• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    297
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    This claims to be his story. I haven’t verified it, but I have no reason not to believe it. Basically, UHC tortured his mother for years through denial of care, then they did the same to him.

    I would note that he is 26 years old: He likely just aged out of his parents’ health insurance policy, and I would guess that he can’t get decent coverage on his own due to his pre-existing condition.

    Edit: This has since been described as impersonation. While there is certainly a truth to it, it is not the truth.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Because of the ACA (Obamacare) requirements, he can’t be refused or charged more for coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

      Whether that insurance denies claims for treatment, however, is still very much in play. I’ve heard you should ask the names and certification of the person or people responsible for the denial of your claim, in writing. Because a lot of the time it’s an algorithm or an unqualified peon, and the company can get in trouble for that.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 days ago

          I imagine you mean they won’t, and you may be right. But too many people don’t even start trying to fight denials, which is why insurance companies do it. Often it doesn’t take a huge pushback to get them to change, especially if it would expose their corrupt practices. Of course, sometimes they are obdurate, and United Healthcare is one of the worst.

          As for the ACA, it’s still true, at least until Trump takes office.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        19 days ago

        I, too, am curious. But, I read this part of a short story in The Things They Carried, many, many, years ago, and it stuck with me:

        You can tell a true war story by the questions you ask. Somebody tells a story, let’s say, and afterward you ask, “Is it true?” and if the answer matters, you’ve got your answer.

        For example, we’ve all heard this one. Four guys go down a trail. A grenade sails out. One guy jumps on it and takes the blast and saves his three buddies.

        Is it true?

        The answer matters.

        You’d feel cheated if it never happened. Without the grounding reality, it’s just a trite bit of puffery, pure Hollywood, untrue in the way all such stories are untrue. Yet even if it did happen - and maybe it did, anything’s possible even then you know it can’t be true, because a true war story does not depend upon that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth. For example: Four guys go down a trail. A grenade sails out. One guy jumps on it and takes the blast, but it’s a killer grenade and everybody dies anyway. Before they die, though, one of the dead guys says, “The fuck you do that for?” and the jumper says, “Story of my life, man,” and the other guy starts to smile but he’s dead.

        That’s a true story that never happened.

        I don’t know that this article was written by Luigi Mangione, or if Luigi Mangione killed the CEO. But, I do know that this story is true, even if it never happened.

        • affiliate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          i think there are two different meanings of truth here, and it sounds like one of them might be referring to aletheia. from the wikipedia page:

          Heidegger gave an etymological analysis of aletheia and drew out an understanding of the term as “unconcealedness”.[6] Thus, aletheia is distinct from conceptions of truth understood as statements which accurately describe a state of affairs (correspondence), or statements which fit properly into a system taken as a whole (coherence). Instead, Heidegger focused on the elucidation of how an ontological “world” is disclosed, or opened up, in which things are made intelligible for human beings in the first place, as part of a holistically structured background of meaning.

          edit: just want to say that i agree with the message, and i think it’s true that things don’t have to actually happened in order to be true in some sense. i think the term aletheia can be helpful for making the distinction and wanted to share it for that reason

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      19 days ago

      I really hope this is genuine, because whoever wrote this did an amazing job of conveying their feelings and experiences in a very short piece of literature.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        This does seem very amateurish (Gladiator, Greenday, “smile through the pain”). These are emo tropes. I’d be disappointed to know it’s him.