You say fence-sitting, I say moderate. Anyways, you're absolutely right that 'The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.' My argum

You say fence-sitting, I say moderate. Anyways, you're absolutely right that 'The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.' My argument is that principle applies for both the system and the individual, not just one or the other. Blaming the system encourages systemic change, but blaming the individual can encourage personal change. It depends on the situation. Often both are at fault to different degrees and just blame each other, never acknowledging their own faults. To your point, sometimes the system really is a rotten edifice of garbage that needs to be eradicated and rebuilt. I have my own experiences with the american medical system and I'm with you there completely. I don't think any amount of personal merit is going to help you navigate that particular system, its fundamentally broken. So yes the blame there is justified, and hopefully that blame does encourage it to change. On the other hand, to give a topical example- Let's say Jimmy weighs 600 lbs and never exercised a day in his life, and now he's facing an absurd medical bill for his heart surgery. There's plenty of blame to go around there, there are certainly some systemic factors at play (not the least of which being the medical system taking advantage of him), but to completely absolve Jimmy of personal responsibility for his poor choices and just blame the system is unhealthy, and does encourage a sense of individual helplessness. Yes the system should be blamed and changed for all the things it did wrong, but so should Jimmy The point is that blame should be assigned where its deserved in the degree that it's deserved, but often the individualists will just blame the individual and the collectivists will blame the system, with no nuance in between