Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What about toothpaste, deodorant, soap, shampoo, food, and hand sanitizer?

Posted 2 years ago on March 9, 2012, 11:58 a.m. EST by JuanFenito (847)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What rational argument would say these things should not be covered on health insurance if birth control is? This stuff adds up.

46 Comments

46 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by KHunt (5) 2 years ago

You want some of me?

Trying to start something?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27660) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Reincarnate - Much?

KHunt

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined March 9, 2012

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Good idea. Necessities should be guaranteed.

[-] 0 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

Avoiding penetration means nobody has to buy anything.

Yay!

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Copperlation without penetration, and bareback too, is not good copperlation.

[-] 1 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

I couldn't find that word anywhere. :/

The thing is that sex is a mostly recreational and social development thing when you avoid making babies and such.

I think birth control is being compared to the wrong things to begin with. Change toothpaste to...model airplane glue.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

I'd really like to experiment with sniffing glue and would if I could afford it. I think government should also supply us with glue and good recreational drugs.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No! It's my right to engage in recreational activities and make you pay me to do it!

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Newman, I don't ' buy' this latest installment of medical breaking news. I have listened very closely to two scientists involved in the supporting research and they don't have enough evidence to support their recommendations. If they do, they sure aren't conveying it well. Isn't it a bit ironic that after all the shanannigans about abortion and birth control that they top it all off with " women over 40 should be taking the pill"? I think this will result in many fatalities in the next 10-20 years.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Hey there, Gillian! - Actually I posted the link because I found it ironic that, given the dust-up regarding the Catholic Church and womens reproductive rights, here's an article that states "Nuns should take the pill." I might have to agree with you re: the 'over 40' issue. There's some conflicting information regarding the cancer-preventing benefits. What I think it boils down to is that it's the individuals decision, and that decision shouldn't be made until all factors are considered after obtaining the best information available at the time.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Howdy Newman! It does seem hysterical about nuns taking the pill, eh? Big Pharma will stop at nothing. They lose sight of how obvious their corruption is to a an ever growing savvy consumer population.
There's a lot of conflicting information about everything...especially medical research and it's really so wrong when people's lives are at stake. How can the typical layman make a well informed choice? I just avoid doctors altogether...abstinence as they say..hahahah Did you hear about that Duke scientist who committed so much fraud in cancer research? That man should be hung by his ears.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Pharmas - you nailed it. While we're in this thread about who pays for what, this issue of oxy and other Rx drug abuse seems to be garnering a little more attention these days. Big pharma isn't coming within a hundred yards of the issue and they're the one's raking in the profits. They know a "good" thing when they've got it. So, who pays for all of the damage this scourge causes? I don't see Perdue Pharma building and staffing any addiction centers or pain management clinics as pro bono work around the country.

http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/ag/purduecase.htm

[-] 0 points by elf3 (2300) 2 years ago

What about the male birth control pills ? Oh yes they'd rather make woman pay the tab - just like you Jaun...

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Pssst... I am on your side here, because the men in the insurance pool will help defray the cost of the birth control, which is essentially paying for it... Never mind most of the affected person's co-workers will never be at risk of impregnating them...

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ok, let's go thru this, then.

I want to approach this in a more broad sense.

Unlike you, who are a ultra-capitalist - a supporter of total tyranny - I want us to create a solidaric, free and democratic society where everyone is able to have a decent life and where we take care of each other. That means that we should, thru discussion, consensus and democratic process, find good solutions to make things that people need available for the people who need them (pretty logical I would say). This is how we create a good society. In my view lots of things and services should be made free or affardable for the people who need this. So in other words, along with many other things, yes, free birth control for everyone!

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

When did I say I was "ultra-capitalist"??? Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said we shouldn't cover these things, I was saying, why don't we?

And what on earth about "total tyranny"? Please, stop being paranoid and claiming I am things I am not.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Nice try.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-on-workers-self-management-and-worker/#comment-652483

People can change their minds of course, but then say so.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Oh yeah, that. To be honest, I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I just said that out of frustration when you were pushing for state control of everything.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I just said that out of frustration when you were pushing for state control of everything."

I have never advocated that. I am an anarchist.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Anarchists want no government at all. That is not what you appear to want, although I could be wrong. Do you want to:

  • End all social welfare programs
  • End the military
  • Stop minting currency
  • Stop building and repairing roads

If so, I am wrong. Anarchy is by nature capitalistic, for capitalism is the only economic system that does not require the power of force to perpetuate it. A lack of government (anarchy) is a return to unbridled free-market capitalism. This is not what I advocate.

Wait a second! By "Anarchist" you just mean no social government, right? It sounds to me like you want a very powerful government that can redistribute wealth, and set prices and tariffs.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"That is not what you appear to want"

How so?

"End all social welfare programs"

Absolutley not.

"End the military"

No, but decrease, at least short term.

"Stop minting currency"

No, at least not short term.

"Stop building and repairing roads"

Absolutley not.

I advocate Anarcho-Syndicalism http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html , which seeks to dismantle capitalism and instead bulid democracy from below, starting with democratic workplaces and communities.

What exactly do you advocate trhen? "Libertarianism"? Randism (socalled "objectivism")? What?

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay, cool. You're not an anarchist then.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism

What you are describing is really just socialism. Or Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want to call it that, but it sure as heck isn't anarchy.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I'm an anarchist. You just don't know what Anarcho-Syndicalism is..

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Um, did you see the definition of anarchy? It's a system which does not employ the rule of force. So how are you going to prevent capitalism in your Beautiful World if you can't stop and control people's voluntary economic trades and associations?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"The belief that proposes the absence and abolition of hierarchy and authority in most forms" This is what Anarcho-Syndicalism advocates. So you still don't know what Anarcho-Syndicalism is.. I recommend you reading a little bit about it - at leastthe basics - before you continue.

You´re living in a dreamworld. These "voluntary agreements" you´re talking about, taking place in a class / capitalist / state-capitalist society in which the wealth and resourses are very highly concentrated, and where some individuals are owning huge corporations or important means of production, (and other individuals are not owning these things) are simply just cognitive illusions since the ones owning the resourses - the wealth and the means of production etc - have much more power. That means of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring/negotiations in a worker/non-owner - employer/owner relationship. Thy’re not voluntary agreements, but submission to necessities.

Capitalism means lots of force, and of course hierarchy, undemocratic hierarchy in fact, hence private tyranny

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

You believe in abolition of authority? Where are all the funds going to come from for all of the aforementioned projects?

Alright, it comes down to this. Total government spending is about 45% of GDP. So out of every dollar you make, you are taxed at 45%. If you think this is acceptable, and call yourself an "anarchist", I will proceed to laugh my tonsils out. Where does the money come from? It sure as heck isn't taken forcibly by an form of authority! no sir!

Secondly, how do you define neessitites? I live comfortably and pay almost nothing to anyone for my "necessities". Besides, I could live like I would have in the 1700s if people denied me services. Anyway.

What you don't understand is that under a capitalist system, workers can collectively control the means of production. It happens all the time at communes, where people are welcome to live. Under anarcho-syndicalism, a person is not welcome to own the means of production. I asked another Anarcho-Syndicalist why this is not acceptable to form these sorts of communal arrangements voluntarily and he ignored my question. Do you care to give it a shot?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"You believe in abolition of authority?"

Yes. All power centers, state or private tyranny, must be dismantled, but we should start with the undemocratic power centers, including of course private tyranny

"Where are all the funds going to come from"

From people's work in a decentralized non-hierarcical democracy bulid from below. You still don't know what Anarcho-Syndicalism is. Are you planning on changing that?

"So out of every dollar you make, you are taxed at 45%. If you think this is acceptable, and call yourself an "anarchist""

I think that in the society we have today a first step is implementing a very progressive tax system, taxing the rich and powerful much more. So which percentage I support in tax rate depends on income.

I have actually written a little bit on both how we can achive an Anarcho-Syndicalist society and how that society would look like.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1321101669_the_transition_phase_.html

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

I think these two will cover most of your questions.

Let's start with the necessities in order to survive, and then we can add on more and more.

"under a capitalist system, workers can collectively control the means of production. "

Doesn't matter. The economy is all-encompassing. A few co-ops here and theredoesn't change the fact that wealth and power are concentrated to a large extent on the financial elite.

"Under anarcho-syndicalism, a person is not welcome to own the means of production. I asked another Anarcho-Syndicalist why this is not acceptable to form these sorts of communal arrangements voluntarily and he ignored my question. Do you care to give it a shot?"

Sure:

Like I said, These "voluntary agreements" you´re talking about, taking place in a class / capitalist / state-capitalist society in which the wealth and resourses are very highly concentrated, and where some individuals are owning huge corporations or important means of production, (and other individuals are not owning these things) are simply just cognitive illusions since the ones owning the resourses - the wealth and the means of production etc - have much more power. That means of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring/negotiations in a worker/non-owner - employer/owner relationship. They’re not voluntary agreements, but submission to necessities.

And like I said above: the economy is all-encompassing.A few co-ops here and theredoesn't change the fact that wealth and power are concentrated to a large extent on the financial elite.. That's undemocratic

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I am quite familiar with socialism, and I see nothing at all different from what you are advocating and socialism. How would you say they are different?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, since anarchism is often also called Libertarian Socialism, and the fact that Anarcho-Syndicalism focuses very much on labor movements, unions, workers control and so on, it's not a big surprise that it's pretty similar to socialism - in it's original meaning.

It depends on what you mean by "socialism"; if you mean leninism, then it's very differnt

"How would you say they are different?"

Why don't you answer that question also. I'm sure you've read a little bit about AS by now, right?

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Do you get a prescription for your toothpaste? Your deodorant? Your soap? Of course not. IDIOT. But the question is, have you ever been prescribed anything, ever? Do you take a daily prescription drug? Does your insurance cover it? Who do you work for? Who pays for your prescriptions? Answer all these questions and expose yourself as the ignorant hypocrite I am quite certain you are. And what does your girlfriend think about this brave stance Rush told you to take? Right, you don't have one.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

LOL stupid troll, stop making my fellow supporters of OWS look like a bunch of loudmouthed arrogant name calling losers. For the amusement of everyone else here, I will respond to your absurd post.

I do not get a prescription for toothpaste, soap or deodorant. I don't see how it matters. The costs of these things affect me just like the costs of getting birth control affects women.

Thank you for name calling, the first person to resort to name calling officially has no argument by default lol

I have been prescribed one thing that I can think of, an off-the-shelf fluoride tooth gel. I pay for it out of pocket as I have no insurance and don't want others to pay for it.

I don't use it daily. Again, I don't see how it matters.

I work for myself, doing work for other people. As before, I pay for my prescription.

Why are you certain I am a hypocrite? What did I say? Your predetermined conclusions are neither scientific nor rational. I am homosexual and do not have a girlfriend. Your insinuation that I might without finding out is rather insulting. I don't listen to the Rush Limbaugh show.

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Health insurance covers most prescriptions, but you missed my point completely, it was over your head. You work for yourself, doing work for other people, and don't have insurance? Clearly you're a genius.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Okay, I am wondering how crow tastes. You gonna finish that? ;)

Sorry to have hurt your feelings and make you get all emotional here, but you did call me a name first. It's just what happens when you randomly try to insult strangers.

"I will expose you as the hypocrite you are" LOL how did that work out? This is hilarious, I'll have to email a link to my friends... but I don't want to feed the troll... hmmm

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You know who you really are.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah, I do know my identity... I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I sure know WHAT you are! LOL! Bye bye thrasy, go make another account now so you can keep failing at making OWS supporters look like sniveling name-calling whiners.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Wrapped up tight in your anonymity you are a condescending genius.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

lol!

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

By the looks of this post, it would seem improvements in mental health care are in order.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Juan's already said he's pretty keen on getting some public provided electroshock, so no worries.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

All we need now is internet tasers!!!!

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah, I avoid answering the question when I am faced with better arguments also.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You didn't offer a valid argument.

Just an absurd distortion.

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

It is an argument! I am not saying we should not cover these things, I am saying why don't we? They are considered modern necessities.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

i think about them

depends on the question

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

JuanFenito is a fake, he is a conservative acting like a lefty just to get more likes so he can counter attack against y'all