Real Life Corprate Manipulations, I hate Wal-Mart....... |
Real Life Corprate Manipulations, I hate Wal-Mart....... |
May 28 2008, 04:54 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,955 Joined: 6-December 06 From: Payson, Utah Member No.: 10,237 |
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html
Guys check this story. A 52 year old Wal Mart employee named Debbie Shank was involved in a terrible car accident that left her severely brain damaged. After receiving a settlement of $470,000, the idea was that she was going to be taken care of. But that was too happy of an ending for Walmart. What Debbie didn't relise is that WalMart's health plan has a fine print that stated that if there is ever money won in a case for a settlement, Wal Mart has the right to take it. And you bet your sweet ass Wal mart took it. Wal Mart made 90 billion dollars last quarter and the greedy bastards pursued and took this poor womans money. Not to mention that her son was Killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq at age 18, and her husband is still recovering from prostate cancer. When a rep from WalMart, John Smiley, was asked about the situation, he replied: "Though Mrs Shanks case is unbeleivelably sad, Wal-Mart's health plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan." Her husband has had to divorce her just so she can get on a goverment health plan, and even that wont help her for long. Its safe to say that Wal Mart has destroyed a family. |
|
|
May 28 2008, 12:29 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
I'd love to get a recording of a Wal-Mart exec saying something about decreasing the surplus population.
That being said, didn't Wal-Mart cave at some point? *searchsearchsearch* Yeah, here it is. |
|
|
May 28 2008, 03:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 640 Joined: 8-October 07 Member No.: 13,611 |
What I find most amusing is that this happens all the time with insurance companies, but because it was Wal-Mart ... Well, clearly Satan is in charge of the corp.
|
|
|
May 28 2008, 04:35 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Hi there, and welcome to several months ago!
PRO TIP: Read your insurance paperwork very carefully. Including, if not especially, the small print. |
|
|
May 28 2008, 06:16 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I find it hard to believe that a man named Mr. Smiley would tell me anything but the happiest truth and is most anxious to help everyone.
|
|
|
May 29 2008, 02:48 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 13-March 08 From: Texas! Giddy Up! Member No.: 15,770 |
I find it hard to believe that a man named Mr. Smiley would tell me anything but the happiest truth and is most anxious to help everyone. It would appear names can be deceiving! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) |
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:18 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 421 Joined: 4-April 08 Member No.: 15,843 |
It would appear names can be deceiving! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I bet he said it with a disarming smile at some point in the spiel. Probably when he was talking about how it helps the other employees. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:18 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 |
A more recent article talked to the details that Walmart ended up dropping the case and letting her family keep the settlement funds.
|
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:34 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 26-October 06 From: Iowa, United States Member No.: 9,720 |
Actually its like this...
She sued the trucking company and won $1 million, after legal fees she only ended up getting $417,000 Wal-Mart had spent out $470,000 in medical expenses for her, and according to their policy if you took legal action and received cash from it, then you had to give back what they paid out in medical expenses. So what happened here, was she spent more on a lawyers and legal fees then she did on hospital bills. Her lawyer pretty much screwed her over, not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's not going to cover your medical expenses, if you're suing someone else to pay for you medical expenses, thats supposedly the idea of a lawsuit. The fact that she paid her lawyer more than the medical costs were, and in the process of winning she was no longer eligible for what had already been paid to her. So in the end her accident after suing cost her $53,000, when before the lawsuit was processed Wal-Mart WAS paying for her medical expenses. I'm sorry for this womans accident, but the spotlight shouldn't be on Wal-Mart and what they're doing, but more on her legal team. Its a company policy that is the same for everyone, the fact that they waived it for this woman who had a terrible lawyer is quite nice of them, and likely to cause them terrible problems in the future as other people then try to get more and now they have a precedent that Wal-Mart has done it before. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:44 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 976 Joined: 16-September 04 From: Near my daughters, Lansdale PA Member No.: 6,668 |
This is old news. This was something NBC brought up in late March. Keith Olbermann, their main news anchor was making a big deal about it each night and promised to keep doing so until Walmart backed off. I think CBS and Fox also joined the band wagon. Walmart looking at the news corps about to hand them a PR nightmare of biblical proportions, backed off and let the poor woman keep the money set up in trust to take care of her.
The sad part for her is that the accident destroyed her short term memory. She has already forgotten the law suit. But she also has no memory that her son is dead. each time she asks for him, she has to be told he died. Each time, she relives a mother's worst horror. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:47 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 536 Joined: 25-January 08 From: Can I crash on your couch? Member No.: 15,483 |
I'm with Nightwalker450 on this one...
While Wal-Mart is an evil corporation whose MO is squeezing every last bit of life out of human beings and then discarding the remains, this is not an example of that behaviour... The problem if the half a mil in legal costs... |
|
|
May 29 2008, 04:58 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 19-March 08 Member No.: 15,793 |
the question is, once they took the money back, did they intend on continuing payment of her medical bills, or did they intend to cut her off once they were "reimbursed" for $417,000 ?
if they were going to continue paying her medical fees, she'd likely have used up much more than the 417k she won, but now that she's had the money given back to her, I wonder if her company-sponsored medical insurance is void. She may end up screwed when she runs out of $ and they say "We're sorry, your medical insurance contract was broken when we broke the rules and gave you all that money back! Get well soon." They shouldn't have sought legal action in the first place. Why do people in the US have to sue for everything? I mean Jesus. She was in a car accident; insurance pays for these things. You don't need to try to get "retribution" in the form of money. If she hadn't won that 417k, Wal-Mart would likely have kept paying her bills for a very long time. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 05:38 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 606 Joined: 14-April 08 From: Phoenix, AZ Member No.: 15,884 |
the question is, once they took the money back, did they intend on continuing payment of her medical bills, or did they intend to cut her off once they were "reimbursed" for $417,000 ? if they were going to continue paying her medical fees, she'd likely have used up much more than the 417k she won, but now that she's had the money given back to her, I wonder if her company-sponsored medical insurance is void. She may end up screwed when she runs out of $ and they say "We're sorry, your medical insurance contract was broken when we broke the rules and gave you all that money back! Get well soon." They shouldn't have sought legal action in the first place. Why do people in the US have to sue for everything? I mean Jesus. She was in a car accident; insurance pays for these things. You don't need to try to get "retribution" in the form of money. If she hadn't won that 417k, Wal-Mart would likely have kept paying her bills for a very long time. Given that she's severely brain damaged, I have to question whether she was the one deciding to sue. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 06:22 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Wal-Mart had spent out $470,000 in medical expenses for her, and according to their policy if you took legal action and received cash from it, then you had to give back what they paid out in medical expenses. That's actually pretty standard policy too. My parents' medical insurance does that, I believe my auto insurance does that. I'd guess my medical insurance does as well, but I'm not really sure (never cared enough to check). I knew I could believe Mr. Smiley. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 08:34 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,444 Joined: 18-April 08 Member No.: 15,912 |
The lawsuit may have been for the destruction of her short term memory. The woman is now for all intents and purposes dead. She will never learn, or remember anything from after the accident again. It effectively ended her life. What is that worth to someone? How much would I have to pay someone before they'd let me do it to them? I'm guessing its more then a million dollars. So don't be too surprised when someone or their family sues over an injury of that magntude. Now if it was a broken leg, or even a broken back, I might not be so sympathetic. Just imagine getting to wake up every day and here your son was blown up in a war for the first time kind, and waking up in the morning and seeing this ancient fossil stare back at you from the other side of the mirror, and you get the horror of asking yourself what happened while you slept last night. You get these and other fun trauma's every day, and you family has to help you cope with it until you finally die. Tell me, what would it be worth to put up with that? I'd wager easily more then a million dollars.
|
|
|
May 29 2008, 08:51 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
It is a basic rule in law and in equity that you can't be compensated for the same damage twice. Liability is like a pizza. Everyone involved gets their slice. Some slices are bigger than others, some have more toppings, and some people don't have a slice at all. But, there is only one to be split among everyone. The liability of one entity naturally reduces the liability of all others, because the point is to fully compensate for the injury, no more and no less. When the trucking company accepted liability for that damage, it meant that Wal-Mart's insurance was not liable for it and thus entitled to get the money that it had paid back.
QUOTE (Mordinvan) The lawsuit may have been for the destruction of her short term memory. The woman is now for all intents and purposes dead. She will never learn, or remember anything from after the accident again. It effectively ended her life. What is that worth to someone? How much would I have to pay someone before they'd let me do it to them? I'm guessing its more then a million dollars. So don't be too surprised when someone or their family sues over an injury of that magntude. Now if it was a broken leg, or even a broken back, I might not be so sympathetic. Just imagine getting to wake up every day and here your son was blown up in a war for the first time kind, and waking up in the morning and seeing this ancient fossil stare back at you from the other side of the mirror, and you get the horror of asking yourself what happened while you slept last night. You get these and other fun trauma's every day, and you family has to help you cope with it until you finally die. Tell me, what would it be worth to put up with that? I'd wager easily more then a million dollars. You also get to leave elaborate clues for yourself that will lead you to your bloody murderous vengeance and then forget all about killing your enemy so that you'll have to find someone else to kill like in Memento, which is damn cool in some ways. If you don't transform your life into an endless violent film-noir quest for vengeance after such an accident then you just aren't doing it right. |
|
|
May 29 2008, 09:01 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 182 Joined: 18-May 08 From: A hippo's natural habitat Member No.: 15,984 |
|
|
|
May 29 2008, 09:30 PM
Post
#18
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 8-April 08 From: Twin Cities, MN Member No.: 15,865 |
It is a basic rule in law and in equity that you can't be compensated for the same damage twice. Liability is like a pizza. Everyone involved gets their slice. Some slices are bigger than others, some have more toppings, and some people don't have a slice at all. But, there is only one to be split among everyone. The liability of one entity naturally reduces the liability of all others, because the point is to fully compensate for the injury, no more and no less. When the trucking company accepted liability for that damage, it meant that Wal-Mart's insurance was not liable for it and thus entitled to get the money that it had paid back. QFT |
|
|
May 29 2008, 09:50 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,444 Joined: 18-April 08 Member No.: 15,912 |
It is a basic rule in law and in equity that you can't be compensated for the same damage twice. Liability is like a pizza. Everyone involved gets their slice. Some slices are bigger than others, some have more toppings, and some people don't have a slice at all. But, there is only one to be split among everyone. The liability of one entity naturally reduces the liability of all others, because the point is to fully compensate for the injury, no more and no less. When the trucking company accepted liability for that damage, it meant that Wal-Mart's insurance was not liable for it and thus entitled to get the money that it had paid back. I was mostly arguing against the value of the damage awarded. My mind is the most precious thing i own, and if someone took it from me, they'd best pay handsomely for it. QUOTE You also get to leave elaborate clues for yourself that will lead you to your bloody murderous vengeance and then forget all about killing your enemy so that you'll have to find someone else to kill like in Memento, which is damn cool in some ways. If you don't transform your live into an endless violent film-noir quest for vengeance after such an accident then you just aren't doing it right. Haven't seen the movie, but I think I know have to. |
|
|
May 30 2008, 12:17 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
The problem here is that the american system of laissez faire capitalism is completely broken. Here if the other driver is assessed as being at fault by the police their mandatory insurance on all registered cars has to pay a scheduled rate of fees based on clinically assessed damage to the victim.
Works okay. Has problems - like what happens when someone is at fault and driving an unregistered vehicle and other personal fee arrangements The NZ system is even better. One company has the 'insure all registered vehicles' contract for the entire nation, and they tender for that every couple of years to ensure prices are fair (It's a really big contract so naturally competition is sharp). That company also then automatically fully liable for anyone the driver of an unregistered vehicle injures in a car accident, and the assessment is non contestably carried out by government doctors. That is a brilliant system. I'm not even sure why this crap should end up in court. The french system is also better. The government would just pick up the entire tab for her medical care either way. And the kid would still get education for free or no interest loans and a government stipend for a student. sure he'll be eating ramen, but thats okay. |
|
|
May 30 2008, 12:57 AM
Post
#21
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
The problem here is that the american system of laissez faire capitalism is completely broken. Here if the other driver is assessed as being at fault by the police their mandatory insurance on all registered cars has to pay a scheduled rate of fees based on clinically assessed damage to the victim. First of all this isn't Laissez Faire capitalism. If it was then Wal-Mart would either a) not give health care and pay the same wages, or b) pay her extra money so she could buy her own insurance. Problem is that when you do this people tend to take the money they are given and spend it on stupid shit instead of health insurance. Wal-Mart is actually being a responsible corporate citizen in this case. Second, and this is going to sound INCREDIBLY harsh, but I have extreme difficulty imagining this woman ever earning enough money in her natural, undamaged life to EVER be worth $470,000. Assuming that from the point at which she was hit by the truck she had 35 years of work left in her, if you discount at a rate of 10%, she would have to earn a little over $48,700 per year. Using BC, Canada minimum wage rates (which is probably close to what they make at Wal-Mart here) she was only making $15,360. I don't know how their wages scale based on seniority at Wal-Mart but that is TRIPLE a minimum wage salary. This of course begs the question that people NEVER ask: why is medical care so expensive? Doctors are a dime a dozen but they all collude to charge higher prices. If she needs $470K to cover medical expenses then that is ridiculous. But then, doctors save people and lawyers and businessmen don't so let's just shit all over the lawyers and businessmen as evil. |
|
|
May 30 2008, 12:58 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 640 Joined: 8-October 07 Member No.: 13,611 |
Some of us happen to like this broken laissez faire capitalist system, and would prefer that the government stay the Hell out of our lives.
|
|
|
May 30 2008, 02:00 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
First of all this isn't Laissez Faire capitalism. If it was then Wal-Mart would either a) not give health care and pay the same wages, or b) pay her extra money so she could buy her own insurance. Problem is that when you do this people tend to take the money they are given and spend it on stupid shit instead of health insurance. Wal-Mart is actually being a responsible corporate citizen in this case. Second, and this is going to sound INCREDIBLY harsh, but I have extreme difficulty imagining this woman ever earning enough money in her natural, undamaged life to EVER be worth $470,000. Assuming that from the point at which she was hit by the truck she had 35 years of work left in her, if you discount at a rate of 10%, she would have to earn a little over $48,700 per year. Using BC, Canada minimum wage rates (which is probably close to what they make at Wal-Mart here) she was only making $15,360. I don't know how their wages scale based on seniority at Wal-Mart but that is TRIPLE a minimum wage salary. This of course begs the question that people NEVER ask: why is medical care so expensive? Doctors are a dime a dozen but they all collude to charge higher prices. If she needs $470K to cover medical expenses then that is ridiculous. But then, doctors save people and lawyers and businessmen don't so let's just shit all over the lawyers and businessmen as evil. It is - it is significantly to a corporations advantage to offer health insurance so you can keep employees healthy (same reason my company gives free flu shots), remember she selected to participate in the plan in the example, so wal-mart is offering to pay more and you can participate in a company healthcare scheme. Exactly like you suggest. Your analysis of the payout is screwed. It compensates for lost income AND care costs. Care costs for what she has (it sounds like dementia) brain damage are very high as you need constant supervision. Medical care is expensive because the US drives the costs up by loading down students with debt, so your highly trained health professionals need to recover enough money from you. Also, care for people with brain damage is very service intensive requiring full time care, and full time carers are bloody expensive. But don;t worry, the american system of HMO's is here to screw it up again. 25-30% of the USA's healthcare costs are administrative & billing overhead, a number that is much lower in australia, ranging from 3-4% for private schemes to less than 1% for the government scheme. |
|
|
May 30 2008, 03:35 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Some of us happen to like this broken laissez faire capitalist system, and would prefer that the government stay the Hell out of our lives. Agreed, although it's possible to have a representative government (there's a lot of crap I don't want to have to deal with) and still have them stay the hell out of our lives. A proportional system, for example. |
|
|
May 30 2008, 04:17 AM
Post
#25
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
It is - it is significantly to a corporations advantage to offer health insurance so you can keep employees healthy (same reason my company gives free flu shots), remember she selected to participate in the plan in the example, so wal-mart is offering to pay more and you can participate in a company healthcare scheme. Exactly like you suggest. Your analysis of the payout is screwed. It compensates for lost income AND care costs. Care costs for what she has (it sounds like dementia) brain damage are very high as you need constant supervision. Medical care is expensive because the US drives the costs up by loading down students with debt, so your highly trained health professionals need to recover enough money from you. Also, care for people with brain damage is very service intensive requiring full time care, and full time carers are bloody expensive. But don;t worry, the american system of HMO's is here to screw it up again. 25-30% of the USA's healthcare costs are administrative & billing overhead, a number that is much lower in australia, ranging from 3-4% for private schemes to less than 1% for the government scheme. In principal I agree with you about the health insurance thing. Strictly speaking however, stocking shelves doesn't require any skill and 0 training. In proper laissez faire economics you wouldn't give a shit about employee morale or health. You'd work them until they can't work anymore and then hire someone new. The only thing you'd have to do is watch them to make sure they aren't stealing or breaking things. Think Victorian England/Charles Dickens. Laissez Faire economics has zero bearing in the modern world. My math isn't wonky unless my TI BA 2 Plus Financial calculator has some sort of weird glitch in it. I just used simple Time Value of Money calculations. 35 yearly payments of $48.7K are equal to $470K right now at 10% interest. 1 million is actually pretty ridiculous too. That comes out at $103,700 per year. Essentially what the courts did was take the burden off of WalMart and transfer it to the Trucking Company. The biggest tragedy is that the lawyers are now getting paid more for her pain and suffering than she is. The family needed a much friendlier lawyer. This guy sounds like a shifty SOB. He obviously knew about the WalMart policy. That's why he charged them so much money to prosecute the law suit. He figured that they could get the money from the Trucking Company and still get the money from WalMart EVEN THOUGH HE HAD READ THE INSURANCE POLICY. Then he got surprised that WalMart and the Courts decided to play by the rules so he had to let slip the dogs of war (ie. the media) to get her money back. He basically made WalMart look bad so that he wouldn't. You are wrong about the Student Loans thing. While it does play some part it isn't the main reason for high costs of health care. It has more to do with the fact that you need 10 years of training to be a doctor. Not just anyone can do it. And they make you pay for it. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd November 2024 - 08:22 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.