i'm officially done with walmart

cornnifer

know1 wrote:

I think it's important to note that they did pay out originally. After she received an additional settlement to cover her fees, they sought reimbursement.

After all, she was essentially double-dipping.

double dipping? What, now we're talking about chips and fucking salsa?!

know1

Is Wal-Mart's policy really that much different from any other health insurance policy with regard to this specific situation?

It seems to me it would be pretty common to have a provision whereby if someone receives a settlement to pay medical bills that the employer's insurance has already paid, that the money should be returned to the insurance company.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

double dipping? What, now we're talking about chips and fucking salsa?!

no.
hes refering to the same thing i was refering to in one of my earlier posts (the same post where i corrected your "$300 billion" error). It is a point you have chosen to ignore so far in this thread. And it is the VERY reason Walmart is doing what they are doing:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You do understand the intention of this clause right?

This is not much different from the way standard auto insurance policies are handled. If you are covered for damages in a car crash through your own provider, but SOMEONE ELSE hits you, WHO pays out the damages?

Your provider
or THEIRS?

In almost ALL such cases, either the LIABLE party pays out the damages, or your insurance covers you directly,
but then seeks REPAYMENT from the LIABLE PARTY'S insurer.

That's just how it works.

In this case, Walmart provided the lady with coverage, and they held good on their word.

However, when they found out that not only had they provided this coverage (400+ thousand dollars), but SO HAD THE LIABLE PARTY, obviously they were a bit put off. I'm not saying it isn't heartless, but it certainly makes sense. Walmart covered their employees expenses, even when the incident was something that occured because of another person's liability.

In this case the woman in question actualy received DOUBLE PAYMENT. The better question would be, if the lawsuit disbursement was for REAL DAMAGES (which it was, you don't get lawsuit money just because, its paid out only on assessed REAL DAMAGES incurred) ... so, if this woman already received a payout from the LIABLE party based on real damages, WHY then should Walmart also be on the hook to cover the loss? THE LIABLE PARTY ALREADY COVERED THE COSTS.

Basicaly, the argument you would have to put forth here is that this lady simply deserves to collect double because goddamnit, walmart just doesn't need it, and it sure would be the nice thing to do.

Well hell, i agree with you, it sure would be nice.
But come on now, this is the REAL world.

But i'm sure you find that moraly repugnant.

cornnifer

know1 wrote:

Is Wal-Mart's policy really that much different from any other health insurance policy with regard to this specific situation?

.

Simple answer to that one.

Who gives a fuck.

The fine print in the contract legaly ENABLES walmart to do this. It in no way REQUIRES them to.

Flap your virtual jaws all you want about contracts and policies. You're ignoring the REAL point and feeding human decency to the pigs.

NMyTree

know1 wrote:

Is Wal-Mart's policy really that much different from any other health insurance policy with regard to this specific situation?

It seems to me it would be pretty common to have a provision whereby if someone receives a settlement to pay medical bills that the employer's insurance has already paid, that the money should be returned to the insurance company.

No it is not different. And that's part of the point and problem.

Insurance companies and employers are looking for 1000% profit, here.

It used to be that one would get health benefits through their employer and every paycheck they deducted the money out of one's check. So whether you were ill or currently involved in any health/medical treaments, they got your money as part of the plan. They take the money and invest it to turn a profit from our money, for themselves. Then when one required medical/health attention, the insurance paid for it.

Then insurance companies lobbied and greased the squeaky wheels so they can insert a provision, such as this one; so they can recoup even more money from their insurance plans.

Going by this current concept, I believe each american worker (including this poor woman) are entitled to at least half of the profits the insurance company made, by using our money for their investments. Fair is fair.

Seems like if they're going to use my (our ) money to turn a profit, we should be receiving a healthy percentage of that profit. In reality, we the people are the lenders (banks) and they, the insurance company the borrowers.

So where's our money?

know1

NMyTree wrote:

No it is not different. And that's part of the point and problem.

Insurance companies and employers are looking for 1000% profit, here.

It used to be that one would get health benefits through their employer and every paycheck they deducted the money out of one's check. So whether you were ill or currently involved in any health/medical treaments, they got your money as part of the plan. They take the money and invest it to turn a profit from our money, for themselves. Then when one required medical/health attention, the insurance paid for it.

Then insurance companies lobbied and greased the squeaky wheels so they can insert a provision, such as this one; so they can recoup even more money from their insurance plans.

Going by this current concept, I believe each american worker (including this poor woman) are entitled to at least half of the profits the insurance company made, by using our money for their investments. Fair is fair.

Seems like if they're going to use my (our ) money to turn a profit, we should be receiving a healthy percentage of that profit. In reality, we the people are the lenders (banks) and they, the insurance company the borrowers.

So where's our money?

I think that's a completely separate issue, but I can see your point to some degree even though I disagree with it.

After all, if the company makes a 300 billion dollar profit, you could argue that the employees should be entitled to half of that as well....although in the grand scheme of things they are probably already receiving a large portion through their normal salaries.

I am very much against the concept of health insurance in general. I think it is the root of much of the healthcare cost problem.

As I said, these are all separate issues.

The main point is she received a settlement to pay for something that was already paid for by someone else.

stuckinline

hey, driftingbythestorm, do you check your pm's?


i would just like to thank you for helping me view this issue from another point of view

Biggest Wave

unsung wrote:

I'm convinced the only people who shop at Wal-Mart are the uneducated and/or the anti-Americans.

Or people that can't afford to shop elsewhere.

Biggest Wave

meme wrote:

Or fight for the right to publicly funded health care for everyone.

That will never happen in either of our lifetimes. And if it does it will be a total disaster. Just like everything else this country does.

DriftingByTheStorm

stuckinline wrote:

hey, driftingbythestorm, do you check your pm's?


i would just like to thank you for helping me view this issue from another point of view

lol.
Sorry stuck.
i get distracted sometimes.
sometimes for days, weeks or months.


i just call it as i see it, so no problem.
i dunno about going after the entire settlement or not, unfortunately (or fortunately?) i'm not a lawyer.

stupidcorporatewhore

Biggest Wave wrote:

That shit doesn't bother me.

neither does being a first class scumbag, I guess.

chipboy

I don't think Wal-Mart is at fault here. She was awarded a settlement that should have covered her and them. Blame the greedy lawyers who took more than half or blame the jury for not giving her more to live on. Walmart did nothing wrong. If you are saying they shouldn't recover what she was given because they have lots of money then why shouldn't they just give everyone who becomes disabled that works at Walmart an extra $400k just to be nice.

Biggest Wave

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

neither does being a first class scumbag, I guess.

Not even a little.

g under p

Biggest Wave wrote:

Or people that can't afford to shop elsewhere.

They prey on those without many means in this country. Use foreign labor to cut their costs and increase their already huge profits. They use the best lobbyists to re peel tax laws which gives them largest tax breaks in this country.

I once worked for SamsClub which is part of the Wal Mart empire and IT is known before being hired that their health insurance is one of the worst in this country. However many people have NO choice but to accept what is given and THIS corporate giant KNOWS this.

When I see managers and corporate managers ACCEPT the insurance given to the floor employees then I may believe they'll have a better foot to stand on.

Peace

Vedderlution_Baby

know1 wrote:

I think it's important to note that they did pay out originally. After she received an additional settlement to cover her fees, they sought reimbursement.

After all, she was essentially double-dipping.

How was she double dipping? How is a lady, who has such sever brain damage that she cannot even remember that her son is dead AND cannot take care of herself be double dipping.


You guys are acting like this lady is trying to pull one over on WM.

PaperPlates

cornnifer wrote:

First of all the 90 billion comes directly from the article i linked to. i quoted it a few posts ago. You can go back and read it. Who are you? The fucking book keeper for walmart? Besides it still doesn't matter. If their is a hard number, first of all you'd have to cut out your fucking heart and replace it with a charred rock and a business 101 textbook to recogize it. secondly, if there is a hard number, its waaaay below even the 13 billion you keep insisting on.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between NET SALES and PROFIT.

NMyTree

I disagree on the double-dipping comment.

Her husband and attorney were seeking money for the purpose of being able care for and maintain his wife, now that she's basically incapable of taking care of herself or contributing to the household finances; as a result of the accident.

The cost of caring for her, for the remainder of her life, will be enormous.

Those kind of costs can and often do destroy a familes finances; therefore destroying their quality of life, the ability to put their children through school/college and any possibility of living a comfortable life after retirement.

That's why people seek more money for damages, pain and suffering.

Why should this man and his daughter be shackled and anchored with enormous medical, health care and prescription bills, for the rest of their lives, to the point where they would eventually end up bankrupt and lose everything; because someone severely damaged his wife and destroyed their lives with their reckless driving?

This accident essentially and effectively robbed this man of his wife and their children of a mother.

slightofjeff

cornnifer wrote:

Simple answer to that one.

Who gives a fuck.

The fine print in the contract legaly ENABLES walmart to do this. It in no way REQUIRES them to.

Flap your virtual jaws all you want about contracts and policies. You're ignoring the REAL point and feeding human decency to the pigs.

Maybe I've got this all wrong, and you can correct me.

But it sounds to me that this woman got paid TWICE for the same claim (once via insurance claim, once via the courts).

So why shouldn't the insurance get their money back?

slightofjeff

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

How was she double dipping? How is a lady, who has such sever brain damage that she cannot even remember that her son is dead AND cannot take care of herself be double dipping.


You guys are acting like this lady is trying to pull one over on WM.

It might have been an accident, but she basically got paid twice for the same insurance claim.

That, by definition, is double-dipping.

Vedderlution_Baby

slightofjeff wrote:

It might have been an accident, but she basically got paid twice for the same insurance claim.

That, by definition, is double-dipping.

SHE didn't double dip. SHE cannot make her own decisions regarding this issue, therefore it is impossible for her to double dip. Now this lady has to suffer because someone who was supposed to be looking out for her best interests fucked up.


Fucked up ALL the way around.