Originally Posted By jonvn You know, you hear stories about walmart treating their employees badly and that they don't have a health plan. Well this story proves them wrong. They do have a health plan. I think that is great, and while I never shop there now, I'm going to start tomorrow and buy everything I can from this great company. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/ 25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By RC Collins If you get a job somewhere, whatever it is, no matter what kind of employee you are, it should guarantee you a nice house, great medical care, and all of the high-quality food you want. Oh, and the latest in home entertainment center. Oh, and great childcare from a complete stranger. And don't forget the latest fashions.
Originally Posted By johnno52 My apologies jonvn, knowing your dislike for Walmart, I thought you was serious and didn't read the article before posting. :-( Still right about the ice cubes though!
Originally Posted By jonvn Everyone should read the story at the link, for just one more reason to hate walmart and never, ever never ever ever shop there. Ever.
Originally Posted By hightp Make no mistake, I think Walmart is scum for trying to recover this woman's health benefits, but I'm just as concerned that the Lawyers took 58% of her reward. I would think that lawyer's fees should be paid for by the loosing party in order for the whole award to go to the aggrieved party.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy What about the trucking company that was responsible for the injury in the first place, and ultimately had to be sued to collect damages? I guess my question is, what retailer should Americans shop at if you are going to support one that has an iron clad health plan? Do we stop shopping altogether? << Make no mistake, I think Walmart is scum for trying to recover this woman's health benefits >> Wal-Mart provided all of the health benefits in the first place.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 How is Wal Mart the bad guy in this. This is the huge problem with Americans, we don't want to take responsibility for our actions and always want to blame the Corporations because they have "plenty of money" She had a contract which stated if she won anything from a lawsuit, the costs of medical care would be recouped. They are just following the terms of the contract SHE signed... Start taking responsibility for your actions Americans....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << They are just following the terms of the contract SHE signed... >> Did she have a choice to sign any other contract? If there was no choice, then you could certainly demonize a company for including this sort of clause in their health plan. I don't have a huge problem with Wal-Mart's actions in this case. They paid out the bulk of the health benefits at the time of the accident. There doesn't seem to be any dispute of how they cared for this woman immediately after she was injured. This whole emotional mess is the result of the most severe problem with our health care system -- we have an unrealistic expectation that we're going to pay for the enormous costs of maintaining the health of complete vegetables. There is no health care system -- universal coverage or otherwise -- that can shoulder the costs of paying for these sorts of health expenses indefinitely for patients requiring extensive long term care. The expectation that Wal-Mart, or any other provider, should pay for what might amount to 30 years or more of long term health benefits to a severely brain damaged person is unrealistic. It's not pleasant to think this way, but we need to seriously consider euthanasia as a valid option in our society when confronted with these sorts of challenges. Otherwise, someone is always going to be a victim because it is not financially possible to pay these sorts of benefits out to everyone in society that thinks they deserve them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Was it Wal-mart itself paying out the health benefits? Don't they subcontract with an insurance company? Let's just go alphabetical and say Aetna. Doesn't Wal-mart, like most large corporations, choose an insurance carrier (say, Aetna), and then their employees are covered by that company, rather than Wal-mart itself? And wouldn't Wal-mart be giving Aetna lots of customers, who then spread the risk between them; i.e. all paying premiums (either Wal-mart entirely or split with the employee) to Aetna and presumably only some having large payouts due to catastrophic injury? So shouldn't the insurance company be suing this woman rather than Wal-mart? And whether it was the insurance co. or Wal-mart, I wouldn't have a big problem with them collecting the settlement money she got from the trucking company, up to the amount awarded that actually went for care. In other words, if she was awarded 400,000 from the trucking company, and it cost 400,000 for her care, then I don't mind Wal-mart/Aetna recouping that. She's still not out any money - the trucking company (quite rightly) is. If she was awarded 400,000 and her care cost 300,000, then I think they should recoup just the 300,000 (what they paid), and she could keep the rest for pain and suffering. But I thought the whole outrage of the story is that Wal-mart is trying to collect MORE than she kept from the settlement (much of the settlement going to the lawyers). It's like trying to get blood from a stone - she doesn't HAVE it. So her family is scrambling around trying to pay it, in addition to dealing with her severe and ongoing health problems. If anything, they should be trying to recoup some from the lawyers.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What about the trucking company that was responsible for the injury in the first place, and ultimately had to be sued to collect damages?" There was a judgement and they paid it. "How is Wal Mart the bad guy in this." Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it's because a corporation that makes $380 billion a year is trying to pull pennies from one of their disabled workers who lost a son in Iraq? But maybe I'm just crazy. "we don't want to take responsibility for our actions " Her actions? Her actions was that she got into an auto accident and is permanently disabled. And corporations are not responsible for any of their actions? "If there was no choice, then you could certainly demonize a company for including this sort of clause in their health plan." Lots of them do, though. It's one of the false concepts about having medical insurance in this country. This money was going to be used to take care of her, not put her on a yacht.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Was it Wal-mart itself paying out the health benefits? Don't they subcontract with an insurance company? Let's just go alphabetical and say Aetna." Depends if they were self-insured. Many companies do that because it is cheaper, and they just use a company such as Aetna to administer the plan.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The expectation that Wal-Mart, or any other provider, should pay for what might amount to 30 years or more of long term health benefits to a severely brain damaged person is unrealistic>> Ummm, the award money was intended to pay for her long term care. WalMart was not expected to provide this. The health insurance that she purchased paid for her care after being injured, nothing more. But now that they snatched her award away from her, she will now become a burden on the taxpayers. Sweet deal.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But now that they snatched her award away from her, she will now become a burden on the taxpayers. >> I would think that advocate for a universal health care program would contend that it is better to spread these sorts of enormous costs over a larger pool of people, so the tax payers may be in the best position to pay for the risk than a single company. In either case, these sorts of expenses are unaffordable no matter who is paying the bills.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But the taxpayers didn't pay the premiums. It is indeed best to have the widest possible pool of insured, which is why single-payer makes sense, but it has to be both for money going out and money going in.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Big mistake on their part, they have set a precendent that will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not necessarily. I think they reserved the right to do the same thing in the future. In this case (suing her for more than she had), they just made themselves look so bad that it was better for them in the long run to drop it. This poor woman's husband actually had to divorce her because she got slightly more money from Medicare as a single person.
