ic on how the non-poor engage in “othering” the non-poor, we can cite for example the debate surrounding the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to Health Care or Obamacare. This new health plan intends to widen and increase the coverage of Medicare and Medicaid, the health insurance policy of the poor (Falcone). During the process of the debate, the non-poor engaged in “othering” the poor by labelling them as dependents and lazy. “Othering” or this tendency to exclude people outside their social circle exists not only in the health care settings but also extends to other spheres of life (Johnson et al., 2004). Othering is wrought by many factors which include peer pressure and other agents of socialization such as mass media, family and even school (Kasper, nd). One may argue that discrimination has already ended and frowned in America but it still exist albeit subtly. A concrete example we can cite is how people treat a rich person differently from a poor person. A rich person is usually treated with consideration with regard to his or her sensibilities while poor people are treated with less discrimination.
It would be unfair to conclude that the poor internalize the values assigned to them by the non-poor (i.e. lazy, dependents, etch.). There are circumstances that are beyond people’s control that could destabilize one’s economic position. We can cite for example the recent financial crisis in 2008 which drove many people by hundreds of thousands to poverty by losing their jobs and their homes (Jones). Many had to resort to welfare. Are these people lazy and dependents as labelled by the rich? For sure they are not and they only need temporary assistance to go back on their feet.
It would also be inaccurate however that there are no undesirable values that are internalized that make one poor. Many people remain poor because they have internalized undesirable values and belief such as lack of drive, lack of