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

[qubit]

burocracy case in point: when I was working back in the 80s and 90s, there 
was a crackdown on social security fraud -- or at least they discovered some 
major fraudulent abuses of the system. One of these was a person in NY who 
had a collection of 47 bogus social security numbers that he was collecting 
benefits from -- all going to the same PO box each month.  Think of how much 
he must have made even running this scam for a few years.
I think part of the ill treatment of some applicants of ss benefits may be 
due to the amount of fraud.  People are scrutinized to make sure they are 
really eligible.
I actually got called in to the ss office when I started working after 
graduation. I had notified them that I now had a job and they could stop 
sending me my ss checks. They did, but then I got a check for $5000 that 
they said I was owed. I told them it was wrong, but they told me to cash it. 
Finally I put it in the bank until I could figure out what to do with it. 
No sooner did I cash it I got a nasty letter in the mail telling me I was 
being investigated and should bring my bank statements in for the past 5 
years to see if I was elligible for benefits.  I was annoyed. I ended up 
taking a whole day off work to sit waiting in the ss office which was filled 
with people of various backgrounds. Finally they called my name and I went 
back and waited for them to copy all my check statements and look at my 
cancelled checks to see what I spent money on.  It was ridiculous.  It all 
checked out however, of course.  I used the ss money in school for 
disability related things like reader service and aides for assistance with 
other disabilities and the rest of my income, which came from my teaching 
assistant job went to tuition and housing...  Still they went through 
everything with a fine toothed comb -- even asked me to take off my glasses 
so they could look at my eyes, and take a picture of me in the wheelchair, 
and show my work id.  (Completely invasive.)

Well, sorry. It was funny at best.  They had nothing on me, but they do deal 
with peopple who defraud the system, and so they put out nets for fishy 
looking cases. LOL

Anyway, have a good laugh at the world when you feel like screaming.
Take care.
--le

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RyanO" <ryano218 at comcast.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


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



_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org