stinkindiesel

I'm only smart enough to click on the link that appears in the first box.

stinkindiesel

I looked on WalMart's website; they don't even have a store in Ontraio... I was going to put a winking smilie here to show that I was poking gentle fun at your "where you from/sig", but I couldn't find one. It's probably right next to the link I missed in the original thread.

tmleadr03

No it isnt the right thing to do. It is actually a horrible thing to do in my mind. If you think medical insurance is high now, wait till it goes up because of this. Now medical insurance companies know that people can just complain in the news and double dip on medical expenses. This is not a good thing.


WalMart's medical insurance paid for her medical expenses and that was right. When she got 1 mil in settlement, Walmarts medical insurance said you need to pay us back for covering you. This is in ALL medical insurance paperwork, you signed for this yourself with your medical insurance. If you are in a car accident and you go to your medical insurance to get treatment, then when you settle you have to pay that back. The lawsuit was for damages, including medical expenses. And quite honestly, the medical insurance was VERY nice about it. They only asked for what she had left after the lawyer took his cut. Not anything out of pocket for the person injured. She got had by the lawyer, not WalMart. The lawyer should have gone for more so she would have some left over. Obviously he didnt get enough to cover her current expenses, much less the future ones. Yet he is getting off scott free for this. All of this is not WalMarts fault, nor is it the ladies fault. I place the blame square at the feet of the lawyer, he did not do his job well.

chipmonk

do you really think that a lawyer, who gets up to 50% of the settlement amount, decided to settle for $1 million, if he thought there was ANY chance of getting a larger settlement? the stories that i've read about this, all say that she was awarded $1 million, it does not state what she and her lawyer had actually sued for.

tmleadr03

Doesnt take away from it not being WalMarts fault. It is in the medical paperwork you sign, if you settle then the company who paid for your medical up till then gets their money back. And that does mean all of it, and WalMart didnt even ask for all of it back. After the lawyer took his cut she actually had less then what her medical bills were at that time. WalMart didnt even require her to pay all of her medical bills, just what she had taking a large loss on there end. WalMart is not being crooks, they are getting a trial by media. And that isnt right. They already got heard by the court of law multiple times, if I remember correctly this was heard by a judge three times and the judge ruled in favor of WalMart all three times. Because WalMart is not the bad guy in this situation.

chipmonk

the ruling was based on the legality of walmart going after the settlement money, based on an unusual stipulation in their health care contract with their workers, not whether they're the bad guys or not. in most every other similar situation, the company that provides the insurance only seeks recovery of the money they paid out, if the insured collects money from a settlement that specifically reimburses them for their previous medical expenses. walmart has their insured's sign a contract with the unusual stipulation that they will be reimbursed if any money is recovered in a settlement, even if the settlement is awarded for pain and suffering, lost future wages, or future/long term care. that's the reason that every legal expert interviewed has stated how unusual it is that walmart, or any company, would feel that they have any right to this money- the judges had no choice, as the document does give walmart the right to go after this money, but all the legal experts say that they have never seen this done, but you are welcome to support walmart, if you can't see how sometimes moral law, and simple right and wrong, is more important than an unusual written clause in a contract. this is a link to a story that explains this further http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25...tle/index.html

stinkindiesel

Check your policies. Your home and auto policies have subro clauses in them as does your healthcare policy, if you have one. It's not unusual, it's just uncommon for an insurance carrier to go after an award- but it's happening more often. And it will become more popular.
Listen, I'm not putting a halo over anyone's head, but why is it ok for WM or an insurance co. to "absorb" tremendous expenses? Companies don't- what really happens is everyone else foots the bill. Companie pass the expense on to consumers. In these DTR forums we read of businesses large and small closing their doors because the price of fuel forced them to raise their rates until it no longer made sense for them to start their truck.
The same holds true with healthcare providers. Their expenses go up, our rates go up. When one can no longer afford healthcare AND a mortgage, he'll drop his healthcare. Enough people do that and the healthcare provider will do 1 of 2 things: quit the business, or become a government-subsidized provider.
Just remember, the involving the government has never made anything cheaper, faster or better. A dime's worth of benefit takes a dollar to administer.
How would you feel if it was the other way around? If the poor woman managed to wrest money she was contractually (but not "morally") entitled to away from WalMart?
That's another point... "moral law". Morality, if you haven't heard, has no place in the civil courtroom. The courts look at signed contracts and the meanings of the words. Lawyers look for "loopholes" and places where the contract may be misleading or where it may contradict itself. It's more like a mathematical equation than anything else. Seriously, if a judge ruled against YOU, citing "feeling" a certain way or having a "gut instinct", how fast would you be in submitting an appeal?

stinkindiesel

I forgot to add that most subrogations happen without the insured peson ever knowing about it. If you're rearended in a car and your insurance co repairs your car, they'll go after the other guy's insurance or assets to recover their expenses. Every time. It's not that unusual.

tmleadr03

And here is the thing, as already been said it is not an unusual clause and also they didnt even go after the full amount owed them! Then only went after what the injured lady could afford from the settlement. If they had actually gone after the full amount the injured lady would have had to give all the money to them plus about 30K more.

chipmonk

just so you know, 'we' are now footing the bill for her care, as her husband divorced her so that she would be eligible for public assistance, that will now be paying for her care. the gov't has now had to step in and pay with our tax dollars- but at least walmart made out well, with a couple of hundred thousand dollars back in their hands. as a matter of fact, many of walmart's employees get their health care courtesy of our tax dollars- several states are proposing legislation that would force companies like walmart to put a certain % of their profit's into their human resources dept., for things like employee health care, so that our tax dollars don't have to provide health care for employees of a muti-billion dollar company.

stinkindiesel

Then the only reason to put the money in a trust was to keep it out of the state's hands. It's a common practice- unethical, immoral- to put someone into "the system" and hide their assets. Of course, you know when the state takes care of someone, their assets are converted by the state to pay for the person's care. Example: if grandma is a homeowner and becomes so frail that her children shuffle her off into a nursing home, the state will seize her home and sell it to pay for her care, along with whatever payment she's alotted by SS. So, the kids "sell" the home, or put it in a trust with themselves as trustee.
Let's break it down:
1) She was awarded money
2) WalMart (or the ins. co.) has a contractual right to it
3) The $$ was put in a trust
3) hubby divorced her so she could be institutionalized
4) and the state would have to pay for her care
5) The award was "supposed" to pay for future care
6) But since the state is picking up the tab
7) WHO'S SPENDING THE MONEY??

By your own words, the hubby divorced her to force the state to pay her freight, passing the cost to us. You also said WalMart got their $$ back- but I didn't get that from the article. I got the opposite, that WalMart dropped its pursuit of the funds. Did I miss something?
You also said that many states are trying to force WalMart to pay into a fund to subsidize healthcare for their employees. Here goes:
1) When the state gets involved, much of what's paid into the fund is absorbed by the administering government office
2) WalMart will not "pay", they will increase prices to cover their added costs
3) When WalMart's prices go up you will moan and whine, just like you did when they "forced" the mom&pop stores out of business
4) What will be the cutoff for paying into the fund? Will it be at a certain number of employees? doesn't make sense- what if you have 10,000 employees but you pay them really well? will it be at a certain wage threshold? dumb- how much would a Big Mac cost if every 19-yr old had health coverage courtesy of the government having Ronald McD in a wrist lock?
5) Why should the net worth of your employer entitle you to health care? what difference is it if there is one company with 10,000 employees on low wages, or 1,000 companies with 10 low-wage employees each?
6) France did the same thing, and look at them now

sorry, i got too tired to use capitals or punctuation

chipmonk

sorry, the posts regarding the gov't picking up the tab for her care was before walmart let them keep the settlement money, so now the money from the trucking company will be paying for her care. regarding the pending health care legislation, it is only for companies with at least 10,000 employees, and in most of the states considering this, walmart is the only company that would be affected by it, as they are the only company big enough to be included, who are doing so little for their employees and this translates to walmart having the highest number of employees on medicaid-my tax dollars pay for walmart's lack of health care. btw, walmart's defense to this legislation, is that the gov't needs to get involved in the health care industry and control pricing (just like hillary and barrack want to), and through some form of socialized health care, their employees will not have to turn to walmart for their health care. certainly i will not 'whine' about any price increase at walmart, as i don't shop there, but your point regarding the possibility of this, sounds a lot like employers who use an illegal alien work force. they claim that they must use illegal aliens, or the price of tomatoes, drywall work, roofing, landscaping, etc., will increase. i didn't here you mention anything about the possibility of walmart having to raise prices in order to pay the 100's of millions of dollars in fines they have amassed for thousands of violations of labor laws, such as having their employees punch out, then forcing them to return to work (off the clock, for no pay), or having kids who are not legally allowed to work past 9 pm, do the same, or any of the other 'employee friendly' practices that seem to be commonplace at walmarts across the country. france's policies are quite different, as it is nearly impossible to fire an employee- even with just cause, you must convince a magistrate that your employee is so inept, that you should be given the right to take his job away from him. that is just a little different than telling the most profitable retail company in the world, that they cannot use medicaid (and our tax money) as their health care policy. btw, when he was alive and in charge, sam walton believed fervently in employee benefits and profit sharing, and most who new him believe he would be outraged at what has become of his company.

dj_souvlaki

they don't have a store in onatrio?

there are hundreds of them here. they just opened up a giant walmart super center right by my house.