i'm officially done with walmart

cornnifer wrote:

You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.

Does this post of yours make you any less "sick" than them?


Its a horrible story. Its a tragic shame. But it shouldnt come as a surprise. Thats what the fine print in contracts is for.

PaperPlates wrote:

Does this post of yours make you any less "sick" than them?

much more IMO.

I think this is the attorney's fault for not suing for more money.

The lawsuit settlement should be for the recovery of not only medical expenses, but also for the future care and quality of life of the victim.

The money owed to Walmart should've been factored into the settlement in addition to trust funds for future use.

Either the lawyer took that extra chunk for himself or he just forgot to mention the insurance clause when asking for damages.

blackredyellow wrote:

20-30% compared to where??? Their prices are not that great, but I can see that their marketing campaign works well.

I shop there occasionally because of the convenience, but besides the disposable, piss-poor quality store brand stuff, normal things are about the same price just about everywhere. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

their prices are hard to beat...until they wipe out the small guys in the area.

cornnifer wrote:

i'm sure everyone has heard this story by now, but, i'll include a link anyway. In the past i've questioned walmart but stopped short of saying i would never shop there. i have finally declared that i will never spend another red cent there. This is some horrible shit. What greedy bastards.

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

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

pretty cut and dry people there should be no pity.

cornnifer wrote:

You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.

now who's the sick bastard? welcome to the real world Pollyanna.

cornnifer wrote:

Again, the fine print states that they reserve the legal OPTION of recovering money paid. It doesn't MANDATE that they do so. It would be different if she slipped on some ice, broke her leg, and settled with the city. Most people aren't planning on getting plowed by a truck and rendered severely brain damaged when they sign up for health insurance. They just want to be able to see a doctor if they're sick or twist their ankle. Legality does not trump ethics in my opinion.

BTW, i didn't wish ill will on anyone. In fact i made it clear that i wished none.

Tho you did state you'd laugh your ass off if it did. Kinda the same

lazymoon13 wrote:

whoa, easy there gurl. I happen to think it is relevant. that is just my opinion. saying they make 300 billion has a deeper impact psychologically in regards to their size. I'm childish and pathetic? I'm not even the one who pointed it out. CHILL THE FUCK OUT! please direct your childish and pathetic posts to driftininthestorm.

I'm gonna go ahead and nip this one in the bud right now, before this gets out of hand.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Bullshit that it is a good job of pointing it out. What difference does it make to your views. 300 billion or 12.8 billion makes jack shit worth of difference on your stance on the subject. Either she has to pay Walmart back the money in your opinion or she doesn't.

Fuck me in the brain, why does everything here have to be picked to tiny little pieces when it places NO releveance on your overall thoughts on the issues. It takes away from Cornifers initial intention of the post. You don't give a fuck about what he is really trying to get across here, all you wanna do is prove him wrong in one thing he said that should have no impact on your decision ANYWAY. It's pathetic and childish and you really, really need to find more things to do with your time. Are you saying that if it WAS 300 billion you would have a different take on the matter? NO you wouldn't.

Some of you just love fighting for the sake of fighting.

Don't you dare put this back on me for CORRECTING AN ERROR OF FACT.

Lets look at what i was responding to:

Cornnifer wrote:

Legally, yes, they are within their rights. We're talking about a company that made 300 BILLION last year. Answer me this. WHY should they pursue this now handicapped woman for apx. 275 grand? 275 grand that obviously is nothing to them, but money this woman was counting on to support her and her care for the rest of her life! Her husband has legally divorced her so that she could recieve more medicaid, he works two jobs to pay for her care, is losing his car, is unable to send their son to college. Walmart made 300 BILLION last year alone! They may have te LEGAL RIGHT to sue her for what amounts to a few pennies for them, but they have absolutely no moral or ethical integrity in doing so. They have the legal RIGHT, but not the legal OBLIGATION. This shit is sick. Your defense of them, IMO, is even worse. There is no way to defend this nauseating bullshit.

Cornnifer is seemingly basing an ENTIRE argument for Walmart not collecting on their contractual perrogative on ... what? ... ON THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT EARNED by Walmart per year.

Now.
Pj_Gurl, while i am probably willing to agree with you that at a certain point it is not that relevant specificaly how huge that sum is, it is intellectualy dishonest of you to sit here and berate me for correcting an error that is on its face directly connected to the original argument posed. Further that error was to the tune of a 2300% distortion of Walmarts actual net profit.

If you are having trouble understanding why the AMOUNT of their profit does "matter" in the context of Cornnifer's argument, ask yourself this: AT WHAT DOLLAR VALUE PROFIT WOULD YOU NOT BE OFFENDED AT WALMART?

In other words, if with Walmart making $13billion a year their actions in this case are a grave offense on human nature, how much less would they have to be making for their concern in this case to be "justified" by you.

Putting the argument in these terms helps to identify the subjective nature of the argument posed, and therefore the relevance of the amount of profit Walmart receives.

And notice MY post had NO HATEFUL OR SPITEFUL WORDS in it. I was merely pointing out an error of fact. To the contrary, Pj_Gurl, you are calling people out for "not giving a fuck" and slinging around words like "pathetic" and "childish".

Pathetic and childish?
I was merely pointing out for clarification to ALL who may be reading this thread, that they should not base any consideration on the idea that Walmart is making $300 billion a year, because that is a patent distortion of fact. A GROSS distortion of fact.

:cool: