u/Amazing_Name_9264

Everything is ok (I think!) and thank God it wasn't a big deal. I've never been to the ER on my private insurance, so this experience was my first time.

I had a painful ear infection a little while ago, and it was on a weekend, so my primary care doctor wasn't available.

My health insurance company provides a 24/hour nurse line (thank God for that, it's quite helpful), so I gave them a call to inquire about what I should do. The nurse recommended I go to the ER and sent me a list of in-network ER providers.

I had to pay $75 out of pocket, which sucked, but is standard with my insurance. But I couldn't help but think about this: in-network ER providers?! That means there are out-of-network ER providers!

What if I had been bleeding out on the floor? Or what if, God forbid, something like that happens to me in the future? I have to look for my list of in-network ER providers so I don't become financially ruined! Thankfully I've saved the list to my phone. This system is straight out of a dystopian novel.

There should be no such thing as health insurance networks, but if there are going to be in the meantime, at the least it should be illegal to have ER care be part of the health insurance network system.

Do I like Florida Georgia Line and Luke Combs songs more than Johnny Cash songs? Yes, generally a lot more. Do I think that makes FGL and Luke Combs better? Better for me, sure, but even I know all heads must bow to the legends of country. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton, and the many other country legends who are less famous (like Conway Twitty) are all people I hold in high esteem. I look up to them.

I think Pop Country is an esteemed genre, but even if one is to think my music taste is "simple, mainstream, corporate garbage" that doesn't mean pop country is a threat to the traditional way of doing country music. To this day people listen to and create classical music, and I'm sure people will always listen to and create traditional country music.

Also, music always changes. Dolly Parton and Conway Twitty embraced a more pop sounding country music at one point too. Not how it sounds now, but still. Country in the 1800s can and has evolved differently in the 1900s and 2000s. But traditional country music still exists and is still made. Pop country fans like myself are not a disgrace or a threat to traditional country music being made.

Last but not least, I still listen to traditional country music. I don't listen to much of it, but I do listen to some of it.

I love this song.

I am going to share the basis of how my healthcare plan works. I'm far away from being old enough to qualify for Medicare, and this is the basics of how my healthcare plan currently works. You will see how sub-par it is compared to Medicare:

- I have to stay in-network to receive insurance benefits, meaning I must go to a healthcare provider that accepts my insurance. If I don't, I have to pay completely out of pocket. This doesn't apply to emergency rooms thank God.

- My health insurance is tied to the company I work for. A portion of my check goes to my insurance.

- After I meet my deductible, my insurance pays 70% of my covered in-network healthcare costs, and I pay the other 30%. However, I have an out-of-pocket maximum, so I only have to keep paying my 30% share until I reach that out-of-pocket limit. After I reach my out-of-pocket maximum, my insurance pays 100% of my covered in-network care for the rest of the plan year.

- Healthcare procedures in the US often cost a lot of money, even with insurance. But the out-of-pocket maximum helps with this a bit.

- My plan is a PPO, meaning I can see a wide range of doctors and specialists without needing a referral. I also have a primary care doctor.

- All insurance companies, including mine, are liable to deny claims. This is one of my biggest fears when using medical services. Estimates show that insurance companies in the US deny ~20% of medical claims. Medical procedures can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars without insurance, so it's very bad to have medical claims denied.

This is of course not the only type of healthcare plan that Americans have, but it's a common form of it. My sub-par healthcare plan is a good reason to support Medicare for All. I don't have the worst health insurance and I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining, but I would be so much better off with Medicare for All, as would most Americans.

Hello. I'm a US Citizen, and I support and advocate for universal healthcare. I have learned about how many of the Social Democracies operate their universal healthcare system, and the Bismarck system is my favorite from my outside perspective. But while I understand some of the economics behind it, I don't know what it's like to actually experience your healthcare on a day to day basis.

I figured I would share the basis of how my healthcare plan works, and you could tell me what you think of it and how it compares to yours. The general overview of my healthcare plan is as follows:

- I have to stay in-network to receive insurance benefits, meaning I must go to a healthcare provider that accepts my insurance. If I don't, I have to pay completely out of pocket. This doesn't apply to emergency rooms.

- My health insurance is tied to the company I work for. A portion of my check goes to my insurance.

- After I meet my deductible, my insurance pays 70% of my covered in-network healthcare costs, and I pay the other 30%. However, I have an out-of-pocket maximum, so I only have to keep paying my 30% share until I reach that out-of-pocket limit. After I reach my out-of-pocket maximum, my insurance pays 100% of my covered in-network care for the rest of the plan year.

- Healthcare procedures in the US often cost a lot of money, even with insurance. But the out-of-pocket maximum helps with this a bit.

- My plan is a PPO, meaning I can see a wide range of doctors and specialists without needing a referral. I also have a primary care doctor.

- All insurance companies, including mine, are liable to deny claims. This is one of my biggest fears when using medical services. Estimates show that insurance companies in the US deny ~20% of medical claims. Medical procedures can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars without insurance, so it's very bad to have medical claims denied.

- This is of course not the only type of healthcare plan that Americans have, this is simply my healthcare plan, but it is a quite common plan to have in the US, at least to my understanding.

Thanks and I look forward to your replies.

Sorry for reposting this again, I thought I put text in the description but it didn't show up for some reason.

I hope people aren't gullible enough to fall for this. He keeps putting out the football and for some reason, some people keep running to kick it. Just like he promised DOGE checks that never came.

Of course, no amount of money is worth voting for fascists. It's just shocking he keeps coming out with the same con over and over again.

I have seen a small number of people on this sub claim Egoism is anti-ideology.

Perhaps I'm using a different definition of ideology, but the definition of ideology I use is: a systematic set of ideas or principles that someone interprets the world with and guides their conduct.

Under this definition, egoism (and oneness) is an ideology.

If you use another definition of ideology, which definition do you use and why?

Don’t serve ideologies, serve the ego, constantly question your values, these opinions also form the basis of an ideology.

My understanding of Stirner is that ideologies are not bad, and they can be useful. It's when we become possessed and/or slaves to ideology(ies) that it becomes bad. If you think I'm wrong or right about this, please let me know.

Everyone I have ever seen claim they aren't political goes on to describe a list of political ideas they have. Similarly, everyone I have ever seen claim to be anti-ideology goes on to describe their ideology.

If you've ever debated with me on here, you may have seen me twist myself into a pretzel trying to justify why I think one thing is ok, but another thing isn't ok. For example, one of the best challenges I've had is why I think killing an animal is ok, but kicking an animal isn't ok.

In light of these recent discussions, I think I've finally found the best way to describe why I'm not a vegan.

I believe moral logic can be useful and good. But as I believe there is no objective morality, there is no perfect moral logic. In my opinion, at least. So while I value moral logic, it isn't the prime driver of my moral framework and decision making. My conscience is the driver of my moral framework and decision making, and my conscience is why I'm not a vegan. My conscience is against some farming and hunting practices, but overall my conscience isn't bothered by killing and eating animals, so I kill and eat animals.

But what about people who justify doing horrible things by saying it sits right with their conscience? What about a murderer or rapist who claims that killing or assaulting someone feels morally right to them? My response is simple: I don't agree with them, and I don't support what they're doing. Why? Because it doesn't sit right with my conscience.

If I see someone harming an innocent person, I don't care what the perpetrator's conscience tells them. If I can intervene, I will. Otherwise, I'll call the police. Regardless of what the perpetrator's conscience tells them.

To reiterate, on some issues I can provide a morally logical justification for my position. For example, I think certain farming practices are wrong. I can argue that it is better to give animals more space and allow them better living conditions, and I don't see that as contradictory to believing that killing animals for food is morally acceptable in the first place.

An example of where I cannot provide moral logic: If I see a person kicking a deer, even though I have no morally logical reasons to stop them (since I'm fine with shooting deer), I still feel that it is my moral obligation to stop that person from kicking the deer. Why? Because kicking a deer feels wrong my conscience. Whereas shooting a deer feels right on my conscience. Why? Because that's how my conscience works.

I don't believe I need a logical moral argument for every single moral judgment I make. At the end of the day, since I believe morality isn't objective, then all moral decisions come down to human values, preferences, judgments, and conscience. I admit that I don't have a logically defensible moral argument behind every opinion I hold, but I also don't think that I need one.

I try to treat people well. I could logically justify that using something like the Golden Rule, but that's not actually why I try to be good to people. I do it because being good to people feels right to my conscience. My appreciation of the Golden Rule or my interest in moral philosophy isn't what motivates me to be good people, my conscience is the motivator.

My point is, I don't have logic behind every moral decision, and everything I do boils down to:

1. Do I want to do it?

2. Does it sit right on my conscience?

If the answer is yes to both of these things, then I'll do something. If the answer is no to one or both of these things, then I won't do something.

My position isn't that the conscience makes an action objectively right or wrong. It's that my conscience is what ultimately determines the moral judgments I make. Yes, moral reasoning can help explain and refine moral judgments, but I don't believe every moral judgment needs to be reducible to a perfectly logical principle. My conscience informs me of this.

Gender and money are two of the best examples to use when explaining what spooks are to people.

Gender is a social construct/spook that is about the roles and behaviors people assign to themselves pertaining to how they think they should act as a man or woman. This is of course true for both cis people and trans people.

Just like many other spooks/social constructs, there is nothing wrong with gender, and nothing wrong with living by gender norms you set for yourself. As a heterosexual cis man, I set my own gender roles in a way you might expect. I wouldn't wear high heels because I don't perceive that as aligning with my gender identity. Of course, there are men who wear high heels. In fact, high heels were originally worn by men, proving how much of a social construct gender really is.

Gender, like other social constructs, only becomes a problem when people become possessed by it. Think of people that become hyper obsessed with being "alpha males" or "trad wives." They become so obsessed with living up to arbitrary gender norms that they become mentally stressed about trying to fit into their gender roles "correctly." Sometimes it even leads to them harming their bodies in the pursuit of their obsessions. It's their right to live how they choose, but it's obvious that becoming possessed by gender is bad for people.

It is rare to meet a person possessed by gender norms that is overall happy in their life. How could one be? Being possessed by something as arbitrary as gender is going to inevitably lead to madness.

Gender norms should be taken a la carte and decided by each individual.

Lastly, gender doesn't work for everyone. There are people that have no interest in gender norms and that have no purpose for gender. This means they have no need to partake in the spook of gender, and the fact humans can decide to not partake in gender is all the more proof it's a spook.

I know this post isn't going to be received well because I know how Egoists and Stirner view religion. But I don't mind negative feedback, and I hope you'll at least find this post interesting.

To start, spooks are not bad, it's being possessed by spooks that is a bad thing. Spooks are usually social constructs, and even though I support mutual credit instead of traditional money, traditional money is a good example of a social construct that Stirner supported, but something that he wasn't possessed by.

I fully agree that I shouldn't be possessed by the social constructs that I utilize, but with one exception: my Christianity. I am indeed "possessed" by my Christianity in a way that I'm sure Stirner would have criticized. But I'm also not devoted to all of Stirner's opinions (that would violate my egoism and I'm sure he wouldn't want that anyways). Anyways, I have my philosophy of Christian Egoism that is probably seen as contradictory by most egoists, but not by me.

My ego is capable of choosing its own subordination. I choose to belong to Christianity, and therefore my belonging to Christianity is not a defeat of my ego but an act of my ego. As St. Paul said, I am a slave to Jesus Christ. Or at least, I want to be a slave to my understanding of Christ.

The greatest act of fulfilling my ego is being possessed by the greatest social construct of all time. A social construct I believe to be both transcendent of all other social constructs, and nevertheless still a social construct. I know how to fulfill the wants of my ego better than anyone else does.

I've never considered debating my religious views because I know I'd be asked for proof of Christianity, and to that I would say my ego informs me of its validity. That's all I have, and all I need. If that answer isn't sufficient to someone, no problem. They don't have to believe the same things I do.

This is a brief overview of my philosophy of Christian Egoism.

I used to not believe in evolution, and it was upon doing research into it that I discovered evolution is in fact true. And that humans are a type of Great Ape. Discovering that I am an ape and part of the animal kingdom was one of the most wonderful things that has ever happened to me.

As members of the ape family, my model of Rational Specieist Carnism places special protections and extends various human rights to apes.

Chimps and bonobos are our closest related cousins in the animal kingdom, and other apes are also very closely related to us. This has been proven with DNA tests and phylogeny.

Apes are more important than any other species, including a hypothetical alien species, because we humans are in the ape family.

That means I think people should be punished for eating ape meat (unless they are starving and absolutely have to), and for any unnecessary exploitation of apes. I think it's ok to exploit non-human apes when it comes to using them for scientific research. But it must be done as humanely as possible and only for extremely necessary reasons, such as trying to cure cancer. However, this is also my criteria for all other forms of animal research, not just research done on apes.

I'm fine with zoos, and I enjoy most of them, but I am largely against apes being kept in zoos unless they cannot survive in the wild. This means I think most apes should not be kept in zoos.

Other than for the scientific reasons that I just gave regarding DNA and phylogeny, there is a spiritual aspect of why I value apes more than other animals. I'm a Christian so I believe all humans have souls. Also, I believe Jesus Christ walked the Earth as a human, and as I said, all humans are apes. Therefore I believe even non-human apes, such as chimpanzees, share a special divine creation with us, and second only to humans, are the only other creatures made in the image of God.

There is a common religious debate over whether non-human animals on earth go to Heaven, or if completely new ones are created in heaven. Humans are not believed to be re-created in heaven, rather it's believed our immortal souls ascend into heaven.

In my opinion, non-human apes are uniquely likely to possess souls unlike other animals, because humans are in the ape family. Therefore non-human apes are likely to not simply be re-created in heaven, but rather they will likely have their earthy immortal souls ascend into heaven, just like humans.

Thus, while I affirm their secondary importance to humans, I think their probable possession of souls is a valid reason to elevate them above all other animals and consider them likely to transcend into Heaven with their earthly immortal souls.

Sorry for finishing off my logic with religious reasons, as I know many people aren't religious and/or don't share my religious beliefs, but I wanted to include it since it's part of my philosophy of Rational Specieist Carnism.

We all see anti-AI content saying how AI kills creativity. I'm going to argue against that using myself as an example.

I like to write science fiction stories. I don't have AI write the stories for me, rather this is how it's helped me become a better writer:

- It has helped me understand complex science topics that would normally take me months to learn reading articles. And even then I wouldn't understand them as well as I do now when AI explains them to me simply. Seriously, this benefit of AI gets overlooked way too much. I know more about gene editing, cosmology, philosophy, politics, and other topics than I ever have previously in my life.

- Understanding more about science, politics, and philosophy helps me be more creative, not less

- AI is able to function as an editor, something I can't afford as a fiction writer who is not only never published, but will likely never be recognized. I don't have AI re-write what I've written, I just look to it for suggestions and then make my own edits as I please.

- Reading AI's suggestions has helped me improve my grammar and editing abilities.

I sympathize and am against AI stealing other people's work. But I don't consider training AI models with other people's work to be stealing.

Also, the people who think AI art or books will replace humans fundamentally don't understand the reasons why human art and books are made.

I don't write because I'm good at it. I do intend to publish my works, but I have no expectations that it will get more than 2 clicks and 0 downloads on Amazon. I don't write because I want to make money off of it. I write because I have to, because it brings me so much joy. AI can disappear off of the face of the earth tomorrow or publish 300 million books tomorrow, and either way, I'm still going to write.

And thanks in part to AI, I'm a better author.

My question is: what industries should have some method of guaranteed universal access for people who cannot otherwise afford them?

As an example, when I was a supporter of capitalism I would have said the following are human rights:

- Healthcare

- Housing

- Fresh food and water

What industries do you consider part of human rights?

I was discussing market anarchism with an anarcho communist, and they told me the following.

They said that in their opinion market anarchism is an oxymoron. Because they said in order to keep monopolies from forming, you would need heavy state regulation, and that it would "be a constant arms race of regulation and corruption and eventually end up with most of the same problems of capitalism."

They also said if a system is using money, then it is using a transferable store of wealth. And that inherently makes it easily concentrated and incentivizes people to concentrate it.

In defense of communist planning as a superior method, they said direct communication, as opposed to markets, gives far more nuance and accuracy than supply and demand market signals.

I also mentioned non-profit markets, and they said there is no monetary system that doesn't end up being for profit. And that in order for non profit markets to work, there would need to be a centralized authority.

I gave my own responses, but I'm curious what other market anarchists say to these objections raised to me. Thank you.

I was having a discussion with someone, and I said I would be fine with a single association becoming the sole producer of a particular good, as long as that happens through voluntary choice and the association has no power to prevent others from freely forming competing associations.

However considering large anarchist organizations are made up of free and independent producers, I'm not sure it would qualify as a monopoly since the producers are already independent, any producer would be free to leave, form their own association, or join another one, and the organization itself would have no power to prevent others from competing with it. It doesn't seem to matter to me if many producers decide to freely produce under one banner/logo.

What do you make of this? Do you agree with me that a large scale organization (like the one I just described) isn't a monolopy for the reasons I just mentioned?

Should there always be more than one association making a product? If the association is made up of independent and free producers, then I don't see why that is always necessary, but I'm interested in what other anarchists think.

Also, how do you think large scale anarchist organizations would look under anarchism in general?

I was having a discussion with someone on here, and I said I would be fine with a single association becoming the sole producer of a particular good, as long as that happens through voluntary choice and the association has no power to prevent others from freely forming competing associations.

However considering large anarchist organizations are made up of free and independent producers, I'm not sure it would qualify as a monopoly since the producers are already independent, any producer would be free to leave, form their own association, or join another one, and the organization itself would have no power to prevent others from competing with it. It doesn't seem to matter to me if many producers decide to freely produce under one banner/logo.

What do you make of this? Do you agree with me that a large scale organization (like the one I just described) isn't a monolopy for the reasons I just mentioned?

Should there always be more than one association making a product? If the association is made up of independent and free producers, then I don't see why that is always necessary, but I'm interested in what other anarchists think.

Also, how do you think large scale anarchist organizations would look under communism? I'm more familiar with Mutualist ideas at the moment, so I wanted to discuss this with anarchist communists.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'm an anarchist, but I've been reading various anarchist writings as late. I usually use the Anarchist Library but not always.

One of the biggest frustrations I have with some anarchist writers is their lack of specifics when it comes to their theories of justice. It doesn’t need to be (and shouldn’t be) prescriptive, but there should be specific methods and ideas for how to conduct justice anarchically. The same goes for planning economies and/or doing markets anarchically. It can’t simply be written off as “communities will figure it out,” because that can result in virtually anything and doesn’t necessarily equate to anarchism. Specific methods and ideas that people can adopt, experiment with, and build upon are paramount to actually creating and learning how to do anything. I'm sure there are many anarchists that have written specifics, but I'm still fairly new in my readings.

Overall this is why I want to recommend Gary Chartier. He's a market anarchist, and has, in my opinion, one of the best and most comprehensive theories of anarchist arbitration. I could also make actions post about it, though it would be extremely long.

Even if you disagree with him completely, you won't find yourself having to fill in any blanks yourself about how his theory would work in practice. Regardless of how good and/or feasible you think it is.

Thank you and let me know if you have any suggested readings yourself.