it wasn't a post, it was a copy and paste job which like I already said proves he is a piece of shit, what else is there?

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

Why is a copy and paste a bad thing?

It's called subrogation and the idea is quite simple, not paying twice for the same services which drives up costs for all. So, if you have medical bills from a car accident and you claim those expenses on your medical insurance, the medical plan is entitled to be reimbursed for the claims paid from the auto insurer. What's wrong with that?

__________________
Quinnscommentary.com

because it is not an original thought, it is mindlessly taking somebody else's opinion and repeating it, a computer can do that, more should be expected from a human being

__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs

Well, the first thing thats wrong with it is that I never knew that. I will bet few people did. The second thing wrong with it is the employee is paying, as part of his or her salary, the cost of a healthcare plan. thats why we take out insurance. She later came into money from a lawsuit against the trucking company. Wal-Mart hears of the win over the trucking company and goes after the money she won to pay for the medical bills she already paid for through her policy she bought from Wal-mart. From what another poster wrote this was Wal-marts policy and is legally in the right, but this is a unique and special case, and Wal- mart knows this. I say this is an unfair policy because she already was paying for this insurance and that what its for..Im truely not worried about Wal-marts profits or the auto insurance comapany profits, Im worried about a woman in a nursing home whos son died in Iraq that owes more from the lawsuit from Wal-mart than she got from the lawsuit from the trucking company. This woman has a serious brain injury, no money and now will be living on medicaid alone without a son. Wal-Mart needs a heart...Im sure this is going over well with Wal-Mart employees across the country, they could have been the good guys on this one..It would have been a cheap and great public relations move to help this woman out and by not sueing her.

I'm rather surprised that you would resort to such tactics. You've always seemed to have a ready answer in the past to support your positions. Perhaps this case is an exception.

Myself and Wal-Mart are not analogous in any way shape or form and you know it. Now please answer the question, do you support Wal-Mart and it's handling of the Deborah Shank's case?

Upton, while it does smack of being cold hearted and greedy it is legal. Business is to make money not pay out.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Where was her lawyer in all this? It's fairly common knowledge that your insurance gets to recoup losses from any other settlements you may receive, so HE knew that he needed to sue for enough to pay back Wal-Mart, cover his fees, and still leave her with something. The Judge knew that as he was awarding her the money, as well. Why didn't he say anything?

I have never, in my life, seen a contract that requires certain performance "...unless it makes you sad..." That's ridiculous. It is a damned shame, but but it's nobody else's fault that this woman, who signed the insurance agreement, or her lawyer, who understood (presumably) thew Law didn't act accordingly and sue for enough to cover her obligations. The bottom line is that she wanted to keep money she was NOT entitled to, and it didn't work.

And this whole crap about "it would have only cost wal-mart employees 0.40 each" or "Wal-Mart wouldn't have been hurt if they'd just let her have it" makes me a little sick. It also wouldn't hurt Wal-Mart to let me have a flat-screen TV, but nobody in their right mind would bring that up in my shoplifiting trial! It's the same premise.

__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.

What’s the alternative? How should Wal-Mart have handled this situation? Let’s say they let the Shanks keep the money, how would they compensate for the money? Should Wal-Mart cut employee benefits? Cut dividends to share holders? Or raise prices?

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

We're talking about a company that nets over 12 billion a year, 400,000 is a pittance to them. According to the article, if Wal-Mart were to have cut employee's benefits to make up for the money, it would have cost each employee less than 40 cents.