Wal*Mart should have backed off. Maybe the best thing for both parties to have done from the start is for Wal*Mart to have been satisfied with a verdict in their favor while not actually taking any of the money back. That way both parties could have won. The Shanks get the money and Wal*Mart doesn't get the bad press and they still get to claim that legally they were right in order to protect in further cases.

Does this really make you not want to shop at Wal-Mart? You think bad pres is gonna matter to Wal-Mart? Not really, they do too much good for so many people in America and just happen to have strict policy when it comes to benefits. After all, you want to pay fucking Target Prices for Chinese made crap? hell no, thats why they hold their ground on this.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

Well, I actually don't shop anywhere. I can't stand the crowds and am impatient by nature. That being said, my wife does do out shopping and while watching the Shank story on CNN the other night said that she was going to another grocery store the next day - all because of that story. Now I didn't expect her to boycott them altogether but I also realize that it is best just to not say anything to her so I let it go. So as far as people not shopping there, at least for the long term, no I don't think it would hurt Wal*Mart. However, bad press still isn't good for them.

Either way, Wal*Mart should have backed off because it was the right thing to do. As long as they don't have anything from the courts saying they lost a case nothing is hurt and noreal precedent is set.

IMO, the bad press is that Shank's Lawyer took most of the money from WalMart.

__________________
Drill offshore now

This case is a perfect example of how emotion gets in the way of logic and why we find it so hard to solve the health care problem. Every health insurance plan and every health benefit plan through an employer has a subrogation clause requiring that medical bills which are paid by the plan are to be reimbursed if a third party is responsible for or actually pays the bills. This is to keep the cost of the plan low for all participants and to avoid duplicate payments. So in effect since these were medical bills were paid by the Wal-Mart plan they are reflected in the premiums that its employees pay for coverage.

More on health care at QuinnsCommentary

This is not unlike when you hear about a fund raiser for people with high medical bills and nobody asks if they have coverage or not, it's just assume they need the money. A few years back my sister had a child with hundreds of thousands in medical bills. The town where she lived organized fundraisers and received $50,000, but my sister could not take the, her insurance covered all the costs.

__________________
Quinnscommentary.com

Damn, something not stupid coming from a blogger.


Look, If you sign a contract. What on Earth thinks you have a right to break that Contract without the consent of the 2nd Party? Sure, I feel bad for her, what person would not. This is where personal responsability plays. This is why I give to charity that provides health care for American Children. St Jude's does more good for Cancer patients than any Government Programs have.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

While this is a horrific story in so many ways, what Wal-mart did is really no different than what a lot of other large companies do. If you read the insurance instructional and description it tells you exactly what happens in this event. They went by the book. What also bothers me is the piling on Wal-Mart. I'm not a wealthy guy by any stretch and I shop there 2-3 times per week. At the end of the day Wal-Mart as a company is the 6th leading charitable giver in the company. If you add the Walton family then they jump to 2nd right behind the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So, let's keep this whole thing in perspective.

IF Wal-Mart's employees were in a Labor Union, you would NEVER hear anything bad about Wal-Mart.

__________________
Drill offshore now

Or anything about Wal-Mart. They would go out of business because prices would have to be raised and entire stores in certain locals would be closed down over night.

Labor Unions do little if any good for Commerce or Industry in America.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

Exactly, Wal-Mart gets singled out for another reason that it happens to be Wal-Mart. I find it idiotic that you can focus so much on wal-mart when hundreds of companies in this nation do the very same business and labor practices, if not even worse.

Stupid Socialists and how they ignore things.

__________________
"It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish the Government"
Declaration of Independence
"Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself."
Thomas Jefferson
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman