今天我们来聊一个最近在中文互联网上被反复提起的词——美国斩杀线。很多视频告诉你，在美国，只要掉到某一条线以下，不管你以前多体面、收入多高，最后都会被系统性地清理掉。听起来很吓人，但问题是，这是真的，还是被制造出来的恐怖故事？

今天这条视频，我会从两个角度来讲。

打假斩杀线视频

这一部分我先说清楚一件事：我不讨论美国好不好，我只做一件事——牢A的视频里，哪些内容在现实中根本不可能发生。牢A在视频中说，自己是西雅图华盛顿大学的医学博士，同时还兼职处理无名尸体。

首先，遗体处理是一个高度受监管的职业，需要执照才能进入，不是谁想收就能收的。兼职人员参与遗体处理，不能说绝对没有，但至少可能性很低。而且作为医学生，本身训练强度就极高，一周七八十个小时很常见，在这样的前提下，还能去做一份门槛如此之高的兼职，这组身份和行为至少缺乏一个清楚、可被解释的现实路径。

其次，关于收尸的法律问题。在华盛顿州，未经授权转运、处置、交易遗体属于重罪。医学院接收的遗体，必须来自生前签署的捐赠协议。街头死亡、吸毒过量、腐败遗体，在法律上属于高风险生物废弃物。所以所谓“警察卖尸体、医学院收尸体”，在现实流程里并没有操作空间。

至于“下水道溶尸”这一说法就更简单了。强酸溶解人体会产生大量有毒气体，会直接破坏城市管道，并触发公共安全事件。这不是残不残忍的问题，而是在工程和化学上根本行不通。

到这里，只能得出一个结论：牢A的视频中，存在大量在现实中无法成立的叙述。但需要注意的是，这并不能证明美国没有贫困、没有悲剧，它只能说明一件事——这些视频不能作为理解美国社会的可靠依据。

抛开故事，只看现实

现在我们换个角度，不看任何猎奇故事，只看制度和现实。问题就变成了：中美两国，对跌落到底层的人，最低生存状态到底是什么？

先说美国。在美国，急诊医疗不能因为你没钱而拒诊；有医疗白卡、EBT 卡、食物银行；无家可归者可以进入收容体系，条件很差，但至少存在。再看中国，医疗费用高度前置，急诊拒诊在现实中确实存在，流浪者往往以“市容”“遣返”为名被清理。这不是谁过得更好，而是会不会被制度性放弃。

那为什么美国看起来更惨呢？一个很重要的原因是“可见性”。美国的底层人群高度可见，出现在街头、地铁和公共空间；而中国的底层人群，则是被系统性隐藏的。很多人第一次看到美国街头这么多失败者，就以为这是制度更残酷，但很多时候，看得见，并不等于更残忍。

接下来再看一个非常关键、但很少被拿出来讲的制度——个人破产。因为它直接决定了一件事：一个人跌到底之后，有没有被允许重新开始。

在美国，个人破产不是羞辱，而是一套明确写进法律的“重置机制”，最常见的是第七章破产。简单来说，你可以通过法院程序清算部分资产，然后合法免除大部分债务。法律还会明确保护你的基本住房、代步工具和生活必需品。也就是说，你可能会一无所有，但你不会被债务永远按在地上。破产完成之后，你还能合法工作，重新积累信用，再一次参与社会经济系统。这一步非常重要。

再看中国。中国并没有一个真正意义上面向普通人的个人破产制度。结果是，债务不会被系统性清零，执行可以长期存在，失信、限高、冻结账户会变成一种长期状态。换句话说，一旦跌落，你不是暂时失败，而是被结构性锁死，很可能一辈子都无法翻身。

背景动机

最后，我还想讨论一个现象：为什么“美国斩杀线”这样一个片面夸大、严重歪曲的说法，会在简中互联网中特别容易流行？一方面，它安抚了底层民众的焦虑。当现实压力无处释放时，通过强调“外面的世界更惨”，可以缓解对自身处境的不满。另一方面，它服务于民族主义叙事，把他国描绘成系统性失败，有助于强化“我们这边至少是安全的”这种对比认知，在客观上帮助转移了国内矛盾。这即使不是精心设计的结果，也是在特定舆论环境下高度自发、并被不断放大的叙事选择。

结论

讲到这里，其实已经没必要再纠缠某一条“线”是否存在了。真正重要的问题只有一个：当一个人失败、跌落、负债、失去体面的时候，他还有没有机会从头再来？

Today we’re going to talk about a term that has been repeatedly circulating on the Chinese internet recently: the so-called “American kill line.”

Many videos claim that in the United States, once you fall below a certain threshold, no matter how respectable you once were or how high your income was, you will eventually be systemically discarded. It sounds terrifying. But the real question is: is this true, or is it a manufactured horror story?

In this video, I’ll approach the issue from two angles.

Fact-Checking “Kill Line” Claims

First, let me make one thing clear. I’m not here to argue whether America is good or bad. I’m only doing one thing: identifying which claims in Lao A’s videos simply cannot happen in reality.

In his videos, Lao A claims that he is a medical doctorate from the University of Washington in Seattle, and that he also works part-time handling unidentified bodies. First of all, handling human remains is a highly regulated profession. It requires proper licensing and authorization; it’s not something anyone can simply do at will. While it’s not absolutely impossible for part-time involvement to exist, the likelihood is extremely low.

Moreover, as a medical student, the training intensity alone is already extremely high. Working seventy to eighty hours a week is common. To also take on a job with such a high legal and professional barrier raises serious questions. Whether you believe it or not, this combination is very difficult to reconcile with real-world constraints.

Second, there are clear legal issues regarding the handling of bodies. In Washington State, unauthorized transport, disposal, or trade of human remains constitutes a felony. Medical schools can only accept bodies donated with prior written consent. Deaths on the street, overdoses, or decomposed bodies are legally classified as high-risk biological waste. As a result, the idea that police sell bodies and medical schools collect them has no operational space in real-world procedures.

As for the claim about dissolving bodies in sewers, this is even simpler. Using strong acids to dissolve a human body would release large amounts of toxic gas, directly damage municipal pipelines, and trigger public safety incidents. This isn’t a question of cruelty; it simply doesn’t work from an engineering or chemical standpoint.

At this point, only one conclusion can be drawn: Lao A’s videos contain many claims that cannot be substantiated in reality. But this does not mean that poverty or tragedy do not exist in the United States. It only shows that these videos are not a reliable basis for understanding American society.

Beyond Stories: Institutions and Reality

Now let’s switch perspectives. Let’s put aside sensational stories and look only at institutions and reality. The question then becomes: in China and the United States, when someone falls to the bottom, what is the minimum condition for survival?

Let’s start with the United States. Emergency medical care cannot deny treatment simply because someone cannot pay. There is Medicaid, EBT food assistance, and food banks. People experiencing homelessness can enter shelter systems. The conditions may be poor, but these systems exist.

Now compare this with China. Medical costs are heavily front-loaded. Denial of emergency treatment does occur in reality. People experiencing homelessness are often cleared out under the name of “urban management” or “repatriation.” This comparison is not about who lives better. It’s about whether people are institutionally abandoned.

So why does the United States appear harsher? One major reason is visibility. Lower-income populations in the U.S. are highly visible—on the streets, in subways, and in public spaces. In China, lower-income populations are systematically hidden. Many people, seeing so many failed lives on American streets for the first time, assume the system must be more cruel. But often, visibility does not equal greater cruelty.

Now let’s examine another crucial but rarely discussed institution: personal bankruptcy. It directly determines whether a person is allowed to start over after hitting rock bottom.

In the United States, personal bankruptcy is not a form of shame. It is a reset mechanism clearly written into law. The most common form is Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Simply put, individuals can go through court proceedings to liquidate some assets and then legally discharge most debts. The law explicitly protects basic housing, transportation, and essential living necessities. In other words, you may end up with nothing, but you will not be permanently crushed by debt. After bankruptcy is completed, you can still legally work, rebuild credit, and participate in the economy again. This step is critically important.

In China, however, there is no truly accessible personal bankruptcy system for ordinary individuals. As a result, debt is not systematically discharged. Enforcement can persist indefinitely. Credit blacklisting, travel restrictions, and frozen accounts become long-term conditions. In other words, once you fall, you are not temporarily failing—you are structurally locked in place, often for the rest of your life.

Why This Narrative Spreads

Finally, there is one more phenomenon worth discussing: why exaggerated and distorted narratives like the “American kill line” spread so easily in the Chinese-language internet.

On one hand, they soothe bottom-layer anxiety. When real pressure has no outlet, emphasizing that the outside world is worse can ease dissatisfaction with one’s own situation. On the other hand, they serve nationalist narratives. Portraying other countries as systemically failed reinforces the comparative belief that “at least we are safe here.” Objectively, this helps redirect domestic tensions. Even if this is not the result of deliberate design, within this specific media environment it becomes a highly self-reinforcing and amplified narrative choice.

Conclusion

At this point, it is no longer necessary to argue over whether any particular “line” exists. There is only one question that truly matters: when someone fails, falls, becomes indebted, and loses dignity, do they still have a chance to start over?