Brain Damaged Woman at Center of Wal-Mart Suit

[ivor]

I'll never spend another nickel at a Wal-Mart.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[Sibling Chatty]

Ah, but they're just "protecting their interests."

Sad truth is, other companies do it to. As long as your health coverage is employer-based, the company PROBABLY has recourse to take away any awarded amount of money equal (or even above) the amount their insurance paid out for your care.

And they'll exercise that option, and hope nobody yells about it. WalMart's the KNOWN devil, but most corporations that actually "self-insure", and many others can choose (and actually DO choose) to do exactly the same thing.

It's called 'subrogation', and they'll go after every dime you're awarded, even if it's more than they've paid out. why? because they'll get it. The rich bastards that own the government (same rich bastards that own the insurance companies, and walMart, and so on and so on...)gave them the means to do so.

Heaven forfend that the insurance companies be out one damn dime, if they can get it back by hook or crook.

[pieces o nine]

I'd heard about this some time ago, and am glad that her case is [finally] getting Walmart some big, bad publicity. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical.

Keith Olbermann (whom I must now watch on teh interwebs as Comcast shifted MSNBC to 'premium' packages, whilst ensuring that Faux continues its unabated broadcast to every television in the US) has taken up her cause and has vowed to keep flogging them unmercifully every night until they make it right. (Could make for some interesting sposorhsip mini dramas.)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Sadly, this hardly surprises me one bit.

WalMart has repeatedly demonstrated that the ONLY thing they care about is profit.

They use predatory practices to drive out the local competition, then raise their prices.

Seen time and time again.

One of the McD's I helped build in a small town in Ok, the WalMart moved a short distance to a new SuperCenter.  The old store's closed and producing zero revenue.   Walmart leased that land, and will hold on to it for at least a year, with ZERO income for the landowner and VERY LITTLE in the way of taxes for the city/county it's in-- nothing like an open retail store would produce.

Walmart KNOWS that competition close by is worse than spending a bit to hold on to the property for a year or two-- so they hold on to it with the doors closed.

Another tactic they routinely do, is move into an area JUST OUTSIDE the township, so they don't pay ANY city taxes, and deliberately sell their "loss-leader" products at a loss-- like milk, eggs, bread, etc.  The very staple that mom & pop grocery stores use to keep solvent.

Then in a year or so, when all the competition has closed shop, the raise the prices on those to a nice profit level. 

If a city moves to extend it's borders, to include WalMart, they just close the doors, move farther out, and keep that old store for a year or three-- STILL generating no taxes.   If the city extends again, WalMart may leave the area entirely, usually with a huge fanfair.   Since they had previously driven all the local shops out, the locals are left with zero place to purchase anything, and the city usually capitulates and lest WalMart stay, tax-free, or tax-reduced.

"Evil" is not quite right-- "SELFISH" is better.    Some day, in the Dictionary of the Future, you'll see under "Selfish-- c.f. WalMart business style"

[pieces o nine]

I usually quite like Penn & Teller, but their "Walmart is not evil" Bullshit spot was wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.

Of course, for the strict laissez faire approach, it's all part of the dog-eat-dog 'free market'. You are 'free' to shop somewhere else if you don't like them (even if there *is* nowehere else left in your community) and you are 'free' to move -- or lose -- your business if you don't want to bark with the big dogs.

Again, legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical.

[Swatopluk]

Over here "price dumping" (sell something below self-cost in order to kill the competition) is illegal.
That's one reason why Mal Wart doesn't get a foot in the door over here. Iirc they tried that method, got immediately in conflict with the law and chose to leave shortly after. They were also obviously not expecting that German customers are different from US customers* and that it may be useful to change the presentation style accordingly**. They also have to learn still that greeters are potent customer repellants here

*to name just one example: bagging of the purchases by shop workers. A German customer not familiar with that will for a moment assume that someone tries to steal the stuff while he is distracted by paying the bill.

**unlike Microsoft they don't have a monopoly that can enforce American style. I hate those "think for the user" defaults in Word that I am regularly unable to override.

[Sibling Chatty]

Lest we US voters forget: Hillary Clinton was on the WalMart Board of Directors for 5 years.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

**unlike Microsoft they don't have a monopoly that can enforce American style. I hate those "think for the user" defaults in Word that I am regularly unable to override.

I usually turn off all the "wizards" in Word as quickly as I can find them.

I'm with you... don't need software telling me what to do.

[Swatopluk]

The problem is to find them. eben with the "Help" function I have not yet found all of them and some seem to jump out of the box again unasked regularly.

[ivor]

Thank you for your message.

Dear Darren,

When our associates, or their family members, suffer injuries or medical conditions which are the responsibility of others, our plan steps in to pay covered medical expenses so the associate and their families don't have to worry about their bills or have large out-of-pocket expenses. It is only after the associate or their family member receives a monetary payment from the responsible party, that our health plan becomes entitled to reimbursement. 

While the Shanks case involves a tragic situation, our responsibility is to follow the provisions of the plan which governs the health benefits of our associates. These plans are funded by associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes and benefits from the plan. The Supreme Court's denial of the Shank appeal concludes all litigation. The Court ruled that the benefit plan was entitled to the funds in the trust account, which was about $280,000, which is all it requested.

Thank you,Wal-Mart Customer Relations   

For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email. 

----Your Original Comments Were---- Country: USA; Comments: I saw this story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview. You may get that money but you'll never get any more from me.

My reply was:

I rule that you'll never get another nickel from me. 

We need a Wal-Mart Busters bumper sticker.

[Sibling Chatty]

Most of this at Cafe Press

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/Wal+Mart/-/source_searchBox/x_20/y_13

You can narrow it down to anti-, sucks, and boycott.

[ivor]

If Wal-Mart wanted the money so bad they should have sued the trucking company for it instead of leaving it to the poor family.  The firm that represented the family got most of the money. This should all be against the law.

[Sibling Chatty]

Agreed.

(I called the Texas Attorney General a "Pig Inna Trough" insurance industry shill last week. Ummm, to his face. A similar case, but for under $10,000, was the reason why. Wal-Mart again...)

The insurance companies are some of the biggest offenders in every sort of financial abuse around. Talk about NEEDING regulation...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Agreed.

(I called the Texas Attorney General a "Pig Inna Trough" insurance industry shill last week. Ummm, to his face. A similar case, but for under $10,000, was the reason why. Wal-Mart again...)

The insurance companies are some of the biggest offenders in every sort of financial abuse around. Talk about NEEDING regulation...

Yup.

Insurance and HMO's are one of the CLEAR cases where government action is a GOOD thing.

Who better to regulate SELFISH behavior than our government?

*bleah*

Insurance is just profiteering from people's misery.

Just like HMO's are....

A pox on'em both...

[pieces o nine]

I rule that you'll never get another nickel from me. 

We need a Wal-Mart Busters bumper sticker.

With an "evil" smiley face! Yes! Like this:


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/Saltlick/WalMart_EvilSmiley.jpg