The fallacy of "medicare and SS weren't perfect at first" argument

That argument doesn't hold water any more than the argument that health care insurance mandates are 'just like' auto insurance mandates (I can choose not to drive, I can't choose my health needs).

With SS and Medicare, they were limited at first and improved on - but these were GOVERNMENT programs under GOVERNMENT control. They involved taxation to fund benefits. They were NOT a mandated "tax" given to private corporations to do what they choose (while under the umbrella of anti-trust protection no less).

If the government had so much as a toenail of participation in this bill, I could argue that it is a first step like Medicare and SS were.

Not only that, but the "inefficient" government was able to roll out Medicare in 11 months. With 30% overhead, the private corps can't even get something as simple as this rolled out for 4 years???

I would agree that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but this isn't good and the argument that it is, and that Medicare and SS were "also first steps" is a fallacy. This bill isn't a first step to anything but more corporateocracy.

With SS and Medicare, they were limited at first and improved on - but these were GOVERNMENT programs under GOVERNMENT control. They involved taxation to fund benefits. They were NOT a mandated "tax" given to private corporations to do what they choose (while under the umbrella of anti-trust protection no less).

single payer or a non-profit public option.

K&R

Well said. k&r.

This caused the collapse of 1929 to be reversed and the depression was over.

If the central claim is that the current bill isn't perfect, and the SS and medicare weren't perfect in their original forms, then the claim is correct.

You're just pointing out that the bills are imperfect in different ways, but that doesn't make the claim a fallacy.

Which they are doing and what I was referring to.

I'm not convinced that it's a difference in kind.