Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html

spit

This is why capitalism, out of control and without regard for human beings, is just as evil as communism.

This is why people should read contracts before they sign them.

I agree, it looks terrible, but it says right in the story that the contract she signed said Walmart had the right to take money from any settlement to recoup medical costs.

Yes - she should read it - because it says that in every policy issued by every company. So I trust everyone out there reading this thread and has insurance through their employer knows they have the same limitation? No doubt everyone has read their plans in detail and understand the subtleties of subrogation. So what if until a few years ago no one ever tried to enforce those provisions. Yes, it’s a contract - and yes it’s stuff like that which will lead inexorably to nationalized health insurance. At least then the USA won’t be the only non-third world nation without national health insurance. :smiley:

Oh yes, WalMart has the legal right- but what about the morality of the situation!? :eek:

Is this Catholicism, “American Style”??? Mercy and all that Jesus stuff is nice, but when it comes down to it, the free market is what really matters.

The thing about this case, is that the money really doesn’t go into Walmart’s pockets–it goes back to the insurance company who probably paid out–and THUS, Walmart will not be penalized, for lack of a better word, for this ‘claim.’ I work in the insurance world, and sadly, there are cases like this where the human being gets absolutely lost in the mix. This poor woman and family should be able to keep the money, and the insurance company should have a heart. That is probably what is driving it more than Walmart–they don’t want their healthcare costs to go up, which is why the spokesperson made that comment about being fair to other associates. The reality is that the cost does get spread out so others absorb it, but still. This is a case where they could make an exception…

I read the article quickly–she was in a car accident? I think that they should be able to get money from their auto policy. Here in Florida, we have something known as PIP, and I have high coverage, for lost wages, etc in the event of a car accident. If I didn’t have this, then my health coverage at work would kick in…I wonder if they have exhausted that route, or they live in a state where this doesn’t exist.

Anyways–just wanted to add my two cents here, because it’s really the insurance company who is driving things more. If Walmart really wanted to show compassion, they would write her a check for the $400k, and call it a day. This is a sad story.:frowning:

Here is a way to contriute to the Shanks…
secure.walmartwatch.com/page/contribute/deborahshank

Exactly.

And people wonder why I won’t darken the door of WalMart or Sams. :mad:

~Liza

When I first heard of this story I wondered why it was even a story. Most of the time it is SOP that the insurance is reimbursed from a settlement, or does not pay for the medical expenses if another party is held liable. A simple solution would be to allow the required reimbursment, yet allow for a fund raiser and corporate contributions to meet or exceed that which is reimbursed.

When I first heard of this story I wondered why it was even a story. Most of the time it is SOP that the insurance is reimbursed from a settlement, or does not pay for the medical expenses if another party is held liable. A simple solution would be to allow the required reimbursment, yet allow for a fund raiser and corporate contributions to meet or exceed that which is reimbursed.

Concur.

“SOP” didn’t save Adolph Eichmann.

Oh and I think everyone who can should help this person out.

That is a silly comparison. Not everything can be compared to Nazi’s. Sticking to the letter of a contract is not the same as genocide.

I think it sort of is, the underlying idea is that there is two different types of morality, one is the morality persons are held to, and the other one is the pitiless indifference of “standard operating procedure” which businesses are held to.

The rationalization is that human beings lose their moral obligations when they act in the name of a company (or in the case of the Nazis, a government).

So a father can go to work, kiss his children goodbye, and pet his dog, and then go to work and singlehandedly destroy another family, then walk back in the door, “hi honey, I’m home”, and not think twice about it- because after all, he was just following orders, just doing his job.

That was Eichmann’s defense wasn’t it? He was just a simple bureaucrat, a regular guy, it wouldn’t have really mattered if he was selling widgets or making sure insurance policies were in order or gassing Jews, he was just doing his job and acting according to standard operating procedure.

Wal-Mart seems to be the favorite whipping boy while everybody is ignoring the fact the the poor struggling attorney got only $583,000 out of the $1,000,000 settlement. Something is definitely wrong with the fairness of these numbers and something is also wrong with those who conveniently overlook them just so they have another excuse to bash Wal-Mart.

LOL!, that’s MY father your talking about and we have a cat, not a dog. Anyway, having the perspective of a walmart executive through my father who is one, I know first hand how absurd anti-walmart nuts are. Your attack is simply childish.

Anyway, when Tato comes home, I’ll ask him about this case, I’m sure he’s heard of it, I wonder what he has to say.

?

This isn’t about wal mart, nor was I condemning everyone who works there. It’s about a society that thinks that SOP is a pancea for any kind of moral perversion perpetrated by individuals.

The silence is sickening. Americans first, good ol’ fashioned free market lovin’ patriots, Catholics second. The problem is, you all are Republicans, Conservatives. You tow the party line and that comes before your faith. You’ll rag on about gays because Conservatives don’t like gays, but when it comes to corporate greed, you’ll either defend it, or say nothing, because that is a “left wing” or “liberal” cause- rather than also condemning that as good Catholics should.

Ugh. I would say more, but as they say, what goes on the internet, stays on the internet.

Yet you used the example of an individual. Regardless, the SOP isn’t necessarily wrong.

Well, seeing as I’m a Canadian, its hard to belong to a part that doesn’t exist here.

Anyway, I’m not so sure that this is a case of corporate greed - I can tell you that your post is indeed painting with a broad brush and drawing unfair and baseless assumptions.

You may not be condemning everyone who works at Wal-Mart, but you’ve done a pretty good job of condemning your fellow posters here at CAF. Charity begins at home. How can you expect community and corporate charity when you exhibit so little of it yourself? You, sir or madam, owe an apology to the other members of this board for your post.

A couple people expressed disgust, most just rationalized it. I’m supposed to apologize?

Oh forget it, I donated to the woman out of my own pocket so I don’t owe any apology to anyone, I did the right thing.

Friday is the last day I’ll be on here anyway.

[quote=mschrank]Friday is the last day I’ll be on here anyway.
[/quote]

V’ere are ewe goin-k?

No, I did not find anything you did needing an apology. I do find it odd being accused of being too rational, though. I know you said “rationalize” but I see no difference the way the word is used. Basically, examine the facts of the case and the see how the law applies. Everything is on the side of Walmart, legally, and nothing on the side of the woman. Justice must be blind. On the other hand, mercy should dictate that Walmart reach out to help this former emlpoyee, as they should all employees in need.

SOP is not a panecea. I was using the concept of a standard to express the need for equity, fairness and even-handedness. This woman is not the first or last to have hardships.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.