ricecake

You're not paying, you're clicking a button to have Amazon give $5 of their money to the driver.
They could have just given a bunch of drivers $5, but then they wouldn't make a bunch of customers think Amazon isn't too bad.

So you should push the button, but also pointedly continue to think badly of Amazon.

But it doesn't cost you anything. Worst case scenario is the same as not doing it.

Sure. And if Amazon ever asks us to tip delivery people with our own money we shouldn't because that's bullshit.

That being bullshit has no bearing on if it's good to click the button that gives someone $5 at no expense to you out of their employers pocket.

If a counter service place has a button I could press to give them $5 of the stores money, I would press it every time. That's not a tip because it's not my money supplementing the employees wages.

I'd actually say it's significantly more political than most. It's a philosophy about the nature of political and economic power.

It's hard to get more political than a political philosophy. About the only way is to find one whose proponents are particularly debate-y and prone to infighting, and fond of byzantine governing arrangements to avoid entrenched or coercive positions of power.

Anarchism is typically focused on opposition to coercive or involuntary ruling arrangements. It's beenpoliticized as being in favor of chaos by people on the powerful end of said arrangements.
Because they're against hierarchy, anarchist social arrangements typically require much more political involvement than others.

Oh God no, then it's actually me paying the money, which makes it an actual tip.
If Amazon asks if they should pay someone more, the answer is always yes.

Anarchism is literally a political philosophy. It's profoundly political.

No, it's terror. It's just that that isn't always the negative we've tended to think it is.

Typically we've been citizens in a country on the "power" side of the dynamic, so using terror like that meant using it on us, and so we learned that it's bad.

This time we're on the other side of the power dynamic, so it's seemingly.... Good.

The bad thing being good creates cognitive dissonance.

slippery slope fallacy

Clicking a button that gives someone money at no expense to you isn't causing the issue you're worried about, it's at worst symptomatic of the broken system that might lead to your concern.

I mean, 100% the drivers should be being paid more and the entire system is fundamentally broken.

In the here and now though, where I can't do anything to fix anything even if I entirely stop using Amazon forever right this moment, giving someone a random $5 that they wouldn't otherwise have is a good thing.

I'm not sure I can agree that insurance is the easiest way. The other, more sane, systems require the same amount of administrative overhead at worst, function the same way, cost less, and are vastly easier to comprehend and predict.

Insurance without the profit motive is one of the universal healthcare schemes. It's the industry part of the insurance industry that's problematic, and the medical insurance industry in particular because with other insurance types, you can usually pause and be a rational actor. Medical situations often don't give you that option, and sometimes you don't even get to pick the things you're supposed to be rational about. Without the ability to choose, caveats and conditions just make insurance bankruptcy pachinko.

They're both bad, but at least the hospital provides a service for its money. The insurance company makes all of its money finding ways to not pay for services someone else provides.

First, because I'm not naive and know that CEOs don't get large bonuses and stock grants for doing stuff like that, particularly not in the US health insurance industry.
Second, we know that since he started there they began programs like using AI in a fashion that had a preposterously high denial rate, and actively hurt elderly people.
this case, and others like it continued to happen during his tenure.
Finally, a company wouldn't do a program like that without mentioning it, since it would clearly make them a more appealing insurer.

Even if he didn't put the policies in place, he's still responsible for the conduct of the company under his supervision, and there's no indication he did anything other than act like what you would expect from an insurance company CEO. Maximizing profits by denying healthcare.