We've all heard the democrats (and Republicans) tell us during the Health Care Reform debate/fiasco that "doing something is better than doing nothing." Last night, I even heard liberal writer Bob Beckel say that "doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing?"
I'd like to take Bob out to a tall cliff and give him only two options: Do nothing or jump. Do you think he'd still say that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.
Of course, like my hypothetical cliff, there are more than two options, but I'd like to focus on just the issue of doing the wrong thing versus doing nothing.
In regards to health care, let's make the assumption that passing ObamaKare is doing the "wrong thing." (A stretch, I know.)
Doing the wrong thing could cost the government (the taxpayers) trillions and trillions of dollars that we don't have. Doing nothing costs the government no more than we are spending now.
Doing the wrong thing will decrease the quality of care. Doing nothing maintains the highest quality care available in the world.
Doing the wrong thing will result in health care rationing in which those most vulnerable, particularly the elderly and the most ill, will likely be left out to pasture to die. Doing nothing continues the current system of rationing health care to those who work for a living and can afford health insurance, and leaving deadbeats to seek health care from ER's (where they still get treatment if they need it.)
Doing the wrong thing will force doctors out of business. Doing nothing maintains our current levels of health care providers, which is still inadequate in some areas and in some specialties, but is still better than most places in the world.
Doing the wrong thing throws the constitution out the window. Doing nothing keeps it hanging by a thread.
Got any more?