I very much disagree with the notion that inbreeding is an automatic detriment to "dogdom" and a breed itself. If you take it in from the perspective of a conformation goer, inbreeding and linebreeding are perhaps the best ways of setting type and traits. When a potential breeder has a good grasp of genetics and knows his/her way around inbreeding, s/he can produce beautiful, healthy specimens. Here's a CKCS link that shows inbreeding coefficients of around 20%+ who've lived WELL past the average lifespan of 8-10 (11 in some cases).
http://www.ckcsc.org/ckcsc/heritage.nsf/inbred

As you can see, Telvara Top Hat has an inbreeding coefficient of 25% and is still alive and well. He is a remarkable 17 years of age. As well, many dogs from this kennel are void of heart problems, a leading cause of death from what I've been told. Of course, there are always drawbacks. The downfall to selecting long lived dogs with a decreased chance of heart problems is the heightened potential for syringomyelia. I'm not saying inbreeding is a cure-all and will eventually rid all dogs of genetic diseases, but it certainly is not an act of incest (when done properly), nor is it necessarily detrimental to a dog's health. I would also like to add that there are many AKC Greyhounds who are very much inbred (mother and father share the same parents, mother and father are half siblings, mother and father share the same dam, etc.) but these dogs are perhaps the healthiest out there. They rarely have heart problems, PRA, hip dysplasia, and etcetera. I think the only problem is their inability to sit I believe NGA Greys tend to have more osteo, but that could just be due to their vast population.

Dragondawg, I think you bring up a very good question and I do believe this idea of future diseases and illnesses scares and intimidates most reputable breeders. However, we're all humans and in my mind, anybody whose best interest is the BREED (that includes future generations), is a reputable breeder. I think we've come a long way with hip and eye testing, and I'm just elated that so many people are complying with these tests. You did mention that there are many many uncommon diseases that strike a breed, and whether or not the breeder in question would fix his/her dogs. If the breeder is truly reputable, then yes, this breeder would fix the dogs. All reputable breeders are about the BREED. Some people get caught up in the ribbons and refuse to believe that their dogs have genetic problems. In this case, I would not deem this breeder reputable. In fact, a Poodle person I know knew a breeder who produced fairly nice specimens of the breed. The only problem was she was in denial. Her dogs had genetic diseases, but this woman refused to believe it. Is she reputable even though she produces nice looking pups? Nope, not at all. Now, I do know another breeder who sold a litter of pups a few years ago. The buyer had recently contacted this breeder and told her that the puppy (now an adult) had developed a health problem (my horrible memory robs me of the name ). It turned out that the problem had a chance of being hereditary and so this breeder actually did fix her dogs. Though I don't know of any kennels in particular, more experienced peers have known breeders who've fixed and petted out entire kennels due to a single genetic disease. I know there aren't many out there, but there are truly reputable breeders whose first interest is the breed. Unfortunately, we seem to have more bad than good in this world.