[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

RyanO ryano218 at comcast.net
Fri Apr 23 20:59:22 UTC 2010


Steve, your points are all well-taken. I always enjoy our discussions and 
have found you to be level-headed in your approach to the issues. I do have 
to make one exception to that, which I'll address after your larger point.

First, you are correct when you say that I myself have never had major 
difficulties with the private healthcare industry. However, several of my 
family members have had problems that have impacted me on a personal level. 
My father works for the insurance industry and was at odds with them over 
his treatment for a severe case of pneumonia several years ago. However, my 
grandfather was a veteran of World War II and, having experienced a 
multitude of problems with the Veterans Administration, he decided that 
private healthcare was a far better option for him.

My initial post on this matter was in reference to Chuck's comment that 
government works more smoothly than private industry. My years of experience 
with social security, plus second hand stories from friends and 
acquaintances leads me to believe that this is simply not the case.

You make a few statements in your message that I will post below to 
illustrate my points.

I think that part of the ineptness of government is a matter of perception. 
Americans generally
believe that government should be responsive and that they should be able to 
have a voice in how it is run.  This is, of course correct.  On the other 
hand,
Americans do not believe that we have a voice in anything that is private, 
because, after all, it is private.  If we are lucky, we make our views known 
by taking our
business elsewhere when we have a choice, but we don't always have a choice. 
However, even when we don't have a choice, we don't really feel that we have
any right to complain as we do with the government because, again, it is 
private.

Steve, your statements are rather vague here. You say that part of the 
ineptness of government is a matter of perception. Which part is that? Would 
that be the part of the government that allowed the terrorist attacks on 
9/11 to occur? Would that be the part of the government that allowed the 
financial crisis to hit our country because of their neglect and greed? How 
about the part of the government that goes to Washington every two years and 
fails to keep the many promises they make on the campaign trail? Just to 
anticipate you, I'm speaking of both Republicans and Democrats here. You 
also say that Americans generally believe certain things. Again, that is 
hard to quantify.

I don't believe for a second that "Americans," as you put it, think that 
way. If they did, nationalized healthcare would've become a reality long 
ago. I think it's a safe assumption that, since this country was founded, 
people have complained about the efficiency of government and have instilled 
in themselves a healthy distrust of those who hold elected office. Even many 
liberals, who champion more government, privately complain about the 
efficiency (or lack there of) with which the system is run.

I think it's a fair assumption that many people have a healthy dislike for 
businesses that grow too large to the point where they become a monopoly. At 
times, such as in the case of Microsoft, the government steps in and stems 
that growth. However, I do feel it is erroneous to assume that most 
Americans feel that they are powerless when it comes to the influence of the 
individual consumer over the private marketplace. Any novice economics 
student knows that the consumer *is* the marketplace. If people weren't 
aware of this fact, they would never complain to managers of restaurants, 
communications companies, car manufacturers, etc. If your assertions were a 
reality, companies would not begin and end every single day.

You also voice the frustration of the lack of choice in certain private 
areas. I can understand this frustration. If I live in a smaller town with 
only one cable company, and that cable company sucks, I may be screwed. This 
was certainly the case when I was growing up in the late '80's and early 
'90's in Nebraska. However, once the cable companies became dominant, it 
wasn't long until satellite dish and Direct TV took root. In the 
marketplace, that is called competition. When you and I are talking about 
it, its called choice. Where then would a person go if he/she did not like a 
particular government service? If I find government healthcare 
unsatisfactory for whatever reason, what are my options under a system in 
which the government takes over the majority of control?

Speaking of healthcare, I would argue that government does not always foster 
the theory of choice into reality. Liberals often demonize Republicans and 
conservatives as, "The party of no." That wasn't the case when President 
Obama brought the issue of healthcare reform to the forefront over a year 
ago. Many Republicans offered alternative solutions as part of the process. 
One of those solutions involved the removal of restrictions that would 
prevent individual consumers from going across state lines to seek insurance 
from another state. Democrats paid no attention to this suggestion, just as 
they turned a deaf ear to the idea of tort reform; two of the biggest 
factors that drive healthcare costs upward in our country. Steve, do 
regulations telling a citizen where he or she can and can't buy insurance 
add to or take away from that person's free choice?

Here is another statement from your message:

I maintain that part of the problem with government programs is not that it 
is government but because the
bureaucracy is so large.

I would answer that, in a nation of 300 million plus people, it would be 
impossible to maintain any form of government without some form of 
bureaucracy. I believe that the terms government and bureaucracy are 
synonymous.

I submit that conservatives have a double standard because activists use the 
fact
that we feel that we have a voice in our government to whip up our anger 
against that government and keeping our attention off those aspects of the 
private sector
that probably deserve just as much of our anger.

Steve, forgive me if I'm missing something here, but this statement makes no 
sense. Are you suggesting that conservatives are hypocrites because some of 
them are protesting the size or the role of government while continuing to 
acknowledge that very entity? If so, I strongly disagree with you. Liberals 
have always found it fashionable to protest everything from the government 
to private industry, particularly when Republicans have achieved domination 
in D.C. Yet, when conservatives finally band together and speak out (which 
doesn't historically happen as often), we're labeled as hypocrites, 
hate-mongers and even terrorists in some quarters. In truth, we are merely 
exercising the same rights that have proven successful for labor unions, the 
civil rights movement, etc.

If you are suggesting that conservatives are deliberately focusing anger 
against the government to deflect it away from the private sector, again I 
must disagree. This may in fact be happening, but I don't think it is 
intentional. It may be more a matter of priorities for those who have taken 
to the streets. I won't deny that the various political factions that make 
up the two major parties provide balance for this country. Perhaps 
conservatives can at times be a bit short-sighted when it comes to the flaws 
in private industry, but you can bet that those same bands of liberal 
protesters, backed by the media, will be there to point out every problem 
(major and minor) that exists in the private sector.

Now, here is the final statement you make. It's the one that kind of ticks 
me off a bit.

I'm not sure what is to be gained by labeling people and isolating oneself 
to exchange ideas with people who already
agree with you, but of course you have that right.

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the conservative list that 
I've recently set up. Steve, I haven't labeled anyone except myself. I am no 
different than a member of the National Federation of the Blind who 
subscribes to a particular philosophy choosing to call himself a 
Federationist. I am not a robot and don't agree with all aspects of 
conservatism, just as I don't agree with every single tenant of the 
Federation. However, my predominant philosophy is best described as 
conservative.

I set up this list primarily for people who want to find others who share 
their views. As I said a couple of days ago, many people have told me that 
they felt alone out there in their beliefs and are glad to find a network of 
likeminded people with whom to communicate. However, I haven't isolated 
myself or anyone else from differing viewpoints. I make it clear in my 
list's welcome message and I made it clear when I announced the list on 
NFBTalk that anyone of any political stripe is welcome. I believe that 
discussion and debate are healthy things; a view that, frankly, is not 
always shared by the leadership of the NFB.

If you want to join the list Steve, I'd love to have you. I've always 
respected your opinions and think you would provide a valuable insight. If 
you don't want to join, I respect that too.

Have a great weekend.


RyanO






More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list