The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on March 28, 2008, 06:24:32 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3074894
The off-the-wall primitive doesn't say so, but reading between the lines, that's what the off-the-wall primitive is really saying; he's disappointed Wal-Mart wouldn't hire him.
Anyway.
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 06:50 PM
Original message
Wal-Mart.we're greedy, we suck and there's nothing you can do about it
Deborah Shank.. First she gets brain damage in a car wreck. Then she gets a whole $400,000 for her trouble, then Wal-Mart, her "employer" (more like "owner") sues her to get back the insurance money they had to pay for her medical expenses. They lose, and appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme court who in their infinite wisdom sides with Wal-Mart, cause they might miss that four hundred grand. So now Wal-Mart and The U.S. Government have screwed this lady financially for the rest of her life. Is that enough? Nope. Might as well take her son in a useless, pointless, war too... :mad:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/25/wal-mart-sues-...
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. I agree that's obscene greed, but.....I've heard that is a std. practice for insurance companies to do. Since WM is a self insured co. my guess is they were just following the std.
I lay the fault at the feet of Deborah's lawyer who won the case for her in court. He/she SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that would happen and should have written the complaint with that in mind.
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's also std practice for an insurance company to deny care prescribed by a doctor. That doesn't make it right. And Wal-Mart could have just let it go when they lost the ******* case, it's not like they need the money. The insurance companies, Wal-Mart, and the Supreme court can go **** themselves. And so can the Stockholders who demand so much profit that they are willing to make money off of other peoples misery.
Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I'll bet the pension funds for the dysmenopausal Kansas schoolteacher and the mike_c primitive are heavily invested in Wal-Mart; surely the off-the-wall primitive doesn't want his fellow primitives to be deprived a comfortable and affluent retirement.
ocknation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Furthermore, that money was meant for her future care
it's not as though she moved to Riveria. She's penniless now. How is she supposed to survive?
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's why we all need to buy Wal-Mart stock.
Before you slam me, please read what I have to say.
Wal-Mart officials always try to lay their greed at the feet of 'stockholders'. If enough of us who oppose this buy stock...even ONE share...they have to allow us into stockholders meetings where we could then stand up and say 'not THIS stockholder'. Tell them that profits are not even close to being 1/100th as important as the people who work for them, the people they trample on in the communities they invade.
By being 'stockholders' we'd have a much better chance of changing the way they work.
islandmkl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. that's a standard....
my ass...let me write the standards for my industry, then....
the only standard involved is legal 'denial of claim'...which the insurance industry typically uses...oh, about 90+% of the time on health issues, first time around....many people do not re-file claims, because they think 'i guess i'm not covered for THAT...'
good odds for the insurance company...knock 3 or 4 o5 or more% right off the top....
sounds like Wal-Marts executive/accounting department is not keeping in touch with their p.r./marketing department...
probably too busy dealing with the Chinese...
Now, don't be slamming the socialist paradise of the workers and peasants with free medical care for all.
Mao's a primitive hero, remember.
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Can we get really grassroots on this one and really stop buying at Walmart.. I mean really.. They did not need that money.. and if they are the "community" store that they always tout on commercial ads.. they should have been leading the way in setting up a fund for this woman so her medical/ living costs would be taken care of. I think this story needs to find its way into everybody's e-mail box.. I think we can do this..
As a long-time observer of the M.O.s of the primitives, I don't think the off-the-wall primitive's really upset with this case; I suspect rather more that because Wal-Mart wouldn't hire him, he picked up the first story that made Wal-Mart look bad.
Stupid primitives. Always trying to disguise selfish motives with a facade of nobility.
-
Like most employee health plans, Wal-Mart’s gives it the right to recover medical expenses for accident-related care if a worker also collects damages in an injury suit.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/25/wal-mart-sues-scotus-screws-brain-damaged-woman/
ocknation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-28-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Furthermore, that money was meant for her future care
it's not as though she moved to Riveria. She's penniless now. How is she supposed to survive?
Gert??
-
Wal-Mart officials always try to lay their greed at the feet of 'stockholders'. If enough of us who oppose this buy stock...even ONE share...they have to allow us into stockholders meetings where we could then stand up and say 'not THIS stockholder'. Tell them that profits are not even close to being 1/100th as important as the people who work for them, the people they trample on in the communities they invade.
You know, I keep missing the news reports about Wal Mart putting guns to people's heads and forcing them to work there. And the first duty of any publicly held company is to MAKE PROFITS and INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE.
As far as their little fantasy, it just wouldn't happen. Assuming they could get in the door at the shareholder meeting (big if), they would never have the chance to speak or even be disruptive.
-
Everyone knows that only the state can deny benefits and take money away from citizens, SHEEEEEESH!
-
Like most employee health plans, Wal-Mart’s gives it the right to recover medical expenses for accident-related care if a worker also collects damages in an injury suit.
OOPS! Should have read the fine print....the law was on Wal-Mart's side in this one.
-
They lose, and appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme court who in their infinite wisdom sides with Wal-Mart, cause they might miss that four hundred grand.
Since when are matters of the law supposed to be judged by convenience.
"Yes, your honor, my client did steal the money, but it's not like the victim would miss it very much."
"Yeah, I killed lots of people from DU, but nobody likes them anyway."
-
They lose, and appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme court who in their infinite wisdom sides with Wal-Mart, cause they might miss that four hundred grand.
Since when are matters of the law supposed to be judged by convenience.
"Yes, your honor, my client did steal the money, but it's not like the victim would miss it very much."
"Yeah, I killed lots of people from DU, but nobody likes them anyway."
Ah, the second sentiment would get you cleared of all charges, if I was on that jury . . . :-)
-
There is a reason Wal-Mart won by the SCOTUS, and it isn't because of the VRWC :whatever:
-
Doesn't the money recovered go back into the healthcare fund and not the pockets of the shareholders? Shouldn't the DUmmies be praising that since they bitched about Wal mart not offering health coverage?
-
Doesn't the money recovered go back into the healthcare fund and not the pockets of the shareholders? Shouldn't the DUmmies be praising that since they bitched about Wal mart not offering health coverage?
Great point. She was only entitled to dip into that fund if she couldn't have her care covered otherwise. She received the healthcare payments she received because she signed up for those reimbursement terms.
There are hinkies going on in this case for three reasons: The couple doesn't have all of the settlement money anymore (around $100K). The husband divorced the wife so she would be eligible for Medicaid. And there's an attorney in the picture. So what or who paid for her care that the settlement was supposed to reimburse? What did they pay the lawyer? And how in God's name did she get Medicaid, even if her husband divorced her, if someone had all those assets? Does Medicare know?
So this is all a real tear-jerker until you figure that someone is playing a game with the system.