Its a deliberate conflation, a sleight of hand that happens in American discourse all the time.

As an example, Americans are hostages to your incredibly inefficient health care system. Not only is reasonable discussion of public health outside your overton window, the reason it stays outside is the instant clamour of voices saying "free stuff is bad and you are bad for advocating it".

The only way to get access to reasonable care seems to be either military service or full employment. The rest of the world is incredulous that losing your job means losing access to healthcare.

That truly strange conception of "freedom" americans are always so afraid of losing is a massive illusion for the majority of a population deathly afraid of the financial ramifications of a health crisis.

Yet you have no functional way of talking about it, because of the sleight of hand discourse exemplified by the article.

I truly feel sorry for americans at this point.

I think the article has some flaws because it seems like the point of the article seems to try and link the sentiment given to people who commit deliberate unethical/corrupt behavior to non-deliberate and otherwise less-fortunate people, which I think is a bit of a disingenuous argument.

There's still moral hazard there, because no doubt many people already had the sense that the government would do something like that, so intentionally didn't pay their rent.