Ideology vs. reality
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Jan. 9, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
Richard J. Krauland's letter “10 year-end truths” about things he believes to be true had as its “No. 1”: “We cannot depend on government institutions to take care of us. The Fed, ObamaCare, Congress, etc., are all bureaucratic by nature and have no hope of successfully dealing with the mercurial complexities of everyday life.” And his “No. 5” was: “Corporations are good things. They're how business people organize themselves to make all those things.”
These imply bureaucracies are always bad and are a major part of “government institutions” but not of corporations. The truth is very different. For example, Medicare's administrative costs are about 2 percent, while those of private insurance are estimated to be about 17 percent! If government bureaucracy is bad, corporate bureaucracy must really be terrible.
The fact is that there are some things governments do best and other things private business does best. In spite of tea-party “Keep government out of my Medicare” banners, our government operates Medicare very efficiently.
The corporate news media, including Fox and CBS, told us the Affordable Care Act website put personal information at risk. This was based on a software problem that was fixed before it went public. Meanwhile, Target's mistakes put credit-card information at risk for up to 40 million customers! Yet the big news was about a problem that didn't exist because there is a basic presumption, which Krauland is supporting, that government is almost always bad and corporate America is almost always good.
When objective reality is pushed aside by ideology like this, we all lose.
Robert J. Reiland
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Proven success
- Ukraine & history
- Funding priorities questioned
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Drought answer?
- Sovereignty trampled
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point