation.
        moksly 7y ago
        I sincerely hope the European response to medicine prices that are so high that they cripple national economies will to set max prices or to completely nationalise production. Hopefully we’ll find a way to throw some jail time after the people responsible.
        cwilkes 7y ago
        What about jailing doctors or nurses that refuse to work for whatever salary you deem is appropriate?
  - danans 7y ago
    Every system has its point where it no longer can pay for care, especially when the procedures have a questionable ability to provide an extension to life at high quality, even the US system. The difference is that on the US vast swathes don't have basic healthcare, which can often reduce the rate of complexities that require extreme treatment measures, like treating cancers early before they advance to a terminal state.
- dmix 7y ago
  Also looking at South Korea and SEA GDP growth (especially compared to most 'developing' countries) they are doing amazing compared or a lot of South American countries who adopted Boliviar style socialism around the same time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Four_Tigers_GDP_per_capita.svg/640px-Four_Tigers_GDP_per_capita.svg.png?1583291919431 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Fo... https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/7/11/saupload_trendsr3.png https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/7/11/saupload_t... They did this by opening up and adopting a more modern market oriented approach, mixed with limited state run organizations. They had some rational social programs in place where externalities in the market weren't being appropriately accounted for, or where market forces were simply immoral (high costs for sick people). But notably didn't over commit to some intense socialist movements like a lot South American countries - who went well beyond public health insurance buying into the Bolivar nonsense - countries in the early/mid 2000s who are only now recovering from yrs of "post-capitalist" experiments which only resulted in mass needless poverty for their citizens in countries which should have been the wealthiest in the region. With people lining up for food rations like its the 1930s Russia and having severely reduced variety of products to select from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela [note they were having food shortages and starvation before the oil crisis, the entire system was always unsustainable mirage stirred up with anti-western conspiracy theories of non-existent direct intervention]. The most famous moment on the Ruskies abandoning communism in the late 1980s was that Russians leader visiting an American grocery store and seeing the massive options available, at good prices, to regular middle class citizens. Also note the first thing Venezuela did was claim "access to food was a right" and nationalized a bunch of food industries, quickly resulting in mass starvation and shortages within a few short years. It would streamline the whole system to just admit Medicare for all is the solution and pushing burderns placed on employers, or worse deterring entrepreneurship by making it super expensive for self-employed people to turn into net job creators - there's tons of pro-market benefits to a state run public insurance policy - especially when the alternative is the current pseudo-private mess they currently have. Having public health insurance, with some occasional private options, like what we have in Canada is far far more limited than some of the socialist experiments the Bolivars promoted and destroyed multiple countries around them, including Ecuador. So even calling it socialist is probably doing it a disservice. It is state-capitalism, where the state part is the exception to the rule. Nor did Canada adopt the more heavy-handed approach of the NIH in the UK which nationalized hospitals and a bunch of other pieces of the puzzle which were running perfectly fine independently. The simplest solutions that are properly tied into incentives is always what works best here. Even today there are plenty of arguments where the US system is essentially already borerline "socialist" healthcare system but with far fewer of the benefits of either markets or altruistic public run insurance. So 'staying the course' doesn't sound like much of a solution either, besides letting political friends in medicare fleece the government through cronyism. It won't stop because with the constant local, congressional, and executive meddling to create these "pseudo-markets" which provide few benefits of actual competitive markets nor the central negotiation power of a centralized public insurance program. And I say that as someone who in most other cases I would learn fiscally conservative.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  Wow, that's cool. I wonder if vision, dental, medical, hospital, prescriptions and mental are all covered without fees? The very poor in the US only get Medicaid (rarely Medicare, which requires paying into Social Security long enough). Medicaid: - It doesn't pay doctors, specialists and dentists enough, so they often treat patients poorly (spend less time, not thorough enough, don't order necessary tests). - Medication is all paid-for with no co-pays (out-of-pocket expenses), but at a limited number of pharmacy brands and limited selection of medications (formulary). - Emergency and necessary hospital care is completely paid-for. - There is a limited selection of doctors and dentists available to choose from. Most, not all, are reviewed very poorly. - Only one dentist cleaning visit a year is allowed even if the person needs it more frequently because they produce plaque faster. - There are very few specialists who are assigned by the doctor, often with very, very long waiting lists. Furthermore, some specialties do away with waiting lists and make people call on a certain time at a certain day like animals for very few appointments. They make it a game to play with people's lives and waste their time. - The choices of insurers who actually provide the Medicaid insurance is usually 1, 2 or maybe 3 in certain counties. ----- Medicare (similar to typical US convoluted, private insurance): - Has several confusing options, lots of rules and fine-print. - Medication isn't covered, it needs Part D insurance or ExtraHelp. - Hospital insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part A private insurance. - Medical insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part B private insurance. - Medigap private insurance can be needed to pay co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance but it doesn't cover long-term care (no LTC = $$$$), vision/eyeglasses, dental, hearing aids, or private-duty nursing. ---- It's possible to have both Medicare and Medicaid, which means good insurance but with some out-of-pocket expenses. Maybe Medicare improved without costs, for all, would be far, far better than people dying from cancer having to go to bankruptcy court rather than finish their bucket list?
  - scotty79 7y ago
    > Wow, that's cool. I wonder if vision, dental, medical, hospital, prescriptions and mental are all covered without fees? In Poland they are. With fixed monthly fee proportional to your income, 9%. 7.5% of it you can directly deduct from your income tax. So it's effectively 1.25% of your income. The only additional money is for drugs (prescription ones too), but if the drug is expensive and you have a prescription you pay vastly reduced price, 50%, 30%, fixed low price, or free. Of course there are wait times and you don't get top of the line materials so middle class people prefer to do dental and vision privately. No insurance needed there. You just pay 30$ to have your tooth fixed or 50$ for eye exam and new glasses if you pick cheap frames.
BelleOfTheBall 7y ago
Well, yes, that was the point of the movie, to highlight the very real problems. In fact, the resonance that it gained seems to be helping, at least a little bit [0] [0] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-improve-semi-basement-apartments-1202213182/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-impro...
justicezyx 7y ago
Similar situation exits in many orders of magnitude larger scale in China, but the government so successfully keep everyone not paying attention.
- L_Rahman 7y ago
  The Chinese middle class is still in its first generation and mobility has stagnated for just a decade so it's still early. It'll be interesting to see whether tolerance for the government survives the upcoming economic slowdown.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  China is arguably much worse, because fixed hukou registration creates an official caste system that ensures the migrant worker underclass can never have access to proper schools, housing, etc.
remote_phone 7y ago
I didn’t get the sense it was class strife. The main family was a bunch of scumbags. They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that. It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    They were absolutely terrible people. They weren't so poor that they had to trigger an old lady's dangerous allergy just to get the mother a job.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        In one scene, the poor mother says something like "If I was this rich, I'd be nice too" and then immediately scolds or hits a begging dog. In this scene, the poor woman is relatively rich - she has the house they've taken over for the weekend, plenty of food, and the dog is poor and begging. I interpreted this, as the two events happen one right after the other, as the movie clearly rejecting the woman's claim. Even when she has a lot, she won't share with one who has little and is just fundamentally mean. Likewise, when the main family meets the hidden family - are they generous? They have much from fleecing the rich family, and the hidden family has, and asks, for very little. Nope, the main family is cruel to the hidden family and by rejecting them they initiate the final conflict. Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.
RichardHeart 7y ago
The movie reviews well in most countries, because we mostly live in the same country, capitalism. (This is me paraphrasing a quote I saw the director give in an interview.)
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  As inequality rises, and as people are tired of the same old stories, i can see why more and more people resonate with Parasite.
Ayesh 7y ago
I was born and raised in Sri Lanka, where the annual GDP per capital just hovers $4,000 now. We have free and universal health care, free schools, and free universities. There are many things to improve, but it is there for the rush and poor alike. Some schools and pregnant mothers receive rations, and there is always some sort of social benefits in place. Sure, the poverty exists, but one of the reasons why it is still working is because majority of the population does not live in urban areas. There is a trend of good schools, hospitals, and government offices being located to the capital, where land prices skyrocketed and poor neighborhoods exist. But I think our governments strategy in spreading the resources throughout the island is a great one. Countries like South Korea, India, Japan, Phillipines, and China has a relatively higher amount of homeless or near-homeless population because of the high urbanization. They systematically bring the costs high for everyone.
2drew3 7y ago
For those who watched the movie, I found the ending interesting. I won't spoil it for everyone else, but Bong Joon-ho made his perspective unambiguous: he's not a believer in social mobility in Korea. 6 of the top 10 Forbes list in Korea are self-made; the other 4 inherited their wealth. In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US. There are better metrics to compare social mobility (this one was convenient!), but scanning down the Korea list, it's clear the tech boom provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to build wealth in Korea, but most of the wealth is still held by descendants of the big conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Lotte, etc.). While Parasite is hit in the US, the perspective that it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions may be true in Korea, but it doesn't seem to be the case in the US. [1] https://www.forbes.com/korea-billionaires/list/#tab:overall https://www.forbes.com/korea-billionaires/list/#tab:overall [2] https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff
- immawizard 7y ago
  I think social mobility from poverty to middle class is more relevant to most people than mobility from millionaire to billionaire class. According to The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 [1] South Korea has higher level of social mobility than United States. [1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.p...
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    As a metric, "social mobility" does not mean what most people intuit it means. Someone who, in real PPP terms from the same base, doubles their income may be wildly "socially mobile" in one country and not in the other, even though their absolute outcome is identical. This is because it is a function of income distribution which varies widely and is partly a function of country size. Many people who are "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges, like Denmark, will be objectively worse off economically (PPP) than many people who are not "socially mobile" in a country with wide income ranges, like the US. Income distributions need to be similar for social mobility comparisons. Most people readily prefer a "non-socially mobile" increase in income if it is greater in absolute PPP terms than smaller "socially mobile" income increases. In these comparison cases, which are not uncommon, there is literally no benefit to being "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges.
qqssccfftt 7y ago
ITT: Exactly the people the movie was making fun of
- odkamkfn 7y ago
  But... the movie pretty much made fun of everyone?
httpz 7y ago
One unrealistic part about the poor family in the movie is that, there is no way a family of four healthy adults can be that poor in S.Korea (unless they have a large debt payment). If all four of them worked 40hrs/wk doing a minimum wage job ($7/hr in S.Korea), it puts them around $59k/yr, which is above the median household income.
- hristov 7y ago
  I think the main point is they couldn't get jobs. At one point in the movie they said that every job opening for a security guard draws 500 applicants with college degrees. None of them had college degrees. I am not sure what the actual job situation in S. Korea is. Perhaps someone that lives there can enlighten us.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Yes, at the start of the film they’re folding pizza boxes as a kind of piecework and pleading with the person picking them up to let one of them have a job opening at one of the stores. They’re all unemployed.
  - kaiabwpdjqn 7y ago
    Exactly. All of them were qualified for the jobs they did. They did a good job too. The daughter is a bit of an exception. The daughter is constantly depicted at someone who is exceptionally talented, although has no paper credentials for the job she does. The family makes multiple comments about good she is at things and how she belongs in the wealthy lifestyle. When everyone is wading through the sewage water (motif for poverty) she sits sort of dry on the toilet just barely above the others (incredible scene imo). She does an excellent job. I think it’s to make a point about the lack of meritocracy even within class or something.
    - abvr 7y ago
      Aslo ends up being ironically, kinda of the scapegoat for no fault of hers, other than the fact that she was the mastermind of the whole operation?
totorovirus 7y ago
One of the most interesting culture in South korea is that under treated low class people (dirt-spoon class) don't really try disrupt current society model. To elaborate, people put poverty on their own responsibility rather than complaining about structural inequality. The rage towards class inequality is emitted at competition for higher ranked university and the reward of being in a prestigious college.
- solveit 7y ago
  It helps that socialism is a much dirtier word in Korea, courtesy of history with a certain northern neighbour.
  - rchaud 7y ago
    Is it? "Socialism" and "Communism" are used interchangeably in American politcal discourse as a blunt way to distinguish between democracy and capitalism versus dictatorship and collectivism. South Korea itself was a dictatorship until the late 1980s and received preferential treatment in trade talks in the cold war era with Western economies due to their unique role as a buffer against Communist expansion. This level of privileged access would not be available to less strategically important countries in a 'free market'. Plus SK already provides a level of socialist services that a failed state like North Korea can only dream of.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans. The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one. We have one historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti, and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK, whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.
pcurve 7y ago
Man, the last photograph of Mr. Kim in the article is striking. It looks like a freeze frame from Korean indie movie.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
I don't want to crap all over Koreans or Korean culture, but there's one element that profoundly bothers me: the abandonment and shunning of the elderly. Many are homeless or live lonely lives in destitution and having to rely on charity food. Also, certain bridges have become notorious for mostly all elderly people committing suicide because they can't take it anymore. Korea has a lot going for it, so I hope it gets better in this regard and inequality. The US and many other countries also need to address inequality seriously too, if not for moral reasons then for selfish, long-term GDP and consumer purchasing power reasons.
lurquer 7y ago
Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture. WTF, HackerNews? All this pretentious pontificating about the deeper meaning of a dark comedy (which could be set in ANY culture or locale with very few changes...) Whats next? A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book.
- jwilber 7y ago
  How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread. The article is a straightforward piece on living situations in Seoul. Maybe next time give it a read before commenting. In any case, please DO continue ending your comments with those authoritative one-liners. (Such an enigma!)
  - lurquer 7y ago
    >How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread. Ha. Touché.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  > Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture. http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30-years-of-the-coens-raising-arizona/379815/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30... discuss this well. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?... looks to be interesting, but is paywalled. Either way, Raising Arizona seems to me to be some great cultural commentary. > A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book. That too sounds like an interesting idea: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style-Christianity/dp/1137373474 https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style...

171 points by Thevet 7y ago

https://archive.md/gH9yc https://archive.md/gH9yc

As much as it pointed out the serious inequality issues facing South Korea, the movie also highlighted the fact that the poor in South Korea have access to healthcare free at the point of service. It also depicted young people who, despite their poverty, had enough access to schooling that they could serve as English tutors to the wealthy (yes, I'm aware that SK's education system has other issues related to it being a pressure cooker). I'm sure that neither of those systems are perfect, but they do underpin the importance of universal healthcare and high quality education.

madengr 7y ago
“ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s cancer bills.” How does that fit into universal health care?
- refurb 7y ago
  Indeed. "Universal healthcare" in some countries doesn't mean "we'll pay for everything including the latest and greatest cancer drugs."
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    > the latest and greatest cancer drugs. My understanding is that cancer drugs are considered to be experimental, so there's no "latest and greatest" with any guarantee. Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made."
    - sgift 7y ago
      > Also, US doctors usually prefer to not get cancer treatment when interviewed, since they know "how the sausage is made." I would like to ask for a source please. Maybe they don't want cancer treatment in very special circumstances (e.g. cancer with extreme low survival rates, new experimental drug with very painful side effects), but in general and for most cancers? That sounds rather outlandish.
    - Gatsky 7y ago
      This comment is wrong twice.
- zpallin 7y ago
  Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be provided by everyone having private healthcare insurance, such as what would need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for the average person than not having a universal healthcare system. Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-wage.
  - ALittleLight 7y ago
    How is it universal care if some people can't get care because they can't afford it? By that logic the US has universal care - any legal treatment your doctor wants to give you and you can afford it, anyone can get.
    - dba7dba 7y ago
      Below blog posting is old but one of the best info available in English on the Korean Healthcare system. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-... Some may consider the fact that Korean national health insurance only covers around 55 percent of the total healthcare cost to be problematic. This may be true if one takes the idea of guaranteed socialized medicine seriously. But for fiscal conservatives with some measure of compassion for the plight of the uninsured, this could be an attractive balance. While corruption is definitely still a problem with Korean government, the NHIC is surprisingly efficient and well-run. It does a great job squeezing out maximum value out of the tax it receives.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - zpallin 7y ago
      Universal Healthcare does not guarantee affordability, only access. You must be thinking of "Free Universal Healthcare". And no, the US does not have it. You can be denied insurance and you won't be able to see most doctors because of it. Some ERs won't even treat you without insurance, especially if it's an expensive procedure.
- muzani 7y ago
  I live in a country with good free* ($0.25) healthcare, but it's not limitless. The waiting lines can be months long, especially common problems like cancer. Sometimes it's not just the medical bills, but a caretaker might have to quit their job and need money for that, or nearby accommodation if they're out of town. My mother got full cancer treatment for free*, but the wards were always full, and she stayed at home so someone from out of town could have a place to stay. The hospitals didn't have the right to force patients to go home though; they just asked nicely if they wouldn't mind staying elsewhere.
- akiselev 7y ago
  Universal healthcare means that any required medical treatment is free at the point of use but it does not usually pay for every possible quality of life intervention like a part/full time caregiver. Given the side effects from cancer treatment, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kim had to go to work but didn't want to leave his wife at home, weak and helpless, for the duration of his absence. Even if universal healthcare paid for a part time caregiver, they likely would not have been there most of the day, requiring quite a bit of money to pay for a private provider.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Caregiving, in-home nursing care, rehabilitation and long-term care (assisted living/nursing home/hospice) should be provided by a different social safety net department because of it's specialized and complex nature that also requires licensure and auditing (making sure elderly and disabled aren't abused or neglected). Single-payer, universal healthcare should also include (all but cosmetic and elective procedures): - prescriptions - mental care including therapy, psychiatry, rehab and commitment - dental care - vision care and prescription glasses - hearing aids (avg cost is $3000 USD) - mobility and safety aids for disabled and elderly - gym memberships for people below a certain income level - smoking, drinking and substance abuse intervention, counseling and cessation assistance (medications, tools, relocation assistance) - weight-loss for obesity/significantly overweight with effective, tailored, holistic approaches
    - Hydraulix989 7y ago
      Hearing aids are insanely overpriced for being a glorified microphone and earphone. $30 in parts.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        It's not the parts that are expensive, it's the R&D and the initial and ongoing adjustments that drive up the price.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
- moksly 7y ago
  Even in countries like Denmark we’re forced to deny certain cancer treatments because the cost of their medicine is so high it would cripple our entire healthcare system to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. You can debate the morality of such a discussion, or how the private medicine industry is allowed to charge these prices, but the effect is that some cancer treatments are only available through private insurance or personal wealth, even in Scandinavian countries where we are know for our equal access healthcare.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > to buy a few patients 6 more months to live. More like two weeks, and with a lot of painful side effects. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097
    - alexgmcm 7y ago
      Yeah, my SO is a nurse in paediatric oncology and has seen people from poorer countries sell everything they have in order to bring their child to Western hospitals in the futile hope of treatment. It's really sad and seems almost exploitative. They often get ripped off by private clinics in their home countries as well. At some point we need to say these people aren't in a fit state of mind to make these financial decisions. (Who would be? When the life of their own child seems to be at stake?) It's such a sad situation.
      - moksly 7y ago
        I sincerely hope the European response to medicine prices that are so high that they cripple national economies will to set max prices or to completely nationalise production. Hopefully we’ll find a way to throw some jail time after the people responsible.
        cwilkes 7y ago
        What about jailing doctors or nurses that refuse to work for whatever salary you deem is appropriate?
- danans 7y ago
  Every system has its point where it no longer can pay for care, especially when the procedures have a questionable ability to provide an extension to life at high quality, even the US system. The difference is that on the US vast swathes don't have basic healthcare, which can often reduce the rate of complexities that require extreme treatment measures, like treating cancers early before they advance to a terminal state.
dmix 7y ago
Also looking at South Korea and SEA GDP growth (especially compared to most 'developing' countries) they are doing amazing compared or a lot of South American countries who adopted Boliviar style socialism around the same time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Four_Tigers_GDP_per_capita.svg/640px-Four_Tigers_GDP_per_capita.svg.png?1583291919431 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Fo... https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/7/11/saupload_trendsr3.png https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/7/11/saupload_t... They did this by opening up and adopting a more modern market oriented approach, mixed with limited state run organizations. They had some rational social programs in place where externalities in the market weren't being appropriately accounted for, or where market forces were simply immoral (high costs for sick people). But notably didn't over commit to some intense socialist movements like a lot South American countries - who went well beyond public health insurance buying into the Bolivar nonsense - countries in the early/mid 2000s who are only now recovering from yrs of "post-capitalist" experiments which only resulted in mass needless poverty for their citizens in countries which should have been the wealthiest in the region. With people lining up for food rations like its the 1930s Russia and having severely reduced variety of products to select from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela [note they were having food shortages and starvation before the oil crisis, the entire system was always unsustainable mirage stirred up with anti-western conspiracy theories of non-existent direct intervention]. The most famous moment on the Ruskies abandoning communism in the late 1980s was that Russians leader visiting an American grocery store and seeing the massive options available, at good prices, to regular middle class citizens. Also note the first thing Venezuela did was claim "access to food was a right" and nationalized a bunch of food industries, quickly resulting in mass starvation and shortages within a few short years. It would streamline the whole system to just admit Medicare for all is the solution and pushing burderns placed on employers, or worse deterring entrepreneurship by making it super expensive for self-employed people to turn into net job creators - there's tons of pro-market benefits to a state run public insurance policy - especially when the alternative is the current pseudo-private mess they currently have. Having public health insurance, with some occasional private options, like what we have in Canada is far far more limited than some of the socialist experiments the Bolivars promoted and destroyed multiple countries around them, including Ecuador. So even calling it socialist is probably doing it a disservice. It is state-capitalism, where the state part is the exception to the rule. Nor did Canada adopt the more heavy-handed approach of the NIH in the UK which nationalized hospitals and a bunch of other pieces of the puzzle which were running perfectly fine independently. The simplest solutions that are properly tied into incentives is always what works best here. Even today there are plenty of arguments where the US system is essentially already borerline "socialist" healthcare system but with far fewer of the benefits of either markets or altruistic public run insurance. So 'staying the course' doesn't sound like much of a solution either, besides letting political friends in medicare fleece the government through cronyism. It won't stop because with the constant local, congressional, and executive meddling to create these "pseudo-markets" which provide few benefits of actual competitive markets nor the central negotiation power of a centralized public insurance program. And I say that as someone who in most other cases I would learn fiscally conservative.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
Wow, that's cool. I wonder if vision, dental, medical, hospital, prescriptions and mental are all covered without fees? The very poor in the US only get Medicaid (rarely Medicare, which requires paying into Social Security long enough). Medicaid: - It doesn't pay doctors, specialists and dentists enough, so they often treat patients poorly (spend less time, not thorough enough, don't order necessary tests). - Medication is all paid-for with no co-pays (out-of-pocket expenses), but at a limited number of pharmacy brands and limited selection of medications (formulary). - Emergency and necessary hospital care is completely paid-for. - There is a limited selection of doctors and dentists available to choose from. Most, not all, are reviewed very poorly. - Only one dentist cleaning visit a year is allowed even if the person needs it more frequently because they produce plaque faster. - There are very few specialists who are assigned by the doctor, often with very, very long waiting lists. Furthermore, some specialties do away with waiting lists and make people call on a certain time at a certain day like animals for very few appointments. They make it a game to play with people's lives and waste their time. - The choices of insurers who actually provide the Medicaid insurance is usually 1, 2 or maybe 3 in certain counties. ----- Medicare (similar to typical US convoluted, private insurance): - Has several confusing options, lots of rules and fine-print. - Medication isn't covered, it needs Part D insurance or ExtraHelp. - Hospital insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part A private insurance. - Medical insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part B private insurance. - Medigap private insurance can be needed to pay co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance but it doesn't cover long-term care (no LTC = $$$$), vision/eyeglasses, dental, hearing aids, or private-duty nursing. ---- It's possible to have both Medicare and Medicaid, which means good insurance but with some out-of-pocket expenses. Maybe Medicare improved without costs, for all, would be far, far better than people dying from cancer having to go to bankruptcy court rather than finish their bucket list?
- scotty79 7y ago
  > Wow, that's cool. I wonder if vision, dental, medical, hospital, prescriptions and mental are all covered without fees? In Poland they are. With fixed monthly fee proportional to your income, 9%. 7.5% of it you can directly deduct from your income tax. So it's effectively 1.25% of your income. The only additional money is for drugs (prescription ones too), but if the drug is expensive and you have a prescription you pay vastly reduced price, 50%, 30%, fixed low price, or free. Of course there are wait times and you don't get top of the line materials so middle class people prefer to do dental and vision privately. No insurance needed there. You just pay 30$ to have your tooth fixed or 50$ for eye exam and new glasses if you pick cheap frames.

BelleOfTheBall 7y ago

Well, yes, that was the point of the movie, to highlight the very real problems. In fact, the resonance that it gained seems to be helping, at least a little bit [0] [0] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-improve-semi-basement-apartments-1202213182/ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-impro...

justicezyx 7y ago

Similar situation exits in many orders of magnitude larger scale in China, but the government so successfully keep everyone not paying attention.

L_Rahman 7y ago
The Chinese middle class is still in its first generation and mobility has stagnated for just a decade so it's still early. It'll be interesting to see whether tolerance for the government survives the upcoming economic slowdown.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
China is arguably much worse, because fixed hukou registration creates an official caste system that ensures the migrant worker underclass can never have access to proper schools, housing, etc.

remote_phone 7y ago

I didn’t get the sense it was class strife. The main family was a bunch of scumbags. They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that. It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.
- Aunche 7y ago
  They were absolutely terrible people. They weren't so poor that they had to trigger an old lady's dangerous allergy just to get the mother a job.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      In one scene, the poor mother says something like "If I was this rich, I'd be nice too" and then immediately scolds or hits a begging dog. In this scene, the poor woman is relatively rich - she has the house they've taken over for the weekend, plenty of food, and the dog is poor and begging. I interpreted this, as the two events happen one right after the other, as the movie clearly rejecting the woman's claim. Even when she has a lot, she won't share with one who has little and is just fundamentally mean. Likewise, when the main family meets the hidden family - are they generous? They have much from fleecing the rich family, and the hidden family has, and asks, for very little. Nope, the main family is cruel to the hidden family and by rejecting them they initiate the final conflict. Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.

RichardHeart 7y ago

The movie reviews well in most countries, because we mostly live in the same country, capitalism. (This is me paraphrasing a quote I saw the director give in an interview.)

WilliamEdward 7y ago
As inequality rises, and as people are tired of the same old stories, i can see why more and more people resonate with Parasite.

Ayesh 7y ago

I was born and raised in Sri Lanka, where the annual GDP per capital just hovers $4,000 now. We have free and universal health care, free schools, and free universities. There are many things to improve, but it is there for the rush and poor alike. Some schools and pregnant mothers receive rations, and there is always some sort of social benefits in place. Sure, the poverty exists, but one of the reasons why it is still working is because majority of the population does not live in urban areas. There is a trend of good schools, hospitals, and government offices being located to the capital, where land prices skyrocketed and poor neighborhoods exist. But I think our governments strategy in spreading the resources throughout the island is a great one. Countries like South Korea, India, Japan, Phillipines, and China has a relatively higher amount of homeless or near-homeless population because of the high urbanization. They systematically bring the costs high for everyone.

2drew3 7y ago

For those who watched the movie, I found the ending interesting. I won't spoil it for everyone else, but Bong Joon-ho made his perspective unambiguous: he's not a believer in social mobility in Korea. 6 of the top 10 Forbes list in Korea are self-made; the other 4 inherited their wealth. In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US. There are better metrics to compare social mobility (this one was convenient!), but scanning down the Korea list, it's clear the tech boom provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to build wealth in Korea, but most of the wealth is still held by descendants of the big conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Lotte, etc.). While Parasite is hit in the US, the perspective that it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions may be true in Korea, but it doesn't seem to be the case in the US. [1] https://www.forbes.com/korea-billionaires/list/#tab:overall https://www.forbes.com/korea-billionaires/list/#tab:overall [2] https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff

immawizard 7y ago
I think social mobility from poverty to middle class is more relevant to most people than mobility from millionaire to billionaire class. According to The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 [1] South Korea has higher level of social mobility than United States. [1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.p...
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  As a metric, "social mobility" does not mean what most people intuit it means. Someone who, in real PPP terms from the same base, doubles their income may be wildly "socially mobile" in one country and not in the other, even though their absolute outcome is identical. This is because it is a function of income distribution which varies widely and is partly a function of country size. Many people who are "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges, like Denmark, will be objectively worse off economically (PPP) than many people who are not "socially mobile" in a country with wide income ranges, like the US. Income distributions need to be similar for social mobility comparisons. Most people readily prefer a "non-socially mobile" increase in income if it is greater in absolute PPP terms than smaller "socially mobile" income increases. In these comparison cases, which are not uncommon, there is literally no benefit to being "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges.

qqssccfftt 7y ago

ITT: Exactly the people the movie was making fun of

odkamkfn 7y ago
But... the movie pretty much made fun of everyone?

httpz 7y ago

One unrealistic part about the poor family in the movie is that, there is no way a family of four healthy adults can be that poor in S.Korea (unless they have a large debt payment). If all four of them worked 40hrs/wk doing a minimum wage job ($7/hr in S.Korea), it puts them around $59k/yr, which is above the median household income.

hristov 7y ago
I think the main point is they couldn't get jobs. At one point in the movie they said that every job opening for a security guard draws 500 applicants with college degrees. None of them had college degrees. I am not sure what the actual job situation in S. Korea is. Perhaps someone that lives there can enlighten us.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Yes, at the start of the film they’re folding pizza boxes as a kind of piecework and pleading with the person picking them up to let one of them have a job opening at one of the stores. They’re all unemployed.
- kaiabwpdjqn 7y ago
  Exactly. All of them were qualified for the jobs they did. They did a good job too. The daughter is a bit of an exception. The daughter is constantly depicted at someone who is exceptionally talented, although has no paper credentials for the job she does. The family makes multiple comments about good she is at things and how she belongs in the wealthy lifestyle. When everyone is wading through the sewage water (motif for poverty) she sits sort of dry on the toilet just barely above the others (incredible scene imo). She does an excellent job. I think it’s to make a point about the lack of meritocracy even within class or something.
  - abvr 7y ago
    Aslo ends up being ironically, kinda of the scapegoat for no fault of hers, other than the fact that she was the mastermind of the whole operation?

totorovirus 7y ago

One of the most interesting culture in South korea is that under treated low class people (dirt-spoon class) don't really try disrupt current society model. To elaborate, people put poverty on their own responsibility rather than complaining about structural inequality. The rage towards class inequality is emitted at competition for higher ranked university and the reward of being in a prestigious college.

solveit 7y ago
It helps that socialism is a much dirtier word in Korea, courtesy of history with a certain northern neighbour.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Is it? "Socialism" and "Communism" are used interchangeably in American politcal discourse as a blunt way to distinguish between democracy and capitalism versus dictatorship and collectivism. South Korea itself was a dictatorship until the late 1980s and received preferential treatment in trade talks in the cold war era with Western economies due to their unique role as a buffer against Communist expansion. This level of privileged access would not be available to less strategically important countries in a 'free market'. Plus SK already provides a level of socialist services that a failed state like North Korea can only dream of.
barry-cotter 7y ago
Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans. The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one. We have one historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti, and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK, whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.

pcurve 7y ago

Man, the last photograph of Mr. Kim in the article is striking. It looks like a freeze frame from Korean indie movie.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

I don't want to crap all over Koreans or Korean culture, but there's one element that profoundly bothers me: the abandonment and shunning of the elderly. Many are homeless or live lonely lives in destitution and having to rely on charity food. Also, certain bridges have become notorious for mostly all elderly people committing suicide because they can't take it anymore. Korea has a lot going for it, so I hope it gets better in this regard and inequality. The US and many other countries also need to address inequality seriously too, if not for moral reasons then for selfish, long-term GDP and consumer purchasing power reasons.

lurquer 7y ago

Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture. WTF, HackerNews? All this pretentious pontificating about the deeper meaning of a dark comedy (which could be set in ANY culture or locale with very few changes...) Whats next? A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book.

jwilber 7y ago
How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread. The article is a straightforward piece on living situations in Seoul. Maybe next time give it a read before commenting. In any case, please DO continue ending your comments with those authoritative one-liners. (Such an enigma!)
- lurquer 7y ago
  >How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread. Ha. Touché.
wbronitsky 7y ago
> Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising Arizona does about American culture. http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30-years-of-the-coens-raising-arizona/379815/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30... discuss this well. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?... looks to be interesting, but is paywalled. Either way, Raising Arizona seems to me to be some great cultural commentary. > A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book. That too sounds like an interesting idea: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style-Christianity/dp/1137373474 https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style...